TS 16949 Clause 4.2.2 c - Interaction of Processes - What does this mean?

[M Greenaway]

Jim

Also we might consider what would happen if the usual egg cooker (mum ?) was taken ill and someone else had to cook the eggs. Does our model of Oven-Maintenance-Eggs which we assume to somehow relate to training and purchasing by virtue of arrows, tell us how to make the eggs, or even give us a slight indication of how to do it ?

 

[energy]

Eggs are tricky

M Greenaway said:

Jim

Also we might consider what would happen if the usual egg cooker (mum ?) was taken ill and someone else had to cook the eggs. Does our model of Oven-Maintenance-Eggs which we assume to somehow relate to training and purchasing by virtue of arrows, tell us how to make the eggs, or even give us a slight indication of how to do it ?

We may resort to the alternative plan developed for discovering that the eggs were rotten. Refer to "Toast Making" process. The process shown for making the scrambled eggs comes from a standard receipe designed to allow people, not all gifted as some, to make scrambled eggs. It's so simple ANYONE can follow it!

 

[M Greenaway]

Jim

Do you think the choice of ridiculous analogies, such as mom and pop cake shops, or egg and toast making serve only to make the application of a theory sound as ridiculous as the analogy itself ?

Also they always allow the person raising the ridiculous scenario to fall back on the stupidity of the case in question in an attempt to ridicule the theory, whereas all they are actually ridiculing is the application of the theory to the stupid analogy.

Why not apply the theory to real life industrial situations, then we can perhaps have an intelligent discussion.

 

[Mike S.]

M Greenaway said:

Jim

Do you think the choice of ridiculous analogies, such as mom and pop cake shops, or egg and toast making serve only to make the application of a theory sound as ridiculous as the analogy itself ?

Also they always allow the person raising the ridiculous scenario to fall back on the stupidity of the case in question in an attempt to ridicule the theory, whereas all they are actually ridiculing is the application of the theory to the stupid analogy.

Why not apply the theory to real life industrial situations, then we can perhaps have an intelligent discussion.

Martin,

I think analogies have a place, but, with your very extensive experience, combined with the fact that it is your idea, I'd think you could find and post some "real life industrial situations" for consideration. Perhaps it is best if it is a process that not everyone understands from experience, that way we can decide if the process description is adequate. Go for it! I'll play, as I'm sure others will.

But remember, despite their possible great usefulness for many companies, the industrialized world has survived for centuries and created wondorous things without fancy and detailed documented process flow diagrams. I think we need to remind ourselves, since resources are limited (especially in these lean times) in most companies, that when shortcuts have to be made we must put most effort on what we believe gives us the biggest bang for our buck. Many companies will decdide that the process descriptions aren't the MOST important part of a QMS, and so will focus less than optimal effort here. Maybe it isn't the ideal, but so few of us live and work in the ideal world. Some may argue that it doesn't take that long to do it right, but our disagreements and the questions that have arisen on this subject with intelligent folks involved tells me that lots of time could be spent doing, and re-doing, and re-doing these things many times if one were not careful. JMO.

 

[energy]

Poo Pooed

Lyndon Diong said:

Dear Jim, Wade and Energy,
I like a request. Maybe u can 'describe the interaction between the processes' of cooking scramble eggs for the whole family, starting from buying an egg. It should be interesting to see the different style of description. Thank you.

Well, Lyndon, there you have it. Lots of posts regarding the eggs. We tried, but when our backs are against the wall, we trash the exercise as not up to our elistist standards. Don't you feel used? Me? It fortified what I already knew. Long on talk, short on action.

 

[db]

Required vs required

In considering process interaction, we need to consider the “interaction” part. How do processes interact? Typically by product, or information, but also by resources sharing etc. (just follow the standard clause by clause). Given that, diagrams are not needed. Jim, just as you can audit without auditing, I can show process interaction by the whole of the QMS. The completeness of my Level 1, 2 , 3 and 4 documents (although there is no requirement for breaking the documentation into “levels”) can show the required interaction. My APQP process goes a long way in describing the processes, as they relate to product development, as an example. All of the documents and records for a particular product give a complete picture of the process interaction. As long as my quality manual is a compilation of all QMS documents, then that should suffice.

But will that allow me to understand the processes? The standard doesn’t require us to understand the processes. But what the standard does not require; is required by necessity. (a common theme for me). But the “shall” is clear and it is up to me to set the rules for the description, not some outside auditor!

 

[Mike S.]

Jim Wade said:

I agree, Martin.
rgds Jim

Since you agree, Jim, you too are invited to provide the "real life industrial situations" you and Martin seem to lament not seeing here. Show us some real-life examples and explain what you think are the good/bad points. You guys have been critical of what others have put up as examples, so show us YOUR ideas of what you think is the cat's meow in this area! Someone (who shall remain nameless) recently criticized someone else here in the Cove for always criticizing but not contributing what they think is correct. Since examples seem to be much clearer than text here, let's see 'em!

 

[M Greenaway]

Mike

I posted a couple of examples, although generic in nature, in the discussion we had on this subject in the ISO9001 thread.

 

[Mike S.]

the long and short of it

Okay, I get the message. I guess Energy (and those who have sent me private messages) are correct. Why do I keep expecting anything different? Dense, I guess.

By the way, I just want everyone to know that I'm not just a QM, I'm also a brain surgeon and rocket scientist!

 

[energy]

Don't bet on it!

Mike S. said:

Since you agree, Jim, you too are invited to provide the "real life industrial situations" you and Martin seem to lament not seeing here. Show us some real-life examples and explain what you think are the good/bad points. You guys have been critical of what others have put up as examples, so show us YOUR ideas of what you think is the cat's meow in this area! Someone (who shall remain nameless) recently criticized someone else here in the Cove for always criticizing but not contributing what they think is correct. Since examples seem to be much clearer than text here, let's see 'em!

Mike S.,

What you are seeing here is the age old tradition of "Shunning".
Here's what it means to the Amish and Jehovas that have experienced it:

Shunners are playing a mind game and they need a playmate who will follow the rules. Shunning is their drug. Abusers need help to carry out their abuse. They need victims. Without their victims they can not continue to enjoy their drug. Rules for shunning must be followed by both shunner and VICTIM or shunning doesn't work! Shunning is a show. To best work it needs an arena to be played in, and an audience.

Does that make sense? Wow. Textbook example especially for the audience. It's a weakness.

db,

First, I like your entire post. Is the fact that procedures are a part of the Quality Manual that you can meet the description of process interaction requirement for the Q Manual? Ours are not and they reference any related procedures and references in the procedures themselves. The QM contains the Procedure identification number for specific paragraphs but I'm not sure about the "description of interaction". Anxiously awaiting your reply. Thank you in advance!