Turtle Diagram "template"

[John Broomfield]

Hey all,

I am doing a turtle diagram as a new QC supervisor. Take a look, and feel free to tear me to shreds(though, I'll probably refuse to change the format). It's in progress so I will update as I go.
View attachment 29499

Your diagram should reflect what actually happens. As such your company seems not to be satisfying any customer needs (unless these needs happen to be represented by the contract).

I see no design of your manufacturing service nor any evidence of customers paying for the delivery of this service. Your organization may of course be part of a larger organization that runs the marketing, selling and billing processes.

This highlights the importance of providing your reviewers with a scope statement that describes the extent of your system.

Personally, I would not bother with a turtle but would use a deployment flowchart instead to depict the core process comprising the interacting processes from customer needs to cash in the bank.

 

[Wearerofmanyhats]

I see no design of your manufacturing service nor any evidence of customers paying for the delivery of this service. Your organization may of course be part of a larger organization that runs the marketing, selling and billing processes.

@John Broomfield, Thanks for the insight. You really opened my eyes with this statement.

 

[John Broomfield]

Daniel,

Thank you.

Over 40 years I’ve found that showing how the quality management system improves profitability engages top management in its promotion, use and improvement.

I wish you every success.

John

 

[Wearerofmanyhats]

quality management system

do you think it'll ever be accepted widescale to drop the "Q" from QMS? ( your statement right there is the most in tune i've seen on this site yet)

 

[Wearerofmanyhats]

how's this chat? ( i will change to B&W)

 

[John Broomfield]

do you think it'll ever be accepted widescale to drop the "Q" from QMS? ( your statement right there is the most in tune i've seen on this site yet)

It doesn’t really matter. The management system should be named for the organization to reflect the fact that it represents the way the company does business and to deepen the sense of ownership.

I’ve never accepted the ISO System nomenclature. Neither have my clients after a couple of hours with me. QMS is almost as counterproductive when showing that we all have a role to play in delivering quality services and products.

Don’t worry about the counterproductive habits of others.

 

[Wearerofmanyhats]

Don’t worry about the counterproductive habits of others.

Well, the success of a quality management system lies not just in its name but in how it is implemented and embraced by the organization as a whole and forget the rest is what I got out of that. Thanks John.

Do you have any other common pitfalls you'd be willing to share in this area?

 

[John Broomfield]

Do you have any other common pitfalls you'd be willing to share in this area?

Avoid writing procedures around the clauses in the standards and then imposing them on your colleagues.

Instead, work through the process owner (as assigned by top management) to analyze the way the existing process actually works. Show respect for the existing processes and controls before inviting suggestions from the process team (usually cross-functional) on how to improve their process.

You’ll end up with a conforming system that largely reflects the way things are actually done. And you’ll avoid the resentment from trying to impose “good ideas” from ISO, some consultants and newcomers.

 

[Wearerofmanyhats]

Instead, work through the process owner (as assigned by top management) to analyze the way the existing process actually works. Show respect for the existing processes and controls before inviting suggestions from the process team (usually cross-functional) on how to improve their process.

This response makes me feel like being asked to treat my company's departments as processes is starting to become frustrating. Is that normal?

 

[John Broomfield]

This response makes me feel like being asked to treat my company's departments as processes is starting to become frustrating. Is that normal?

Beware of developing a departmental management system. The fact is that a system’s processes tend to be cross-functional involving two or more departments.

If, initially, you work with top management to determine what the organization does to convert the needs of customers into cash in the bank you should end up with a list of processes and their owners. Avoid naming too many department heads as process owners; instead name the person who has the knowledge of how the process works from end to end.

Agreeing the process objective (or purpose) helps enormously too.