Where to Start to Implement ISO 9001

[Marc]

Re: Where to Start to Implement ISO9001

"Walls" are 'broken' by the interaction of processes. A department may 'own' a process, but most processes do not exist in the vacuum of the department. Many, if not most, of the processes in a department in some way interact with other departments. These are the 'holes' in the walls. Purchasing may own a certain process, but that process will typically involve inputs and outputs to and from other departments.

I really think a lot of people over think this whole thing.

I understand Jim's position that "...but companies aren't set up that way, and the people in charge of the QMS have no power to change it. Manufacturing companies have departments, and there are walls between them. The intent of the process approach is to drill passages through those walls, if not break them down altogether....".

I don't agree. Again take purchasing. Their processes interact with manufacturing. Manufacturing needs parts. They have to go through purchasing and there has to be a system (aka "process") to do that. The design department may need prototype parts. Typically they have to purchase parts, so.... They have to go through purchasing, and there is a process they have to follow. Now, if these 'holes' (the interaction of processes, inputs and outputs) do not exist in the departmental "walls", how does the company function to begin with? Purchasing can not be a 'box' or entity unto its self with no inputs and outputs to other departments. The 'holes' are there or nothing will be purchased.

As to "...the people in charge of the QMS have no power to change it...", as part of a larger team (the company as a whole) change should come through the interactions of the different departments. Part of this process will be meetings where changes are suggested and discussed. Admittedly some companies do have a tough time getting certain changes through. On the other hand, depending upon what the change is, the people in the QMS may not even be relevant.

I will say what I have long said: The "Process Approach" is nothing new, and it is not as complicated as people want to make it seem. It has always been there. Everything a company does is made up of processes and sub-processes. Go back to the 1920's. It was no different then. A company had processes and they had to interact or nothing would happen. The company wouldn't be able to function if their processes were isolated any more than if (my biology background comes out) a person's heart was isolated and did not interact with many bodily processes (such as reacting to chemical messengers carried in the blood stream).

 

[Jim Wynne]

Re: Where to Start to Implement ISO9001

"Walls" are 'broken' by the interaction of processes. A department may 'own' a process, but most processes do not exist in the vacuum of the department. Many, if not most, of the processes in a department in some way interact with other departments. These are the 'holes' in the walls. Purchasing may own a certain process, but that process will typically involve inputs and outputs to and from other departments.

I really think a lot of people over think this whole thing.

I understand Jim's position that "...but companies aren't set up that way, and the people in charge of the QMS have no power to change it. Manufacturing companies have departments, and there are walls between them. The intent of the process approach is to drill passages through those walls, if not break them down altogether....".

I don't agree. Again take purchasing. Their processes interact with manufacturing. Manufacturing needs parts. They have to go through purchasing and there has to be a system (aka "process") to do that. The design department may need prototype parts. Typically they have to purchase parts, so.... They have to go through purchasing, and there is a process they have to follow. Now, if these 'holes' (the interaction of processes, inputs and outputs) do not exist in the departmental "walls", how does the company function to begin with? Purchasing can not be a 'box' or entity unto its self with no inputs and outputs to other departments. The 'holes' are there or nothing will be purchased.

As to "...the people in charge of the QMS have no power to change it...", as part of a larger team (the company as a whole) change should come through the interactions of the different departments. Part of this process will be meetings where changes are suggested and discussed. Admittedly some companies do have a tough time getting certain changes through. On the other hand, depending upon what the change is, the people in the QMS may not even be relevant.

I will say what I have long said: The "Process Approach" is nothing new, and it is not as complicated as people want to make it seem. It has always been there. Everything a company does is made up of processes and sub-processes. Go back to the 1920's. It was no different then. A company had processes and they had to interact or nothing would happen. The company wouldn't be able to function if their processes were isolated any more than if (my biology background comes out) a person's heart was isolated and did not interact with many bodily processes (such as reacting to chemical messengers carried in the blood stream).

The problem isn't that the "holes" or passageways don't exist (it's trivially true that interactions are always happening); the problem is that the intersections aren't holistically controlled. Anyone who doubts this has never been standing at the intersection when a collision occurs. Production needs material and has to go through Purchasing to get it, but if the production manager says "I need it Tuesday" and the purchasing manager says "You'll get it Thursday," and the two of them are operating under conflicting mandates and priorities, talking about the preexistence of processes doesn't help anything.

The process approach isn't about defining processes, it's about understanding the interactions and controlling them. This can only be done from a position above the processes, or when responsibility and authority have been truly delegated to someone who can end the conflicts and turf wars and create a smooth continuum.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Where to Start to Implement ISO9001

I will say what I have long said: The "Process Approach" is nothing new, and it is not as complicated as people want to make it seem. It has always been there. Everything a company does is made up of processes and sub-processes. Go back to the 1920's. It was no different then. A company had processes and they had to interact or nothing would happen. The company wouldn't be able to function if their processes were isolated any more than if (my biology background comes out) a person's heart was isolated and did not interact with many bodily processes (such as reacting to chemical messengers carried in the blood stream).

That processes exist and have always existed, nobody denies it, but, the departmental approach is much more ingrained than the process approach in the business world. There is a reason why organizational charts are a long known piece, while process maps and value stream maps are a "novelty" and challenge for many organizations.

In my experience, most department heads manage their spheres of influence, attempting to maximize their departmental gains, many times to the detriment of the organization. Departmental authority, for the most part, will trample process owners any day of the week.

The process approach can not negate our legacy of organizational departments, but it must work with it, not around nor against it, in order to succeed. My signature alludes to organizational dysfunction, which typically exists because organizations allow departments to, consciously or not, sub-optimize processes.

Case in point: according to ISO 9001, design reviews must be conducted. In order to truly effective, design reviews should be a multi-disciplinary exercise with all relevant "abilities" (manufacturability, purchaseability, inspectability, serviceability, maintainability, etc...) being checked for. I've seen several times engineering directors deliberately short cutting the design review process, preventing meaningful feedback and critiquing of the design package by manufacturing and quality representatives. Why would they do that, one might ask. So, the design package gets released on-time, even though it is full of bugs. Why would the engineering director "sabotage" the integrity of the design package, in order to release it on-time? Simply because that is how he and his department is being measured. Just a real-life example of organizational dysfunction. Fiction? Not hardly.

 

[Marc]

Re: Where to Start to Implement ISO9001

The problem isn't that the "holes" or passageways don't exist (it's trivially true that interactions are always happening); the problem is that the intersections aren't holistically controlled. Anyone who doubts this has never been standing at the intersection when a collision occurs. Production needs material and has to go through Purchasing to get it, but if the production manager says "I need it Tuesday" and the purchasing manager says "You'll get it Thursday," and the two of them are operating under conflicting mandates and priorities, talking about the preexistence of processes doesn't help anything.

Situations change. I agree with what you are saying, but we all know 'collisions' often occur that can not even be predicted (customer calls and says they need an order delivered tomorrow instead of next week as was planned, or purchasing calls a supplier and the supplier is out of stock, or someone by-passes a process step {for what ever reason}). The best we can do, and what most companies try to do, is identify system (process) problems (such as what you call 'collision points') and change the system if necessary. And if anyone thinks they can eliminate all conflicting mandates and priorities, they're dreaming. There will always be situations which arise where priorities will have to be agreed upon (and this is rarely a smooth process), and conflicting mandates will always come up as well. I am involved with a company which recently had the unfortunate dilemma of getting an unexpected order from a 'priority' customer but did not have enough product on have to fill that order unless they wanted to tell some other customers they could not, despite their already confirmed orders, deliver the quantity they wanted. So - What to do? Take care of the BIG customer who is very important to their business and **** off some smaller customers, or do they tell the 'important' big customer they can't get them the quantity they want.

One must also keep in mind companies are not static. The purchasing processes of today many not work when changes occur elsewhere (such as in other systems) a week, or a month, or a year from now. A company, like an organization, changes due to both internal and external events and pressures. And as we all know, a change in one place will typically affect at least one other system (process) which can effect a change in the system it is interacting with.

I look a company like a living organism. It has interacting systems (processes), and sometimes a system fails and/or changes in one way or another. There will forever be changes made from time to time and while the company tries to minimize the effects of changes, 'collision points' will always arise from time to time.

The process approach isn't about defining processes, it's about understanding the interactions and controlling them.

I have been harping on the *interactions* of processes throughout my posts on this (not to mention in many of my posts over the years related to the topic). The words "Process Approach" to me are just a sales gimmick like using the words "Six Sigma" (as in tool box).

This can only be done from a position above the processes, or when responsibility and authority have been truly delegated to someone who can end the conflicts and turf wars and create a smooth continuum.

Just like parents who can (or try to) end the conflicts and turf wars and create a smooth continuum amongst siblings and the family as a whole.

 

[Marc]

Re: Where to Start to Implement ISO9001

<snip> Case in point: according to ISO 9001, design reviews must be conducted. In order to truly effective, design reviews should be a multi-disciplinary exercise with all relevant "abilities" (manufacturability, purchaseability, inspectability, serviceability, maintainability, etc...) being checked for. I've seen several times engineering directors deliberately short cutting the design review process, preventing meaningful feedback and critiquing of the design package by manufacturing and quality representatives. Why would they do that, one might ask. So, the design package gets released on-time, even though it is full of bugs. Why would the engineering director "sabotage" the integrity of the design package, in order to release it on-time? Simply because that is how he and his department is being measured. Just a real-life example of organizational dysfunction. Fiction? Not hardly.

Not fiction at all. It happens and there are hundreds if not thousands of situations that could force a system to be bypassed in part or in whole.

I ask you this - Have you ever seen a company where there was *never*, over the life of the company, a design system that was not short circuited for one reason or another? In your case above it sounds like the engineering director is not appropriate for the job and should be moved to a different position or fired. Or - Someone above him directed him to do it. And if the situation is that measureables are to blame ("...because that is how he and his department is being measured...") then it is upper management who have chosen to run the company that way, right or wrong.

There is the ideal. And there is the reality.

I'm sorry, but I see no difference in the "departmental approach" and the "process approach". It's just playing with words. There are departments. Departments have processes. Some of their processes will interact with other departments and one or more of their processes.

Jim said the process approach is all about understanding how processes interact. Ummm, no kidding. I'm sorry, but that's a "duh'. The only question is who, and at what level, understands which processes and how they interact with other processes. It is rare in a company that one person fully understands every process in a company (very small companies excepted) and how each and every one works and interacts with each and every other process. I will say that is one thing I did *love* about doing implementations. My reward was when people did start looking closely at their processes and their interactions and understanding them better, especially when they saw ways to improve their processes. But - That should be an on-going process. It shouldn't happen just because the company has to go through and ISO 9001 registration process. In many cases implementations brought departments together as they better understood how each impacted the other. That was the 'breaking down of walls' that Jim spoke of. Unfortunately, after implementation it's back to work. Whether or not walls go back up is a function the the individual company's 'personality'.

Well, those are just some of my thoughts and beliefs, right or wrong.

 

[Peter Fraser]

Re: Where to Start to Implement ISO9001

Everything a company does is made up of processes and sub-processes.

Agreed

The process approach isn't about defining processes, it's about understanding the interactions and controlling them.

There are still some organisations that can't even recognise all their processes, never mind define them or manage them. But that is what is required ("Plan: establish the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with customer requirements and the organization's policies"). Note, no mention of departments...

there are no companies I have ever seen whose management systems were designed using the process approach. Companies divide responsibilities among departments, each with their own set of requirements and their own places in the management hierarchy.

I would suggest that most, if not all, companies plan "how to deliver product to customers" (ie they use the process approach). They manage people (and expertise, and methods, and often budgets) within departments, but that is because that is often the most efficient and convenient way to do it.

Managing processes is managing how the work gets done, managing departments is about managing the people who do the work. Understanding the processes helps to focus on the customer / supplier, which is often almost ignored when work is viewed purely from a departmental point of view.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Re: Where to Start to Implement ISO9001

I'm sorry, but I see no difference in the "departmental approach" and the "process approach". It's just playing with words. There are departments. Departments have processes. Some of their processes will interact with other departments and one or more of their processes.

Marc, the "process approach" designation was created (or emphasized) as part of the ISO 9001 third edition revision. I think it is important to remember up until the late 90's, there werea lot of organizations attempting to comply with ISO 9001 by creating disjointed procedures, each one addressing the 20 clauses of ISO 9001:1994. Many organizations ended up with a patchwork of procedures that were never aligned with the organization's business processes. So, the "process approach" term, together with the other 7 ISO 9000 principles were developed in order to better explain the PDCA concept embedded in ISO 9001:2000.

But many of us were implementing and auditing ISO 9001:1987/1994 based QMS's with a process approach in mind, even though we probably did not use the term at the time.

 

[pthareja]

Re: Where to Start to Implement ISO9001

I'm sorry, but I see no difference in the "departmental approach" and the "process approach". It's just playing with words. There are departments. Departments have processes. Some of their processes will interact with other departments and one or more of their processes.

Departments may be involved in repetitive functions, done by similar people. follow similar or same SOP's (since activities and processes in them may be same). Process approach identifies with activities of Quality management but not the results beyond Quality management function?

 

[John Broomfield]

All,

In many organizations departments are havens for career development, wasteful politicking and rivalry with other departments. Groups of like minded people trying to keep the head of their silo happy. Such departments and wasteful departmental thinking is the enemy of process and customer service.

Processes are about the resources of several departments interacting to add value for customers (directly or indirectly).

Consequently, if we accept that procedures are process specifications, we could say that departmental procedures are an oxymoron. Departmental instructions may be legitimate for controlling activities in the processes that cut across departments.

Process owners are becoming more important to organizations than department managers.

Increasingly departments or functions understand their role is to serve the processes that run through their domains. Thankfully the siloed havens of self-interest are dissolving before our eyes.

Such is the value of business process management.

But, with the demise of departments, do our process-based management systems need a process for developing careers?

John

 

[JaneB]

In many organizations departments are havens for career development, wasteful politicking and rivalry with other departments. Groups of like minded people trying to keep the head of their silo happy.

IN some, maybe. But not all. And I doubt the department is heading for demise any time soon.