Written process that is ineffective as evidenced by multiple interpretations

[Pazuzu - 2009]

The counter argument is that since there are no non conformities, it must be effective.

I question that counter argument. A lack of nonconformity does not necessarily guarantee an effective process...it merely indicates it. A process can have a nonconformity and still be effective.

If there's no way to rewrite the document to remove ambiguity, you can provide what ISO calls a "sanctioned" interpretation. In other words, if there are multiple interpretations, and only one of them is "correct," you can list the "incorrect" interpretations and explicitly describe them as incorrect (along with the accepted interpretation, of course.

That is a good idea. Just curious though...where does ISO mention the ability to have "sanctioned" interpretations?

 

[Jim Wynne]

That is a good idea. Just curious though...where does ISO mention the ability to have "sanctioned" interpretations?

ISO 9001:2000 Sanctioned Interpretations

 

[Jen Kirley]

If there's no way to rewrite the document to remove ambiguity, you can provide what ISO calls a "sanctioned" interpretation. In other words, if there are multiple interpretations, and only one of them is "correct," you can list the "incorrect" interpretations and explicitly describe them as incorrect (along with the accepted interpretation, of course.

There will always be nitpickers who will attempt to apply their own interpretations regardless of having been told that they are wrong, and regardless of how explicit and clear the documentation is. Those people should be dealt with individually, and documentation shouldn't be changed to account for spurious or self-serving interpretations.

Added in edit: You can also do training.

Great input. The process document actually shouldn't need interpretations.

 

[Jen Kirley]

I think the question was more to do with what is the effect of multiple interpretations. If you can see it leads to increased process output variation lets say, then hang your issue on that, i.e. increased process variation.

That is ideal--if you can list examples of how "process creep" has resulted from interpretations or simply not following the process, then that evidence is all you should need to show action is required.

 

[Pazuzu - 2009]

ISO 9001:2000 Sanctioned Interpretations

Excellent....thank you!

 

[SteelMaiden]

The counter argument is that since there are no non conformities, it must be effective.

This comment caught my attention immediately. Do not confuse conformity with effectiveness. I can walk to the water cooler 1/4 of a mile from my desk and I conform to the requirement of getting a glass of water, but it is not effective at all when there are 4 coolers closer than that, one only 40 steps away.

I am not sure if you are auditing, or if you are implementing (I'll go with auditing) but, if there are multiple interpretations of a document, there is a nonconformance. It is either in training, the process, or the documentation itself. (or any combination)

 

[Pazuzu - 2009]

This comment caught my attention immediately. Do not confuse conformity with effectiveness. I can walk to the water cooler 1/4 of a mile from my desk and I conform to the requirement of getting a glass of water, but it is not effective at all when there are 4 coolers closer than that, one only 40 steps away.

This is precisely where the espousement of effectiveness AND efficiency are critical.

Besides, by the time you walk back your 1/4 mile you need another glass of water!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

My question is, "What clause would be referenced?".

If you are just trying to "find a home" for this NC, there are a number of possibilities:

4.1 General requirements

The organization shall establish, document, implement and maintain a quality management system and continually improve its effectiveness in accordance with the requirements of this International Standard.
The organization shall:

c) determine criteria and methods needed to ensure that both the operation and control of these processes are effective,

f) implement actions necessary to achieve planned results and continual improvement of these processes.​

You can also write against:​

4.2.1 General

The quality management system documentation shall include​

d) documents needed by the organization to ensure the effective planning, operation and control of its processes, and

​

But that is secondary to all the good advice you already received.

​

 

[METerry]

First of all, thanks to all of you for your time and input.
I think M Greenaway most closely described the situation (which is amazing in itself, given the sparse information that was presented). The process is entitled "Warehousing" but actually describes a process of order preparation for shipment. Within the QMS, processes are divided that describe the physical movements of materials and there are lacking, as an example, description of where specific materials are to be stored. Further reading and re-reading lead me to believe that the process is inappropriately titled and the manner in which it is written and the language used further adds to the misunderstandings and misinterpretations. An excerpt: "The warehouse process deals specifically with picking, preparing, checking, and staging customer orders and the preservation of product within the warehouse.

Internal Movement of Materials and Product
Transfer and internal movement of packaging materials, raw materials, other required materials, intermediate product, and finished product from one location to another within the facility is performed by qualified forklift / powered industrial truck operators. Qualified forklift / powered industrial truck operators are defined as personnel who have successfully completed forklift / powered industrial truck training and have a current license; however, these functions are not part of the Warehouse or Receiving process.

WI-XX, Order Preparation - Warehouse Personnel, describes the process for picking, preparing and staging customer orders.

PRO-XX, Preservation of Product, describes the process to preserve the conformity of product during internal processing and delivery to the intended destination.

Order preparation is accomplished by warehouse personnel who are defined as individuals having received training on warehouse procedures and order preparation. DOC-XX, Job Description: Warehouse, describes job position, duties and competence / qualification requirements for the job."

Should I suggest that this is an opportunity for improvement (to re-write the process description including the title) or is it a non-conformity and if so, what clause is violated?

 

[Wes Bucey]

This comment caught my attention immediately. Do not confuse conformity with effectiveness. I can walk to the water cooler 1/4 of a mile from my desk and I conform to the requirement of getting a glass of water, but it is not effective at all when there are 4 coolers closer than that, one only 40 steps away.

I am not sure if you are auditing, or if you are implementing (I'll go with auditing) but, if there are multiple interpretations of a document, there is a nonconformance. It is either in training, the process, or the documentation itself. (or any combination)

I agree with Steel Maiden. I think most of the contributors to this thread are saying, in effect, ultimately you need to know the root cause of the multiple interpretations. Misinterpretation is definitely one of the symptoms (which may also include non-conforming products or service) of any or all of the following:

1. faulty document writing,
2. faulty process creation,
3. faulty training,
4. faulty hiring [are employees incompetent to interpret a document or process?]
5. some other, undiscovered error.

I can walk to the water cooler 1/4 of a mile from my desk and I conform to the requirement of getting a glass of water, but it is not effective at all when there are 4 coolers closer than that, one only 40 steps away.

Effective for what? One guy in my office would have walked to a cooler a mile away if it kept him away from his boring desk job that much longer. Maybe the extra time away made him more effective when he got back to his desk.

I, on the other hand, always took the long way through our manufacturing facility or office to get from one spot to another, because it gave me the opportunity to get in "face time" and do some "management by walking around" en route.