Written process that is ineffective as evidenced by multiple interpretations

[CliffK]

ME,

Is this situation a symptom of a more fundamental problem?

Just curious.

 

[METerry]

CliffK,
Unfortunately, probably so.
The issues related to this post resulted from an internal audit in which the 'process owner' argued against the nc using the explanation /logic that the auditor "didn't understand the process". Now, if the trained and papered internal auditor couldn't understand the process and evidence was offered and documented during the audit from interviews and observations made during the audit that floor workers didn't understand the process, then it's very likely that the process is ineffective.
We're probably facing re-writing most all of our documents to simply the system and get away from the "ISO Speak Techno Jargon" which is more similar to Code of Federal Regulation sort of construction. Keep in mind that the entire company is 20 people.
Should we torch it and start over?

Thanks for your post and consideration (and curiosity). In fact, thanks to all the group who've been most helpful!

 

[BradM]

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).

This is why one should leave the Quality discussions up to the Cove. Please do not try this at home.

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?

OK, back on topic.

I have been around construction my whole life. I always thought it was silly to pay someone to tape/bed sheetrock in a house. Until my dad decided to tape/bed his new house, and I helped him. Anyone who thinks auditing is easy has never done it.

Wes's approach is a good one, IMO.

I guess I might have this thought process..

OK, so the process mapping is not that good. Can I identify risk in this? Do people really follow the process mapping, or is it an organization tool? In the end, how much does this weaken the system?

Without going on a Witch Hunt, I would observe if there are some real quality problems occuring due to these misinterpretations. The evidence should reflect somewhat clearly (IMO) to you how important this confusion really plays in the system.

 

[BradM]

CliffK,
Unfortunately, probably so.
The issues related to this post resulted from an internal audit in which the 'process owner' argued against the nc using the explanation /logic that the auditor "didn't understand the process". Now, if the trained and papered internal auditor couldn't understand the process and evidence was offered and documented during the audit from interviews and observations made during the audit that floor workers didn't understand the process, then it's very likely that the process is ineffective.
We're probably facing re-writing most all of our documents to simply the system and get away from the "ISO Speak Techno Jargon" which is more similar to Code of Federal Regulation sort of construction. Keep in mind that the entire company is 20 people.
Should we torch it and start over?

My previous post was going in at the same time as your last one.

Ok, given your follow-up, here's my Rev 1 thought process. Do the floor workers not understand the process map, or not understand the process? To me, there is a difference.

Set aside the process map for a second. I guess I am trying to determine how this place runs. Do they make good product? Are they following their written guidelines/procedures? Is the organization striving towards improving their quality system?

The extent of the revision is up to you. If they have a good system in place, the process map may do good to mimic what is already working, as opposed to some theoretical model out of a book. Or, a new process will improve this situation. Regardless, management should be on board for this venture.

Quality systems are about making good product and increasing profit. How you think this process map situation would work towards that end is the best solution.

 

[METerry]

You ask good questions.

The folks who are charged with execution, on the floor, are bright and intelligent people who understand the process. If you ask 3 of them for an interpretation of the written documentation, you will get feedback that suggests confusion and some sheepish looks.

Quality, as evidenced by any measurement, is very, very good and here's where it begins to get frustrating. It's arguable that the written guidelines and procedures are followed provided one takes into consideration that there can be a wide variety of 'understandings'. If you know what's supposed to happen, you go forth and execute and conviently ignore the instructions. Part of the problem could be that we've written what we thought the auditor wanted rather than writing what we actually do in any activity / procedure.
Thanks for the input.

 

[M Greenaway]

Having been credited with understanding the initial question further posts from METerry make me think that this is a different issue than multiple interpretation, it is more to do with poor process definition.

For a start I would say that warehousing is not a process, that might be where the problem lies. The warehouse as a department gets involved in numerous processes, the obvious ones which spring to mind would be receiving goods into stores, and possibly despatch of goods. METerry actually details these processes in his post as being within the warehousing process - I would maitain that warehousing is not a process, it is a name you have given to a collection or grouping of processes.

A good test of the effectiveness of your documented QMS would be to ask the people doing the work where their documented instruction is - if they struggle to find it you could argue that the procedures are not 'readily retrievable'. But it is always stronger an audit finding to discover someone not actually doing something that they should which directly affects the product.

 

[METerry]

Here is a test for you (and our system):
You are correct in that the piece at which we are looking is entitled "Warehousing". In actuality, the process involves picking, and pulling finished goods for labeling, stretch wrapping and staging prior to shipment. It involves neither operations before or after. Does this surprise you? It's been argued that this is problematic as the process is not what most people would have normally assumed (based on its title) and that we could have well named the process anything ("spaghetti" was suggested).
I don't know that the original audit asked where the instruction could be found (or what it was named). Maybe another test?
It's clear we need some refinement of our thinking and as painful and tedious as it may be, this is, in effect, what will be required in order to create the order and organization we need to make the system viable and valuable.

 

[Jen Kirley]

It's arguable that the written guidelines and procedures are followed provided one takes into consideration that there can be a wide variety of 'understandings'. If you know what's supposed to happen, you go forth and execute and conviently ignore the instructions.

Does the ignoring of instructions result in the work being done improperly? And if so, does the improper work need to be redone? Does the liberal interpretation of procedures cause harm to customer, product, or an internal customer?

 

[METerry]

Jennifer,
Actually, I can find no evidence that any work related to the process is or has been done improperly or that any harm has been done. It may help to know that the company was executing the process before the process was documented so those doing the work already knew what was expected. It's likely that a new employee would be formally trained according to the documentation and then undergo on-the-job training during which they come to understand what they may not have understood in the formal training based on the documentation. The example that I have chosen is a very simple process, in actuality, that is easily understood and lends itself to ojt. I get the impression that the formal training based on the documentation is "suffered" (no new employee is apt to admit to not understanding fearing that they may be judged incapable) and there is no testing conducted to determine the effectiveness of the document based training.
Further investigation just this morning brings up another point: There are process descriptions for the process and work instructions for the process and the difference seems blurred at best. I will compare the two to determine similarities. WOuld one document suffice?
It will take some time to get all the worms back into the can.
Thanks for your input and consideration.

 

[SteelMaiden]

So what you are saying is the documentation says do these things (a, b, c, d) in this order (1, 2, 3, 4) when in fact, a, d, b, c or b, d, c, a (or any other combination) can be done in any order and the results will be the same?

So, it sounds like over documenting to me.