The Elsmar Cove Business Standards Discussion Forums More Free Files Forum Discussion Thread Post Attachments Listing Elsmar Cove Discussion Forums Main Page
Welcome to what was The Original Cayman Cove Forums!
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums

Search the Elsmar Cove!

Wooden Line
This is a "Frozen" Legacy Forum.
Most links on this page do NOT work.
Discussions since 2001 are HERE

Owl Line
The New Elsmar Cove Forums   The New Elsmar Cove Forums
  ISO 9001/4:2000

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   4.2.2c
Forum Contributor

Posts: 18
From:Athens, GA, USA
Registered: Dec 2000

posted 02 March 2001 03:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for donnammurphy   Click Here to Email donnammurphy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am updating my Quality Manual to the new standard and do not understand section 4.2.2c - a description of the interaction between the processes of the QMS. Can anyone give this to me in simpler terms? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

IP: Logged

Lurker (<10 Posts)

Posts: 9
From:Aptos, CA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 02 March 2001 09:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for juliedrys   Click Here to Email juliedrys     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What I'm doing is this:

Identifying the company's "key business processes," usually 10-12 major processes such as Order Management, Design & Development, Materials Management, etc. These high-level flows become the Level 2 (System Maps) for the Business System, and they are also used to identify the Level 3 (procedures/work instructions) needed.

I then create a system-level view of how these key processes tie together; I can't show you this in text, but think of the process model picture that's in the standard (figure 1), but using the company's key processes instead.

This is particularly useful if the company has an intranet-based system; you can make each of the "boxes" or areas in this chart have a hyperlink to the associated System Map, which in turn links to the Procedures/Work Instructions.

I would love to hear how others are addressing this.

Personally I love the new process approach to the Standard. I'm so sick of the 20 elements.
This is more creative and can be implemented in a way that is much more meaningful to individual companies. I think it's going to be harder for auditors, but that's another whole topic.


IP: Logged

Greg Mack
Forum Contributor

Posts: 37
From:Sydney, NSW, Australia
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03 March 2001 12:15 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Greg Mack   Click Here to Email Greg Mack     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
What I have done is create a simple one-page flow chart that shows the relationship and interaction of our major processes within the business.

It isn't any easier than that.

IP: Logged

Dan Larsen
Forum Contributor

Posts: 137
From:Sussex, WI
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 03 March 2001 02:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Dan Larsen   Click Here to Email Dan Larsen     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm wondering if everyone is getting to wrapped up with the flow chart issue to respond to this aspect of the standard. Don't get me wrong...a flow chart of the system can be good, but I question if that's what the intent is.

I read the clause as simply telling the company to make sure the manual addresses how the individual elements interact. For example: make sure that the appropriate sections feed back to management review; does the nonconformance system feed appropriately to corrective action; if a calibration is found out of conformance, does the system properly interact with other aspects of the system to respond; etc.

Although a flow chart approach will work for this aspect of the standard, I think making sure all sections of your manual properly cross reference potentially applicable sections (either in text, cross reference matrices, or flow charts), you'll meet the intent.

The transition books I've been reading suggest that this is one of the "no change required" sections...permissible exclusions (4.2.2 (a)) is getting all the attention.

This is probably one of the sections where "auditor expectations" will probably end up being the driving force.

IP: Logged

Jon Shaver
Forum Contributor

Posts: 38
From:Edgemont, PA, USA

posted 05 March 2001 02:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jon Shaver   Click Here to Email Jon Shaver     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Recognizing that quality problems often occur as one process completes an action and another takes over, I believe 4.2.2a simply asks you to indicate the flow for this "handover" - i.e. how does output from one process become input for another. Perhaps replacing "interaction" with "interface", makes it clearer.

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Hop to:

Contact Us | The Elsmar Cove Home Page

Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!

Main Site Search
Y'All Come Back Now, Ya Hear?
Powered by FreeBSD!Made With A Mac!Powered by Apache!