Welcome to the first Quarterly



Sign up to keep in touch with newsletters and public training schedules.






Your information will not be shared with any other company.




2879 Hoag NE Grand Rapids, MI 49525 Phone: (616) 365-9822 Fax: (616) 365-1084 email info@msgweb.com

Contents:
ISO / TS 16949: 2002 Process Mapping
Ask an expert
Guest Column Eula Gaddis, Conflict Management
What's coming

ISO 9001: 2000 & ISO / TS 16949: 2002 Process Mapping / Interaction – By Brandon Kerkstra
There is quit a bit of confusion regarding the documentation of the interaction of Processes (Sometimes refered to as Customer Orientated Processes {COP’s}, Manufacturing Orientated Processes {MOP’s} and Support Orientated Processes {SOP’s} required by ISO 9001: 2000 and TS 16949: 2002. Many companies have added additional documents to meet the requirements of documenting the process interactions including “Turtle Documents” and “Line of sight” flow diagrams. While these documents typically assist in meeting the requirements, they usually do not identify process interactions or support processes adequately. Also, and very importantly, they add yet another set of documents that need to be controlled and understood by related staff. However, if done correctly these process interaction diagrams can actually reduce the amount of documentation and increase the effectiveness.

A main prerequisite to achieve fewer procedures is to include the procedural requirements in the process interaction diagrams. These would be the Who, What & When designations for the requirements in the standard. This then allows you to use the process interaction diagrams as level 2 documents, replacing the need for yet another set of controlled procedures. An important side benefit of this approach is that by nature the process interaction diagrams are more useful as training and controlled documentation for your company’s employees to utilize on a regular basis. They not only explain how work flows through their areas, but further indicates the interactions of other processes, employee’s tasks, and departments.

A very successful approach we have used in implementation is to use the 5-phases of APQP as a starting point for developing these process interactions. Many companies have a real opportunity to improve the APQP process at this same time they are implementing TS 16949: 2002.

This process can lead to many other valuable observations including Value Stream Mapping, which is one of the most valuable tools in the lean manufacturing process.

I will be presenting more on this topic at the 2005 QEI in Chicago. Following the conference I will make this presentation available on our website at www.msgweb.com.

Ask an expert - By Rocky Kimball

My management does not really seem to value our internal audits, so how do I get more buy in from management

First, ask yourself some tough questions
1) Are Internal Audits conducted to verify conformance or to improve performance? Conformance to a Procedure or Work Instruction is not the only focus of the Internal Audit Program. Conformance without performance is just not enough to excite Top Management.

2) What is the most "Value Added" issue that has been identified through Internal Audits? Does the Internal Audit Program use Company Measureables to focus the audit? Has the Internal Audit finding and the subsequent Corrective Action improved a Measurable? How much? Has it prevented a Customer Concern? What is the "Return on Investment" for Management's commitment to the Internal Audit Program?

Successful organizations are driven by Top Management that pays attention to facts and issues that drive improvements to the operation and the bottom line. Effective Internal Audits can provide the Management Representative with unbiased information, which is reported to Top Management; on how the well the system and its processes are performing. Internal Audits may identify inefficient processes, unnecessary scrap or rework, training needs, and other valuable information to improve the system.

The three biggest issues we see with Internal Audit Programs are:

1) The Internal Audits are not planned or directed to focus on process performance (status & importance).

2) Internal Auditors are not knowledgeable of the process that is being audited and the critical components that impact the performance of the process.

3) Internal Audit schedule does not allow the processes of the Company to be audited as a system. Too many brief individual audits that do not follow the inputs, outputs and interaction of the processes. Not enough time is allocated to construct good audit trails and to conduct an in-depth review of the object evidence

Next time an Internal Audit is conducted, try following the system and its processes from beginning to end and dig deep with a focus on finding issues that impact performance. The Internal Audit will not cover as much of the system in the allotted time, but might identify an opportunity that will make a difference to the organization and validate the importance of Internal Audits.

Back to Resource page