|
|
|
|
Processes Vs Procedures
By Batalas
The new standard uses the word ‘process’ very liberally, and
‘procedure’ very sparingly. So what is the right balance within
your quality management system (QMS)? And what part does process mapping
play in the development and improvement of the QMS?
Process – a paradigm shift
A process transforms an input to an output. This definition means
that processes dominate our lives and virtually every organisational activity
can be seen as a process. However, this is not the reason why the ISO9001:
2000 standard features the word process. The process approach has been
included so as to provide a paradigm shift in the way quality management
systems (QMS) are positioned in an organisation.
Processes – providing the bridge between old and
new
For many organisations quality management systems have been seen
as documented procedures describing the way the organisation carries out
routine tasks. The ’94 standard did very little to dispel this view
and this resulted in the overly bureaucratic systems which discouraged
change. Also, senior management had very little interest in the QMS, seeing
it as being the domain of the quality manager. These weaknesses are precisely
what the process approach is attempting to address.
Engaging senior management interest in the QMS
The more senior the manager the more focussed they are on outputs,
and the less interest they show in the detailed methods of achieving the
goals. It is no wonder then that senior managers have more affinity with
result-based processes than with detailed procedures. A results based
QMS will be infinitely more appealing to managers than one based upon
procedures. That’s the theory, now let’s consider some practicalities.
Putting process design into practice
Unfortunately, for many organisations implementation of the ISO9001:
2000 process approach becomes fraught with apprehension. The reason; the
phrase ‘process mapping’.
The first point to make is that there is no requirement for process mapping
within the ISO9001: 2000 standard. It is true that ‘…the sequence
and interaction of processes…’ needs to be described but this
can be achieved using a simple diagram with accompanying narrative.
The second, and not insignificant point, is the incredible proliferation
of software solutions to make process mapping simpler. Far from simplifying
the task most software solutions provide very complex diagrammatic versions
of the organisation’s procedures.
The third point is – where does process mapping end and procedures
take over. The simple answer is that processes describe what an organisation
does, whereas procedures (and work instructions) describe how it is done.
There is a place for (existing) procedures in an effective QMS; it was
never the intention for organisations to reposition procedures as processes.
The process approach is the most confusing aspect of the new standard.
Some organisations have already taken on board all aspects of this approach
and can see the benefits. Many organisations however are being misinformed,
particularly by I.T. providers, into believing that the solutions are
complex and require software support. The most bizarre misrepresentation
of the process approach is the ‘bottom-up’ development of
processes advocated by at least one software solution provider. This bottom-up
approach is absurd as:
1. Processes have to be capable of achieving top down driven organisational
objectives. By starting at the bottom you are only replicating what you
already have and not seriously challenging the appropriateness of the
processes in the context of meeting business goals.
2. The process approach is to engage top management and to demonstrate
that an effective quality management system is capable of delivering continual
improvement of business performance.
The right balance – processes and procedures
To ensure that your organisation has defined its business processes
and supporting procedures it is worth considering:
Processes
For each defined process you will need at least one effectiveness
performance measure. You also need to show evidence that you are monitoring,
analysing and ultimately improving the performance of the process (although
not necessarily improving all processes at the same time). Consequently
you should limit defined processes to those which are realistic.
A good way of checking whether you have got the correct processes defined
is to allocate existing organisational performance measures, objectives
and targets to the processes. If you have performance measures but no
process then you have to consider how your organisation will deliver the
results without a process! If you have processes with no performance measures
then you have to consider whether it is necessary to have this as a defined
process.
The final check is to ensure that processes which impact customer service
are included e.g. excluding invoicing when invoicing is a significant
cause of customer complaints is not justified.
Procedures
Before documenting procedures, and remember the standard only
requires you to document 6 procedures, agree the criteria. It is up to
each organisation to decide which procedures it documents. The key criteria
is your ability to maintain effective control of your QMS.
Making process mapping software count
When you have considered the above points you can then consider
whether the benefits of using software outweighs the costs/resources of
implementation. The critical factor however is the ability to utilise
the information to improve processes. Complex and inter-linked process
maps will not in themselves provide improvements in process effectiveness
and efficiency. Defining processes is just one small step in the direction
of process improvement.
Some frequently asked questions |
Q - Do we need a process for continual
improvement?
A - Most organisations already have a top down approach to
continual improvement, this being the setting of annual targets and
budgets, which invariably tend to reflect the organisation's desire
to continually improve. These targets can be linked directly to processes.
|
Q - Does a procedures have to be linked
to a process(es)? A - Yes. But it may
be possible for a common procedure to be linked to more than one process
e.g. corrective action. It is also possible that a single process
will have a number of supporting procedures. |
Q - What is the difference between a business objective,
a quality objective and a process objective? A
- In practical terms there should be no difference. If processes deliver
business results, and quality is an integral part of an organisation’s
operational policy, then there is no reason why differences should
exist. |
Q - Are there any processes which are similar in
most organisations? A - There are differences
between public and private sector organisations. Taking the private
sector as an example typical high level processes would include new
product introduction, generate sales enquiries, convert enquiries
to orders, deliver product/service, collect cash and asset management.
|
This article is an extract from The
Auditor, a Batalas publication. Batalas is the world’s leading
independent trainer of quality management systems auditors, with
courses delivered in 10 different languages in 14 countries. For
more information on Batalas please contact +44 (0)1527 525250 enquiries@batalas.co.uk,
www.batalas.co.uk.
|
top of page |
|