"A process-based management system should be a simple description of what an organisation does".
"Business processes have always existed because that is how an organisation operates from day to day".
"Processes have not replaced procedures".
Some Questions
Why are so many management system descriptions built around the structure of an external standard?
Until recently it has been difficult to find a format which makes it easy to describe what the organisation does, how it does it, and the key roles and responsibilities, which people can understand and find easy to use.
Why is the "PROCESS APPROACH" important?
Typical reasons for recognising and defining processes (rather than continuing to describe operations in narrative task-based procedures) and for managing end-to-end processes rather than individual activities within departments are to:
- understand clearly how things are done now
- agree a standard approach to follow
- identify factors which may reduce your ability to meet objectives
- make roles and responsibilities clear
- show that the organisation has a clear and comprehensive management system
- gain certification (if required) against ISO9001, 14001 etc.
Normally this comes from a straightforward desire to create a management system description that is clear and concise, and that can be used as the basis for improvement. It is nothing to do with Lean, or Six Sigma, or any "methodology", but rather a recognition that "this is the best way to define how the work gets done". This is a benefit for existing staff and makes it easier to train new staff. Why do some definitions not help?
The ISO9000:2008 definition is “a set of interrelated or interacting activities which transforms inputs into outputs”. Confusingly, ISO9001:2008 defines it as “an activity using resources, and managed in order to enable the transformation of inputs into outputs, can be considered as a process.” Another definition (EFQM) is: “a sequence of activities which adds value by producing required outputs from a variety of inputs”.
To compound the problem, the way the definition(s) and terms are interpreted is often unhelpful because it:
- confuse “normal” and “best” practice by implying characteristics that may not exist
- confuse “inputs” and “resources”
- ignore other “outcomes” or consequences
- are based on only one of two fundamentally different types of business process ie "manufacturing” (as on a production line)
- fail to recognise that a “transactional” process (see below) is generic
- reinforce the manufacturing “bias” of earlier versions of quality standards.
What are the differences between "manufacturing" and “transactional” processes?
A production line is designed to flow continuously and you can follow it visually.
You can't always see transactional processes; staff involved in transactional processes can often choose to do “bits” of different processes; transactional processes are therefore often discontinuous.
The aim of one is to minimise variation and the other must recognise and accommodate variation.
Other weaknesses in the above definition include:
- a process may exist but not be "managed"
- the mere existence of a process does not intrinsically guarantee that its output (“product”) will have value
- each “instance” of a transactional process may be different (the customer, the requirements and the staff involved may all vary).
... and the similarities?
Manufacturing processes (or as ISO9001:2008, unfortunately, has it, "product realisation processes") are just a subset of your business processes.
When people describe the two as being separate, they are prolonging the (unhelpful and misleading) view that quality standards and management systems relate principally to a manufacturing environment.
If you think of "production" as "creation": if your organisation creates training courses or cleaning services, your production processes are how you generate a course or how you plan and deliver your service - all just part of "running the business".
Copyright © 2001-2010 MandOS. All rights reserved.