1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Process vs procedure

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by Andy Nichols, Jul 8, 2021.

  1. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    In another forum, I noted that an "expert" is (adamantly) proposing that an organization needs both processes and procedures (because procedures, while they may be undocumented, are the way processes are carried out.

    I also note that ISO 9000 includes similar definitions. Am I alone in believing this is 20th century thinking about Quality Management Systems?

    Added in edit: Why does the vocab document even mention procedure, when ISO 9001 is mute on the topic?
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2021
  2. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    I treat process and procedure like this: When somebody says "Let's play a game of charade!" then another asks "What are the mechanics?"
     
  3. Oleh Haievskyi

    Oleh Haievskyi Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2021
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    2
    In my understanding, a process is an activity that is objectively repeated with a certain frequency in an organization. And the procedure is how we can subjectively describe the process (including documentary).
     
    S Russell likes this.
  4. RonR Quality Pro

    RonR Quality Pro Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2021
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    45
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    SW Ontario Canada
    Agreed Oleh. The procedure describes how the process is SUPPOSED to work. Ideally it details the inputs and outputs of the processes, so that people are able to understand what they are trying to accomplish.
     
    S Russell and Oleh Haievskyi like this.
  5. bkirch

    bkirch Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    7
    I definitely believe that it is possible to have too many procedures, but for some processes, they are needed. Procedures are beneficial to us for training purposes. They are a tool that we can use for training when we get new employees, or for existing employees when a process changes. We also use procedures as internal standards for how we want the process to be performed. If we feel, that a process is not being performed correctly, the procedure is the standard that we can use to help explain our reasoning.
     
    pkfraser likes this.
  6. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    What do you propose be done to modernize this approach?
     
  7. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I recognize that, apart from anything else, these standards are written for all countries and organizations, including those which lack maturity and /or sophistication in their approach to Quality. Modernizing the approach isn't going to happen any time soon. My post was, however, in response to someone who is from neither an unsophisticated or immature organization. Perhaps a "maturity" approach to QMS implementation is what's wanted - this has been proposed for a long time, by far smarter people than me. It would permit a variety of implementation approaches and not just "you need a procedure to do a process"...
     
    Steve l likes this.
  8. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Process cannot live by procedure alone :). I believe, the standard (in clause 4.4) has itemized the critical components that are necessary for the operation of a process.
     
    Jennifer Kirley and Andy Nichols like this.
  9. Niko90

    Niko90 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2016
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Tagaytay, Philippines
    Most of the practitioners I encountered belive "Process = Procedure". ALWAYS.

    A few days ago, we released the plan for the audit engagements for the next couple of weeks. I was asked why one of the names of the subprocesses was not changed when the change for its procedure's title was approved. I responded that I checked our Quality Manual (which happens to have our scope) and that it was the same and this is where I base our audit programs/plans.

    I was caught off guard when the other party insisted that I must abide by the new title and that the audit plan must reflect that since the manual's revision won't be done in the near future. I believe they were also pointing out that this also meant that the section repsonsible for that intended to have the process name changed. However, they only filed for the revision for its procedure.
     
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2021
  10. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    1,071
    Likes Received:
    722
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    USA
    Goodness.

    I suggest you go ahead and use the new subprocess names. The Quality Manual's update will catch up with the changes. If it is so very important to people, the Manual can get a minor update now.
     
  11. junior1505

    junior1505 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2021
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Greetings of the day.
    Procedures and Processes (Work Instructions) are different, one is level II and other is level III.
    You need to understand the difference. Work instructions are the basics for the work flow or sequence of the operations, this will effectively govern the process and certify its compliance. The procedure makes a mention and linkage to all such work instructions, guidelines, etc.
    Hope am clear.
    Regards.
     
  12. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    I hope also. But do we really need to determine the levels of documents and differentiate procedures from work instructions. ISO 9001 doesn't mention these things.
     
    Abed Salameh and Andy Nichols like this.
  13. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Exactly, it's "old school" thinking.
     
    tony s likes this.
  14. pkfraser

    pkfraser Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2015
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Aberdeen Scotland
    Andy

    Going back to your original question: "an organization needs both processes and procedures - am I alone in believing this is 20th century thinking about Quality Management Systems?"

    Surely it does need i) processes [to get work done] and ii) procedures ("specified ways to carry out activities or processes") [so that the work is done in a controlled manner]?

    What has happened in this century that makes this not valid? [Bearing in mind that a "process" is NOT a description of anything]
     
  15. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I think Peter, the issue was one of having (to have) a documented procedure for each process. How, I happen to believe that's a) not inferred or required by the ISO 9001 standard (no direction to the management to decide on the need) and b) it's not required to complete a process (I rarely write procedures for how to do internal audits, when I'm doing them!)

    That leaves us with the (IMHO) conundrum of "Is a (documented) process map depicting the input, outputs, controls etc a process or a procedure?"
     
  16. pkfraser

    pkfraser Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2015
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Aberdeen Scotland
    Andy

    I didn't see the "documented" requirement...
    Now for your next question: <Is a (documented) process map depicting the input, outputs, controls etc a process or a procedure?>
    Of course it ain't a process - a process is what you do, not a picture of anything! Given the definition of a procedure, yes it might be one of them, but only if it describes what is done, rather than just what those SIPOC diagrams tend to show.
     
    tony s and Andy Nichols like this.
  17. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    From what I recall, the original discussion (over at LinkedIn) asserted that a documented procedure was required to perform a process.
     
  18. pkfraser

    pkfraser Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2015
    Messages:
    93
    Likes Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    Aberdeen Scotland
    I suspect that is a reflection on the quality of discussion on LinkedIn...
     
    Jennifer Kirley and Andy Nichols like this.
  19. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    It's never been required in any ISO requirement that documents be defined in 'levels". Indeed, for some organizations, the entire Quality Manual IS the documentation. It was a mis-interpretation of the earliest versions of ISO 9001/2/3 that documentation was organized in this arcane manner. It merely stated in some clauses that procedures were required and, in particular, that (manufacturing) processes could be controlled through the use of work instructions, where the absence would adversely affect quality - so they weren't mandated.

    Somehow people got carried away and read all kinds of bureaucracy into that and we've been living with it and the associated BS, ever since...
     
  20. Steve l

    Steve l Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2022
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Exactly right, a carpenter for instance doesn't need a procedure document to follow to build a house from plans, an industrial chemist such as my profession was doesn't need a procedure to troubleshoot a chemical reaction processs yet if a chemist was not onsite overnight for instance, a troubleshooting procedure for operators makes sense. Why overcomplicate something unless it's necessary? Any incompetent person can overcomplicate something. Genius lies in simplification.
     
    pkfraser likes this.