1. Hello and Welcome to The Quality Forum Online...Continuing in the spirit of People Helping People !
    Dismiss Notice
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.

5.1.1.2 Process effectiveness and efficiency

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by Nashman15, Mar 23, 2018.

  1. Nashman15

    Nashman15 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2018
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Question:
    After our IATF transition audit we were talking to our auditor and he was trying to help us keep from having to do so much work on KPI's for over 35 different process that we show in our process map. A consultant helped us develop this map and now it seems at is can and will be used against us. I know the new standard uses includes processes around 22 times but he said we don't have to call everything a process, it can be a procedure and therefore it would not be something we have to measure and report to during management review.
    I then asked our consultant about combining some of the processes and they were upset that I asked. Because it covers all the processes in the standard. :rolleyes:
    From what we have all been through has anyone had an experience with this?
    As we all know the next audit everything we show we had we will have to show objective evidence of our KPI's or measuring the effectiveness and efficiency for each item WE call a process.
     
  2. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Good day @Nashman15 ;
    Wow, I am very concerned that your organization/consultant is potentially making this much more difficult than it needs be. A properly laid management system captures and articulates what's in the best interest of the organization. It works FOR the organization (not the other way around).

    1- The ...."processes needed"...(per 4.4.1) shall be determined by the organization. Any process map which is created (not required) should be a useful visual that provides an
    understanding to the audience. It should not be created to address , for example, all "shalls" of the standard. Let's assume for example that you are a pizza company. Your "process
    map" may include...
    * Buy ingredients--> * Assemble--> * Bake--> * Cut--> * Pack--> Deliver.

    2- I am not sure what you mean by "...will have to show objective evidence of our KPI's ....each item we call a process". Per 6.2.1, "...quality objectives at relevant functions, ...processes
    needed". Again, these should be KPI that are beneficial to the organization and reflect the relevant performance of the management system.

    Based on your original post, I infer that your organization is already TS16949 certified. I am struggling understanding how your organization has suddenly added processes since the TS16949 certification. Unless the business model has changed, I would assume your identified processes and KPI would not change.

    Be careful. Most TS 16949 organizations that are vibrant and effective are already "doing" much of what is now "newly" required by the IATF 16949 standard.

    Don't hesitate to reach out to me (or others on this site) here or via LinkedIn if you wish to discuss further.

    Be well.
     
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,100
    Likes Received:
    1,082
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Your consultant isn't being paid by the process, are they? Don't be conned into thinking about simply calling things different names, either. A procedure - by ISO definition - it the way to perform a process. What appears to be misunderstood by your consultant - and others - is that a lot of what's in IATF 16949 is simply restating the same process. Take the requirement for process risk - you already have that in your APQP process (it's the Pfmea). Also, to address the requirements of section 4 "Context" that can very effectively be handled in the Management Review. Tell us what 35 processes you've been told you need and we can rationalize them.
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  4. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    140
    Likes Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Good day @Nashman15 ;
    Please additionally allow me to reply to this statement (noted above).

    I am concerned that within your organization "procedure" and "process" are possibly being looked at as interchangeable, which they are not. A process, as I'm sure you know, is an activity with identified *Inputs--> *Conversion--> *Output. While procedure(s) may be used for controls within the process, the procedures themselves are not a process. Conversely, your organization may choose to apply goals and objectives for a procedure which is not related to an identified process, (for example, there may be a procedure that states "All personnel, will always answer phone calls within 3 rings". A measurable ("KPI" ) could be applied to that procedure (extreme example, but I think it makes the point).

    Hope this helps.

    Be well.
     
  5. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    42
    So you have been "nailed" by a consultant trying to design a science project. I am sure all the "processes" and diagrams are really interesting. But the unintended consequence of having 35 processes is the need to measure both effectiveness and efficiency for all of those processes. I'll bet a bunch of processes are not even used enough to make a measurement all that useful. So try to suck them all together and group them into primary process groups. Then measure the group. If you don't want to group, then look at applying the same measurements to multiple processes. Something like on time delivery can apply pretty broadly to a lot of processes.
     
  6. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    473
    Likes Received:
    150
    Trophy Points:
    42
    TS/IATF threw out "beneficial to the organization" a while ago by dictating what you had to do. Back under TS 5.1.1 we were required to review product realization processes and support processes for both effectiveness and efficiency -- every identified process needed the two measurements (got dinged there). IATF seems to restrict that only to Manufacturing processes. Although in 9.3.2.1 it requires measures of process effectiveness and efficiency as inputs to management review. So I can see auditors carrying the TS requirement into the new standard.
     
  7. Serious Man

    Serious Man Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    69
    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Obviously every activity organization personnel do, is a part of some organizational process. Some of them affect directly organizational profit, some indirectly.
    As profit comes from money we get from customer, so these "direct" ones are sometimes called Customer Oriented Processes.
    Others are Support Oriented Processes.

    Of course we can focus only on COPs and trace their effectiveness and efficiency. That's easy and understandable for people on operational level.
    Persons with better understanding of how company really works know that, it is worth to look closer on e.g. maintenance and besides effectiveness - all machines are running, evaluate also efficiency - every two shifts repair is needed due to cheap spare parts used.

    IATF 16949 is a one of management standards, so it is not targeted on e.g. stamping specialist, even stamping is a core organization manufacturing process, but on presidents, managers who shall have vision how to do a job, share it with subordinates and check effectiveness and efficiency of how they perform this job.

    This is my opinion and I find it auditor-proof as it meets intent of standard, but now it's up to you what to do.
     
    Gio26 likes this.

Share This Page