{"id":35,"date":"2015-03-27T17:57:39","date_gmt":"2015-03-27T17:57:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/iso-9001-myth-5-process-vs-procedure\/"},"modified":"2015-04-08T17:52:18","modified_gmt":"2015-04-08T17:52:18","slug":"iso-9001-myth-5-process-vs-procedure","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/iso-9001-myth-5-process-vs-procedure\/","title":{"rendered":"ISO 9001 Myth #5 – Process vs. Procedure"},"content":{"rendered":"

In my article ISO 9001 Myth #2 – \u201cSay What You Do & Do What You Say\u201d<\/span><\/a><\/em> I touch on the subject of considering business processes versus procedures.\u00a0 As I expected, this has generated some criticism from ISO 9001 traditionalists<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 While my main purpose was to debunk the \u201csay what you do, do what you say\u201d catchphrase, I also attempted to address some other distractions that companies should avoid when starting down the ISO 9001 certification<\/span><\/a> path.\u00a0 One of these distractions is the debate about the term \u201cprocess\u201d versus \u201cprocedure.\u201d\u00a0 While a more careful reading will reveal that I use the word \u201cprocedure\u201d when I refer to ISO 9001 and \u201cprocess\u201d when I speak from my perspective, the real question is: who cares what we call it?<\/p>\n

In short, this debate is about semantics.\u00a0 I happen to prefer \u201cprocess\u201d over \u201cprocedure\u201d because, for most people, the term \u201cprocedure\u201d carries the connotation of a document, as it does in ISO 9001 and all other ISO standards.\u00a0 But in Pinnacle\u2019s ISO 9001 consulting<\/span><\/a> practice I guide clients away from thinking about documents first.\u00a0 The goal is NOT to create documents.\u00a0 The goal is to identify, define, control, and improve the activities and functions (whatever you call them) that make an organization?<\/p>\n

Some critics and ISO 9001 traditionalists<\/span><\/a>\u00a0argue that these two terms are entirely \u201cdifferent animals.\u201d\u00a0 Let\u2019s examine this.\u00a0 Webster\u2019s defines the word procedure as \u201cthe act or manner of proceeding in any action or process\u201d and \u201ca particular course or mode of action.\u201d\u00a0 The word process is defined as \u201ca systematic series of actions directed to some end\u201d and \u201ca continuous action, operation, or series of changes taking place in a definite manner.\u201d\u00a0 We can all agree that these are at least members of the same species.\u00a0 A simpler way to paraphrase these definitions is to say that a process is \u201cwhat we do\u201d and a procedure is the \u201chow we do it.\u201d\u00a0 In reality, management teams must understand and manage both simultaneously.\u00a0 Consequently, an ISO 9001 QMS<\/span><\/a> must effectively and efficiently address both simultaneously, if it is to be of any value.\u00a0 It is advantageous if this could be done with as few layers and number of documents as possible.\u00a0 In the day-to-day operational reality of any organization a process and procedure are more than just members of the same species.\u00a0 They are parts of the same \u201canimal\u201d called the business operating system.\u00a0 So why get hung up on how we clearly separate them?<\/p>\n

One recent critic, who is an ISO 9001 consultant<\/span><\/a> and claims to be a volunteer member of the US TAG, made the astounding claim that a process is \u201cinvisible\u201d and \u201cconceptual.\u201d\u00a0 He used \u201cProduction\u201d as an example of a conceptual and invisible process.\u00a0 His argument is that \u201cProduction\u201d is invisible and conceptual because it existed before any documents were written.\u00a0 This kind of logic would be comical, if it did not come from an actual ISO 9001 consultant<\/span><\/a> and if it was not shared by others who claim to be ISO 9001 professionals<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 This just reinforces the old adage of \u201cbuyers beware.\u201d<\/p>\n

I find this kind of \u201creligiousizng<\/em>\u201d of basic ISO 9001 concepts<\/span><\/a> disturbing.\u00a0 It is this kind of ISO 9001 dogma<\/span><\/a>, veiled in the debate about semantics, which has plagued our industry and has diminished the value of ISO 9001 certification<\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 Business processes, like \u201cProduction,\u201d do not come into existence by some mystical force.\u00a0 They are engineered by people.\u00a0 The fact that a process may have been designed poorly or was not documented does not make it any less real or tangible.\u00a0 Furthermore, calling \u201cProduction\u201d a single process is shortsighted.\u00a0 In most cases, \u201cProduction\u201d actually consists of several processes (not procedures).\u00a0 For example, in a typical manufacturing company what this critic\u2019s camp would call \u201cProduction\u201d is more likely a sequence of processes like this:<\/p>\n

\"ISO<\/p>\n

What would\u00a0the old guard call these?\u00a0 Sub-processes perhaps?\u00a0 Will we need yet another document layer?\u00a0\u00a0Some\u00a0of these processes (as I would call them) may require supporting procedures such as, Material Staging, Machine Set-up, First Piece Inspection, etc.\u00a0 Where do we draw the line between the process and procedure?\u00a0 Furthermore, these processes are typically supported by other processes like Training, Document Control, Preventive Maintenance, Corrective Action, etc.\u00a0 Critics and ISO 9001 dogmatists<\/span><\/a> would probably have us call these support processes something like “Administration.”\u00a0 From their perspective every company would have essentially the same set of processes:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Customer Acquisition & Onboarding<\/li>\n
  2. Design\/Engineering (if this\u00a0is applicable)<\/li>\n
  3. Production<\/li>\n
  4. Support Activities & Administration<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    What value would this provide to the management and employees of an organization?\u00a0 Furthermore, why should we even concern ourselves with which term we use and when we it? These four so called processes seem more like departments. Some fail to realize that processes are not departments. Processes cross departmental boundaries: Onboarding a customer requires Sales to collaborate with Engineering and Production, designing a product requires Engineering to collaborate with Sales and Production, and so on. It is this collaboration and interaction at the process level that management teams and employees must understand, define, control, and improve.<\/p>\n

    We must remind ourselves that ISO 9001 is nothing more than a guide to the minimal elements that a quality management system should include.\u00a0 It is not an advanced document nor is it a perfect guide.\u00a0 It is, however, made less valuable by interpretations that treat it like a business gospel and construct non-value-added dogma.<\/p>\n

    Finally, we must deal with the concept of the Work Instruction.\u00a0 In Pinnacle\u2019s Lean QMS\u00ae<\/span><\/sup> methodology<\/a>, Work Instructions are the equivalent of what ISO 9001 traditionalist<\/span><\/a> call procedures.\u00a0 The interesting thing is that most traditionalists also employ Work Instructions.\u00a0 No one will deny that Work Instructions are a reality in most organizations, but I find that these are usually better classified as training or reference documents.\u00a0 Nevertheless, there is no denying that Work Instructions describe \u201cthe act or manner of proceeding in any action or process\u201d and \u201ca particular course or mode of action.\u201d\u00a0 While ISO 9001 does not stipulate the creation of Work Instruction, standards like ISO\/TS 16949 do.\u00a0 Does this mean that we must now debate the semantics of a Procedure versus a Work Instruction?\u00a0 Who cares?\u00a0 The bottom line is that an organization should define and document its management system in a way that is effective and efficient for the organization.\u00a0 The byproduct will be ISO 9001 certification<\/span><\/a>, regardless of what we call the documents.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    In my article ISO 9001 Myth #2 – \u201cSay What You Do & Do What You Say\u201d I touch on the subject of considering business processes versus procedures.\u00a0 As I expected, this has generated some criticism from ISO 9001 traditionalists.\u00a0 While my main purpose was to debunk the \u201csay what you do, do what you […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4,5,7,10,11,12,13,14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-as9100","category-continual-improvement","category-iso13485","category-iso9001","category-pinnacle-enterprise-group","category-process-improvement","category-quality-management-system","category-tl9000","category-ts16949"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=35"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":68,"href":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35\/revisions\/68"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=35"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=35"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.pinnacleeg.com\/iso\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=35"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}