Is Process Mapping Necessary For Implementing ISO 9001:2000? By: Gopalakrishnan Venkataraman When the ISO 9001 standard was revised in the year 2000, all people connected with the drafting of this international standard shouted from the rooftop that the process approach mentioned in the standard is the panacea for all the impediments in implementation. No one — least of all, the consultants and auditors — attempted to simplify the words in the standard and guide the organizations during implementation. The term "process" itself was not explained properly, and those organizations with a decade of experience in QMS implementation (albeit to the older version) were really confused as to what to do to upgrade their system. Many consultants offered Transition training courses to those lead auditors previously trained by the consultants. The examples and case studies were mostly a repeat of the previous courses, and the trainees did not improve their level of understanding in the concepts after the course was over. The first generation auditors and consultants who boasted about their knowledge of ISO 9001 were also baffled about understanding the new standard. The clauses of the standard do not contain the words "process approach," but the standard makes amends by giving some insight into "process" and "process approach" in the Introduction on page (ii). We have to understand that "process" is nothing but an activity. Any activity will have "inputs" and will get some result, which is commonly known as the "output". Obviously, "resources" have to be used for performing an activity. It is also known that "output" from one activity has to be "input" to another activity. Was the process approach not found in any organization before publication of the new version in the year 2000? Marketing departments gave "output" in the form of specifications, contract conditions, etc. to the Engineering department and other departments in the organization. Engineering gave drawings, purchase requests, etc. to the concerned functions. Consequently, there is no new philosophy being proclaimed by the revision. Then, what is new in this revision? The standard probably has large organizations in mind when it talks of interlinked activities. Let us recall the check encashment activity in a bank a few decades back (before the advent of computerization) in the order in which it took place. Customer enters the Bank. Customer hands over check to the front office counter. Counter official makes manual entry in the ledgers and updates the pass book. He drops the check in the "out tray". Another person — usually a low-level employee — takes the check to the authorized senior official and puts it in the "in tray". Senior official verifies the check and approves for payment of cash. He drops the check in the "out tray". The employee takes the approved check and drops it in the "in tray" of the cashier. The cashier calls the customer and verifies his credentials. The cashier counts the currency twice and hands the currency to the customer. The customer counts the currency and leaves the bank. When does the process start? Many would answer that the customer handing over the check begins the process. Another premise could be that the customer's entry into the Bank initiates the starting point. In the same way, the customer leaving the Bank is the end of the process. A Bank officer wanted to simplify and reduce the time for check encashment by the customer. The measurement criteria was determined as the time taken for each activity. He timed each of the above activities on the basis of work sampling: No. Activity Time Taken 1. Customer enters Bank -- 2. Customer hands over check 1 minute 3. Data entry into ledger, etc. 3 minutes 4. Drops in "out tray" -- 5. Handling the check by employee 10 minutes 6. Senior official verification 2 minutes 7. Handling the check by employee 8 minutes 8. Cashier issues cash 3 minutes   Total time for encashment of check: 27 minutes This process was taken for group work and studied in detail by a team. It was found that handling took more time than other activities because the check was waiting for the employee (who also has to perform other activities) to pick up, and the additional value of this service is nil. Thus, the officer started moving from desk to desk in the front office and signed the authorization immediately after the counter official made entries in the ledgers. He started practicing "management by walking" all through the Banking hours. This way, one non-value adding activity — viz. handling from counter official to the cashier's desk — was avoided. However, the handling from the counter official's desk to the cashier's desk was still taking longer than necessary. It was decided to transport the check by a small conveyor (about 3" in width) located at the bottom of the counters leading to the cash counter at the corner of the office. This decreased the time to 30 seconds to carry the check! The total processing time was reduced from 27 minutes to 8 minutes when all the operations were done manually!! The customer was happy and the Bank officials were also happy in improving the process. Today's method of pneumatically transporting the document from the customer (in the case of drive-in banking) must be an improvement of the above method! How could this be achieved when there was no computer or any other gadgets? Activities in the process were identified, the linkages established, studied in detail, measurements determined and the improvement created. The most important point was all the employees were involved. This is exactly what today's standard expects. Please bear in mind that the above process study was undertaken and improved before ISO 9001 existed! Let's read the clause under 4.1. The organization shall: a) identify the processes needed for the quality management system and their application throughout the organization, b) determine the sequence and interaction of these processes, c) determine criteria and methods needed to ensure that both the operation and control of these processes are effective, d) ensure the availability of resources and information necessary to support the operation and monitoring of these processes, e) monitor, measure and analyze these processes, f) implement actions necessary to achieve planned results and continual improvement of these processes. Many auditors started mentioning (if not demanding) that a flow chart was necessary to indicate the activities and their interlinking in the organization. The auditee had to comply in the interest of retaining the certification. Processes in the organization were mapped extensively, and criteria for measurements were incorporated for each identified process. At the insistence of the auditor, targets were also finalized for each process. This gave rise to a major problem: documentation and paper work. At the time of issuing the standard, it was claimed that the mandatory procedures were reduced in number to reduce paper work, but in this case it increased! Management thought they were counting the trees but missed the woods! Decisions regarding the mapping of processes is best left to the organizations themselves, and it is not necessary to impose the opinion of auditors or consultants on the creativity or ingenuity of the auditee organization. If the organization feels that it is enough to describe the processes in words and if they believe it suits them, why not leave it at that? ISO 9001 auditors are new, but organizations have been running for decades — and successfully too. However, the advantages of process mapping cannot be denied. If the organization wants to use the process mapping for the following, it can reap rich dividends: a) analysis of present situation b) determining the measurement criteria (metrics) c) critical study of the activities involved for value addition d) modifying or eliminating non-value adding activities e) benchmarking these activities against similar ones elsewhere f) determining the targets for improvement g) re-engineering the processes, where possible h) monitoring for sustaining the improvement i) determining similar improvement opportunities here or elsewhere The above advantages have to be considered by the organizations themselves and process mapping must be carried out to the "extent required". You should keep in mind that the documentation of QMS is for the benefit of the organization, and it need not be auditor friendly! Gopalakrishnan Venkataraman President Quality Services International Chennai, India About the Author Venkat has over 35 years of Manufacturing-related experience and held various Executive Management positions at companies, such as Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. and Pandian Graphites Ltd. He has been a tutor for IRCA (IEMA) certified courses. Venkat has attained his Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Annamalai University in India. He currently has memberships with the National Institute of Quality and Reliability and Indian Institute of Nondestructive Testing in India. Comment on this article