Accountability During Monitoring Process - Quality Process Management
Qualityworld
Effective Process Management
With the current interest in process management and the modern trend to sell old ideas under new names, it is necessary to review the traditional approach to process management. Michael Debenham, IQA's professional affairs manager, seeks to encourage process owners to consider how the traditional approach can be built on and improved for their own processes
This article does not claim to be comprehensive or provide a specific solution or model to be followed by process owners and managers. Its ideas are best considered, amended and applied to a situation in a way that adds value to the activities covered. Solutions will be most effective, and more likely to be fully owned, when tailored by managers or process owners to their specific needs.
In order to agree where processes fit into the bigger picture, it is helpful to start from the top (see figure 1), with what used to be termed 'systems management', and is now called by a variety of names, such as integrated systems management or business systems management. Systems management is simple. It seeks to ensure that:
all external requirements specified in statutes, regulations, licences to trade and customer needs are addressed in the management system as defined system requirements'
relevant personnel receive training in system requirements
performance measures for the system requirements are defined
evidence that system requirements have been executed is produced
the extent of compliance with performance measures is monitored and reported
changes to external requirements are monitored and reflected in changes to the 'defined system requirements', when applicable
the management system and its processes are measured, audited and regulated
a culture and process is established, to seek opportunities to improve performance, prevent recurrence of errors and share experience
The reasons for implementing systems management are varied. Traditionally the most effective drivers for delivering a management system which will add value to an organisation have been performance improvement and an increase in bottom-line profit, effective risk management, assurance of quality, product or service to the customer and implementation of a culture for opportunity More recently the need to acquire a symbol of international recognition has featured as a driver.
A model of the process-based management system is described in figure 2, and has three important aspects:
gap analysis between external requirements and the management framework: the processes (and the competencies and procedures that support them) that allow an organisation to manage its exposure to risk effectively
the model introduces the idea that processes are supported by both instructional documentation and/or competencies
this model also introduces the need to identify assets associated with processes. The traditional view of a process, namely that assets are transformed into enhanced assets, will be discussed later
Having established the management system model (the above is merely one way to do so), an organisation will identify its revenue-earning processes and the structures which support them. The structure of individual business processes can now be addressed in more detail, by considering three key stages:
specifying and defining the process
building the process
managing the process
The current trend in describing business processes is to use concise definitions, but as this article is reviewing the traditional approach, an appropriate definition should be sought: business processes are clearly identifiable chains of recurrent activities with a planned outcome, that extend across an organisation and through which inputs are transformed into outputs, of a defined quality, cost and delivery schedule, for internal and external customers.
This description immediately highlights three vital aspects of a process: inputs, outputs and outcomes or results.
Some may question why the engineering industry terms - assets and enhanced assets - have not been used. These were terms for those who liked the implication that a process was only a process if it added value. In defence of the modern terminology some current activities do not so readily accept traditional terminology: trying to persuade the software helpdesk that the inputs (an unending stream of problems) should be classified as assets is inadvisable, even though, strictly speaking, any source of potential revenue is an asset.
Clarification of the difference between the output from a process and the outcome or result of a process may be helpful. Taking the helpdesk as an example, it can be said that this process output is a solution to the original problem, its planned outcome the provision of an appropriate solution, delivered in a professional manner, within a predetermined timescale and cost, which meets customer expectations.
Taking the example included later in this article, namely the process of publishing Qualityworld, it can be said that the output from this process is the magazine. On the other hand, the planned outcome is the delivery of a high quality magazine to all subscribers and IQA members, on time every month of the year, at a defined cost and in a way that fully meets the subscribers' and members' expectations. This is a direct outcome, controlled and managed by the process owner.
An indirect outcome is the business received from advertisers, over which the process owner has only indirect influence. Clearly fluctuations in the level of circulation and the quality of the magazine may affect the return to advertisers, but the quality of the adverts and the reputation of the advertisers may have a greater impact on the business received. Nonetheless, the magazine cannot be produced unless advertising revenue is at a predetermined level, so it is important to recognise the indirect outcome as an influencing factor on the process.
An output is the tangible result of the transformation of inputs (hardware, software, intellectual property or other); an outcome can be described as the delivery of the output in accordance with predetermined requirements (usually of cost, delivery date and quality).
Accountability and the process
The extent to which organisations appoint individuals to various roles and responsibilities, depends on their:
size and type
complexity
perceived risks
What is important is that all responsibilities and accountabilities associated with the various roles are examined and assigned (see figure 3). The first component of the process is usually the person or group (in a large organisation, it may be a board or committee) with accountability for the outcome of the process. The board of a football club is accountable for the final position of the team in the league and though the process owner (the club manager or coach) may have a secondary or contributory accountability the board's accountability cannot be delegated.
In a small organisation, the process owner and the person accountable for process outcomes may be one and the same, whereas in a medium-sized organisation, the partnership may be accountable for the process outcome and the process owner may be one of the partners. It falls to the process owner to provide the goals and aims of the process and to identify its internal or external customers. Clearly, the customers' expectations must be understood when determining the process outcomes. The process owner will also decide who is accountable for the technical and commercial integrity of the outcomes.
Responsibility for technical integrity will be important for developing the process logic to ensure that appropriate controls have been included and specific technical requirements and associated measures for the output determined. In a small or medium-sized company the same person may be accountable for the technical integrity of the inputs, intermediate transformation stages and outputs. Depending on the size of the company and the resources available, responsibility for preparation of technical specifications for inputs and associated measures applied to inputs may be delegated to personnel working in the process.
Usually undertaken by team members, one of the most important aspects of process definition is the identification and design of key transformation stages in the process (sometimes known as 'process logic'). One aspect of transforming inputs into outputs is that inputs are not always required at the beginning, but at various stages throughout the process - particularly in assembly processes, where components are introduced continually. The same may also be true for the outputs.
Referring once more to figure 3, the inputs have been described as assets or problems and outputs have been described as enhanced assets or solutions, to try and cover both product and service-related processes. It should also be mentioned that the term assets is used, in its widest context, to include goods, consumables, services, intellectual property, software and raw materials.
Having specified the process, the next stage is to define it and provide process visibility and clarity of instruction to those associated with the process (stakeholders). While defining the competencies and instructive documentation that supports processes is outside the remit of this article processes are essentially 'what needs to be done, who needs to do it and the evidence that it has been done'.
Procedures and other instructive documents (work/operating instructions) will define how an activity should be done. The extent to which an organisation will detail this in its documentation will depend on:
what is required to keep its exposure to risk at an acceptable level
the point at which clarity becomes over-prescription
the size and type of the organisation
the complexity of the processes
the defined levels of competencies required
Successful definition will allow the process team to provide visibility of process and clarity of instruction easily and the process to be changed swiftly if necessary
The process that jack built
Most process owners inherit a process rather than building it from scratch; hence, building a process is often termed 're-engineering', 're-building' or 're-designing'. However, there are some basic steps to ensure an efficient transformation of inputs into outputs. From the fully-defined process and the experience of process stakeholders, an estimate will be made of the resources required to operate the process at optimum efficiency.
Where the quality of a process outcome relies on competencies, they should be carefully defined and the human resources should match the requirements. Provision of the necessary process infrastructure - in terms of facilities, plant and equipment - is equally important and likely to be more easily measurable, as is provision of process consumables. The required financial resources should be taken into account, as they must be recorded when measuring the cost of delivering the process outcomes.
A significant aspect of building the process is determining the inputs to be sourced in-house and those to be provided by suppliers. This decision made, the technical, commercial and relational requirements must be defined and agreed with suppliers. A lot of work has recently been done on the value of supplier relationships and it is at last recognised that 'mutually beneficial supplier relationships' are key to the success of process outcomes.
Depending on the type of process, it should be tested to ensure that the level of resource is best for delivering process outcomes within the specified parameters. Adjusting the level of resources is a continuing activity as most processes deliver a fluctuating quantity of output.
Are you managing?
The traditional approach to the effective management of a business process has been based on:
specifying measurements to be taken in the process
implementing a system for recording, reporting and evaluating measurement
determining necessary changes from the evaluation
effecting change
evaluating the effect of change and amending, if applicable
Of course, there will be many and various alternatives - depending on the size, type and complexity of the process - when deciding what to measure.
In reviewing the measures for ensuring the technical integrity of the process, it should be noted that not all examples are applicable to all types of process. The key is to find appropriate, affordable measures that provide data on which process management decisions can be made.
It may be helpful to remember that inputs - upon receipt of which, the usual technical and quality measurements will be applied - are often the result of another process. Delivery performance, cost and reliability will be significant.
Process owners must also consider the need for measurement as inputs are transformed from one process stage to the next. These will usually be confined to measurements of technical and quality attributes and to the ability of one stage to deliver to the next in accordance with programme requirements. For complex processes, the cost of transformation may well also be used as a performance indicator and there may be a need to identify the critical time-line or path in the process and link the process measures to associated events.
Like inputs, outputs require application of the usual technical and quality measurements prior to delivery (and, in the case of commissioning, after delivery). The key to effective management of processes has traditionally been the correct selection of the process outcome measures to provide data that can readily determine process health-for example:
customer satisfaction
cost of process outcome per unit measure
quantity of output
reliability of quality of output
manner of delivery of output
reliability of delivery of process outcome to defined programme
delivery of process outcome within the defined timescale
success or failure of process (eg tender process, win or lose)
quantity of rejects, cost of rework
quantity of waste
extent of containment of risk (eg rise/fall in number of safety/environmental incidents or unexpected results)
applicability, accuracy capture, currency simplicity responsiveness of process
Effective process owners will select those measures that are not only affordable, but provide the best indication of process health and efficiency When evaluating the process data, feedback from internal audits must be taken into consideration, as well as data from process measurements.
Effective presentation of process data can make all the difference. The measures must be the best available and the presentation of the resulting data must allow easy identification of potential problems and opportunities to improve the process; such data allows a confident assessment of changes necessary to the process.
The case study illustrates the traditional method of process management, applied to a simple business process: the publication of QW. To set out some of the aims in developing the process specification, it should be stated that it was important that no more that one day of the editorial team's time should be devoted to the activity. Furthermore, the visibility of the process should be provided without having to train the team in using BS 4058 or creating lengthy documents
IQA's professional affairs manager, Michael Debenham is the focus for professional and technical matters in the Institute, and in the exchange of ideas and issues with other stakeholders in the UK QA industry. Michael is responsible for the design and delivery of IQA's two-day training course, 'Effective process management - proven practice' and the half day seminar 'Business process management'.
CASE STUDY
Qualityworld's process makeover
by Erik Salholm
Publishing is a pressurised environment, with deadlines constantly looming. The nature of putting together a magazine/magazines (collating together material from disparate sources and endeavouring to create something cohesive, exciting and readable) is so all-consuming, in terms of the time and concentration of the busy team here at QW, that other considerations are often subordinated. Mapping our processes encouragement with the invaluable encouragement and aid of Michael Debenham, IQA's professional affairs manager, has enabled us to get some distance from the process and see where we can make improvements.
Simply defining our processes, working through them to the point at which we could set them on paper, was very useful. Publishing has seen its fair share of turmoil over the past year, with a lot of staff changes and several new projects starting up; it is now almost unrecognisable from the department it was a year and a half ago. Ultimately, mapping the process has given us all a certain clarity of purpose - a longer term view of our daily efforts - and an understanding of the measures which validate it.
We were surprised by the speed with which our process specification and our procedure map were developed. It was entirely painless, requiring the QW team to devote just a couple of hours to review and discuss the process specification and definition - with Michael Debenham clarifying anything that seemed confusing. We could then categorise those different elements and how they fit together. In an environment where we assist one another and swap roles a great deal, delineating the spheres of influence and responsibility has been very useful. We feel that, though our way of working together will not change greatly, many loose ends have been tied up. We calculate that we devoted a total of 10-12 hours of our collective time preparing a view of our process which we think will add value to the Publishing Department.
Though everybody in the Publishing Department is familiar with the measures, since they comprise our daily operation - cost of corrections to proofs, for example - identifying them in a holistic sense as the department's 'measurables', our measures of success, has made our targets seem more concrete and, by implication, attainable.
Overall we feel it has been immensely validating to us and especially since, in terms of quality, though we may have an understanding of its many issues to a certain point, we are essentially laypersons. This has actually brought home the value of the activity, in its most important sense: practical application. And Publishing is just a small department! I imagine the benefits of carrying it out on a larger scale to be even greater. But then the beauty of it is its simplicity - at the process definition stage, we have simply identified what we do (or perhaps who does what), how we do it and what factors affect our methods - and an organisation or department of any size can gain from that.
Effective Process Management
With the current interest in process management and the modern trend to sell old ideas under new names, it is necessary to review the traditional approach to process management. Michael Debenham, IQA's professional affairs manager, seeks to encourage process owners to consider how the traditional approach can be built on and improved for their own processes
This article does not claim to be comprehensive or provide a specific solution or model to be followed by process owners and managers. Its ideas are best considered, amended and applied to a situation in a way that adds value to the activities covered. Solutions will be most effective, and more likely to be fully owned, when tailored by managers or process owners to their specific needs.
In order to agree where processes fit into the bigger picture, it is helpful to start from the top (see figure 1), with what used to be termed 'systems management', and is now called by a variety of names, such as integrated systems management or business systems management. Systems management is simple. It seeks to ensure that:
all external requirements specified in statutes, regulations, licences to trade and customer needs are addressed in the management system as defined system requirements'
relevant personnel receive training in system requirements
performance measures for the system requirements are defined
evidence that system requirements have been executed is produced
the extent of compliance with performance measures is monitored and reported
changes to external requirements are monitored and reflected in changes to the 'defined system requirements', when applicable
the management system and its processes are measured, audited and regulated
a culture and process is established, to seek opportunities to improve performance, prevent recurrence of errors and share experience
The reasons for implementing systems management are varied. Traditionally the most effective drivers for delivering a management system which will add value to an organisation have been performance improvement and an increase in bottom-line profit, effective risk management, assurance of quality, product or service to the customer and implementation of a culture for opportunity More recently the need to acquire a symbol of international recognition has featured as a driver.
A model of the process-based management system is described in figure 2, and has three important aspects:
gap analysis between external requirements and the management framework: the processes (and the competencies and procedures that support them) that allow an organisation to manage its exposure to risk effectively
the model introduces the idea that processes are supported by both instructional documentation and/or competencies
this model also introduces the need to identify assets associated with processes. The traditional view of a process, namely that assets are transformed into enhanced assets, will be discussed later
Having established the management system model (the above is merely one way to do so), an organisation will identify its revenue-earning processes and the structures which support them. The structure of individual business processes can now be addressed in more detail, by considering three key stages:
specifying and defining the process
building the process
managing the process
The current trend in describing business processes is to use concise definitions, but as this article is reviewing the traditional approach, an appropriate definition should be sought: business processes are clearly identifiable chains of recurrent activities with a planned outcome, that extend across an organisation and through which inputs are transformed into outputs, of a defined quality, cost and delivery schedule, for internal and external customers.
This description immediately highlights three vital aspects of a process: inputs, outputs and outcomes or results.
Some may question why the engineering industry terms - assets and enhanced assets - have not been used. These were terms for those who liked the implication that a process was only a process if it added value. In defence of the modern terminology some current activities do not so readily accept traditional terminology: trying to persuade the software helpdesk that the inputs (an unending stream of problems) should be classified as assets is inadvisable, even though, strictly speaking, any source of potential revenue is an asset.
Clarification of the difference between the output from a process and the outcome or result of a process may be helpful. Taking the helpdesk as an example, it can be said that this process output is a solution to the original problem, its planned outcome the provision of an appropriate solution, delivered in a professional manner, within a predetermined timescale and cost, which meets customer expectations.
Taking the example included later in this article, namely the process of publishing Qualityworld, it can be said that the output from this process is the magazine. On the other hand, the planned outcome is the delivery of a high quality magazine to all subscribers and IQA members, on time every month of the year, at a defined cost and in a way that fully meets the subscribers' and members' expectations. This is a direct outcome, controlled and managed by the process owner.
An indirect outcome is the business received from advertisers, over which the process owner has only indirect influence. Clearly fluctuations in the level of circulation and the quality of the magazine may affect the return to advertisers, but the quality of the adverts and the reputation of the advertisers may have a greater impact on the business received. Nonetheless, the magazine cannot be produced unless advertising revenue is at a predetermined level, so it is important to recognise the indirect outcome as an influencing factor on the process.
An output is the tangible result of the transformation of inputs (hardware, software, intellectual property or other); an outcome can be described as the delivery of the output in accordance with predetermined requirements (usually of cost, delivery date and quality).
Accountability and the process
The extent to which organisations appoint individuals to various roles and responsibilities, depends on their:
size and type
complexity
perceived risks
What is important is that all responsibilities and accountabilities associated with the various roles are examined and assigned (see figure 3). The first component of the process is usually the person or group (in a large organisation, it may be a board or committee) with accountability for the outcome of the process. The board of a football club is accountable for the final position of the team in the league and though the process owner (the club manager or coach) may have a secondary or contributory accountability the board's accountability cannot be delegated.
In a small organisation, the process owner and the person accountable for process outcomes may be one and the same, whereas in a medium-sized organisation, the partnership may be accountable for the process outcome and the process owner may be one of the partners. It falls to the process owner to provide the goals and aims of the process and to identify its internal or external customers. Clearly, the customers' expectations must be understood when determining the process outcomes. The process owner will also decide who is accountable for the technical and commercial integrity of the outcomes.
Responsibility for technical integrity will be important for developing the process logic to ensure that appropriate controls have been included and specific technical requirements and associated measures for the output determined. In a small or medium-sized company the same person may be accountable for the technical integrity of the inputs, intermediate transformation stages and outputs. Depending on the size of the company and the resources available, responsibility for preparation of technical specifications for inputs and associated measures applied to inputs may be delegated to personnel working in the process.
Usually undertaken by team members, one of the most important aspects of process definition is the identification and design of key transformation stages in the process (sometimes known as 'process logic'). One aspect of transforming inputs into outputs is that inputs are not always required at the beginning, but at various stages throughout the process - particularly in assembly processes, where components are introduced continually. The same may also be true for the outputs.
Referring once more to figure 3, the inputs have been described as assets or problems and outputs have been described as enhanced assets or solutions, to try and cover both product and service-related processes. It should also be mentioned that the term assets is used, in its widest context, to include goods, consumables, services, intellectual property, software and raw materials.
Having specified the process, the next stage is to define it and provide process visibility and clarity of instruction to those associated with the process (stakeholders). While defining the competencies and instructive documentation that supports processes is outside the remit of this article processes are essentially 'what needs to be done, who needs to do it and the evidence that it has been done'.
Procedures and other instructive documents (work/operating instructions) will define how an activity should be done. The extent to which an organisation will detail this in its documentation will depend on:
what is required to keep its exposure to risk at an acceptable level
the point at which clarity becomes over-prescription
the size and type of the organisation
the complexity of the processes
the defined levels of competencies required
Successful definition will allow the process team to provide visibility of process and clarity of instruction easily and the process to be changed swiftly if necessary
The process that jack built
Most process owners inherit a process rather than building it from scratch; hence, building a process is often termed 're-engineering', 're-building' or 're-designing'. However, there are some basic steps to ensure an efficient transformation of inputs into outputs. From the fully-defined process and the experience of process stakeholders, an estimate will be made of the resources required to operate the process at optimum efficiency.
Where the quality of a process outcome relies on competencies, they should be carefully defined and the human resources should match the requirements. Provision of the necessary process infrastructure - in terms of facilities, plant and equipment - is equally important and likely to be more easily measurable, as is provision of process consumables. The required financial resources should be taken into account, as they must be recorded when measuring the cost of delivering the process outcomes.
A significant aspect of building the process is determining the inputs to be sourced in-house and those to be provided by suppliers. This decision made, the technical, commercial and relational requirements must be defined and agreed with suppliers. A lot of work has recently been done on the value of supplier relationships and it is at last recognised that 'mutually beneficial supplier relationships' are key to the success of process outcomes.
Depending on the type of process, it should be tested to ensure that the level of resource is best for delivering process outcomes within the specified parameters. Adjusting the level of resources is a continuing activity as most processes deliver a fluctuating quantity of output.
Are you managing?
The traditional approach to the effective management of a business process has been based on:
specifying measurements to be taken in the process
implementing a system for recording, reporting and evaluating measurement
determining necessary changes from the evaluation
effecting change
evaluating the effect of change and amending, if applicable
Of course, there will be many and various alternatives - depending on the size, type and complexity of the process - when deciding what to measure.
In reviewing the measures for ensuring the technical integrity of the process, it should be noted that not all examples are applicable to all types of process. The key is to find appropriate, affordable measures that provide data on which process management decisions can be made.
It may be helpful to remember that inputs - upon receipt of which, the usual technical and quality measurements will be applied - are often the result of another process. Delivery performance, cost and reliability will be significant.
Process owners must also consider the need for measurement as inputs are transformed from one process stage to the next. These will usually be confined to measurements of technical and quality attributes and to the ability of one stage to deliver to the next in accordance with programme requirements. For complex processes, the cost of transformation may well also be used as a performance indicator and there may be a need to identify the critical time-line or path in the process and link the process measures to associated events.
Like inputs, outputs require application of the usual technical and quality measurements prior to delivery (and, in the case of commissioning, after delivery). The key to effective management of processes has traditionally been the correct selection of the process outcome measures to provide data that can readily determine process health-for example:
customer satisfaction
cost of process outcome per unit measure
quantity of output
reliability of quality of output
manner of delivery of output
reliability of delivery of process outcome to defined programme
delivery of process outcome within the defined timescale
success or failure of process (eg tender process, win or lose)
quantity of rejects, cost of rework
quantity of waste
extent of containment of risk (eg rise/fall in number of safety/environmental incidents or unexpected results)
applicability, accuracy capture, currency simplicity responsiveness of process
Effective process owners will select those measures that are not only affordable, but provide the best indication of process health and efficiency When evaluating the process data, feedback from internal audits must be taken into consideration, as well as data from process measurements.
Effective presentation of process data can make all the difference. The measures must be the best available and the presentation of the resulting data must allow easy identification of potential problems and opportunities to improve the process; such data allows a confident assessment of changes necessary to the process.
The case study illustrates the traditional method of process management, applied to a simple business process: the publication of QW. To set out some of the aims in developing the process specification, it should be stated that it was important that no more that one day of the editorial team's time should be devoted to the activity. Furthermore, the visibility of the process should be provided without having to train the team in using BS 4058 or creating lengthy documents
IQA's professional affairs manager, Michael Debenham is the focus for professional and technical matters in the Institute, and in the exchange of ideas and issues with other stakeholders in the UK QA industry. Michael is responsible for the design and delivery of IQA's two-day training course, 'Effective process management - proven practice' and the half day seminar 'Business process management'.
CASE STUDY
Qualityworld's process makeover
by Erik Salholm
Publishing is a pressurised environment, with deadlines constantly looming. The nature of putting together a magazine/magazines (collating together material from disparate sources and endeavouring to create something cohesive, exciting and readable) is so all-consuming, in terms of the time and concentration of the busy team here at QW, that other considerations are often subordinated. Mapping our processes encouragement with the invaluable encouragement and aid of Michael Debenham, IQA's professional affairs manager, has enabled us to get some distance from the process and see where we can make improvements.
Simply defining our processes, working through them to the point at which we could set them on paper, was very useful. Publishing has seen its fair share of turmoil over the past year, with a lot of staff changes and several new projects starting up; it is now almost unrecognisable from the department it was a year and a half ago. Ultimately, mapping the process has given us all a certain clarity of purpose - a longer term view of our daily efforts - and an understanding of the measures which validate it.
We were surprised by the speed with which our process specification and our procedure map were developed. It was entirely painless, requiring the QW team to devote just a couple of hours to review and discuss the process specification and definition - with Michael Debenham clarifying anything that seemed confusing. We could then categorise those different elements and how they fit together. In an environment where we assist one another and swap roles a great deal, delineating the spheres of influence and responsibility has been very useful. We feel that, though our way of working together will not change greatly, many loose ends have been tied up. We calculate that we devoted a total of 10-12 hours of our collective time preparing a view of our process which we think will add value to the Publishing Department.
Though everybody in the Publishing Department is familiar with the measures, since they comprise our daily operation - cost of corrections to proofs, for example - identifying them in a holistic sense as the department's 'measurables', our measures of success, has made our targets seem more concrete and, by implication, attainable.
Overall we feel it has been immensely validating to us and especially since, in terms of quality, though we may have an understanding of its many issues to a certain point, we are essentially laypersons. This has actually brought home the value of the activity, in its most important sense: practical application. And Publishing is just a small department! I imagine the benefits of carrying it out on a larger scale to be even greater. But then the beauty of it is its simplicity - at the process definition stage, we have simply identified what we do (or perhaps who does what), how we do it and what factors affect our methods - and an organisation or department of any size can gain from that.
posted by T at 4:25 pm
