In its simplest form a procedure is a way
in which one works to accomplish a task.
It can therefore be a sequence of steps that include preparation, conduct and completion of a task. Each step can be a sequence of activities and each activity
a sequence of actions. The sequence of steps is critical to whether a statement or document is a procedure or something else. Specifications, contracts and
records are not procedures as they do not tell us how to do anything. These describe the outputs resulting from carrying out procedures or tasks,
leaving us to decide any further actions necessary to use these outputs. The output will more than likely be used as
inputs to other procedures.
We need procedures when the task we have to
perform is complex or when the task is routine and we want it to be performed consistently Hence procedures are intended to make something happen in a
certain way. If we are not concerned about how something is done and are interested only in the result we do not produce procedures but issue
instructions such as 'post the letter', 'repair the spin drier' or 'recruit another person'. These are work instructions as they intend us to do
'quantitative' work without telling how to do it or the 'qualitative' standard to which the work should be carried out.
Instructions are not procedures unless they follow in a sequence and enable us to perform a task.
A set of self-assembly instructions is a
procedure as it tells how to proceed to assemble the product. But the wording on the label telling us not to put hot objects on the surface is an instruction
or a warning (a special type of instruction). As procedures are normally used by people they are designed with a user in mind. The user is normally an
individual or a group of individuals, although procedures can cover a sequence of steps each of which is performed by different individuals or groups.
However, perceptions of procedures vary considerably depending on the context in which they are created and used. Any sequence of steps, no matter how simple
or complex, can be expressed as a procedure that is intended to cause someone to act in a certain way to accomplish a task. The key is that the
steps follow a sequence. A random collection of statements is not a procedure unless we rearrange these in a sequence that enables someone to
it a procedure or a misnomer?
Within the context of QMSs (and more specifically, ISO 9000) the procedure has, for many, taken on particular and
sometimes peculiar characteristics. Such (documented) procedures may be written, not as a sequence of activities or steps but as a series of requirements or a
series of responsibilities. Neither of these can be procedures as they do not tell us how to proceed, what steps to take or how to measure the result.
Such procedures often follow a uniform format
with a purpose statement, applicability statement, responsibilities and then procedure statements. Often there is no connection between the purpose statement
and the procedure. Purpose statements often address the purpose of a document not the purpose of the task which the sequence of tasks is intended to
deliver. Again, if such procedures (and rarely they do) contain measures of success, these are probably quantitative measures related to the task itself and
not to why the procedure is carried out. The most common perception of such procedures is that they are simply associated with paperwork and filling in
We seem to think that we have created a
procedure by classifying a document as a procedure. These documents are often thought of as high-level procedures. Procedures do not have to be documented
to be procedures and do not have to be only high level. We often hear of procedures addressing the 20 elements of
IS0 9000 and work instructions being
used at departmental level to guide activities. These characteristics of procedures only serve to constrain our thoughts and our intent.
Processes produce results by converting. transforming or simply using inputs to create
outputs. An input could be material, information, people or a set of conditions
and these are passed through a sequence of stages during which they are either
used, transformed or their status changed to emerge
as an output with different characteristics. Hence processes act upon inputs and
are dormant until the input is received. At each stage the transformation tasks
may be procedural, but may also be mechanical, chemical etc. Inherently processes
do not normally recognize departmental or functional boundaries (but are often
hindered by them) nor the boundaries between customers and suppliers. Each
process has an objective with both quantitative and qualitative measures of its
outputs directly related to its objectives. The transformation or process stages
are designed to ensure the combination of resources achieves the objectives -
the desired outputs. Of course this means that the process has to receive the
right inputs to deliver the desired outputs and that the correct resources are
applied at the right stages, in the correct quantities and in the right manner
It is true that a process can be illustrated as a sequence of steps just as a
procedure is illustrated, but the similarity ends there.
It's the way we use them
The way we use the words procedure and
process tells us something about how they differ. We tend to start and stop processes. We implement procedures and commence and complete them. We process
information. We do not procedure information but we may employ a procedure to process information. We have plating processes and there may be
plating procedures. In this context, the plating process comprises the resources, people, plant and machinery, and the plating procedure contains the
instructions on how to plate material.
We have process interrupt but not procedure interrupt, because processes are
perceived as continuous and run until physical intervention. In our bodies we have processes, not procedures. The reproductive process, the digestive
process, the respiratory process, these processes are certainly continuous and stop only when an intervention takes place. They may require human
intervention in which a surgeon may employ procedures to effect a repair. Procedures on the other hand are perceived as being discontinuous, having
steps which can be paused with activities or actions picked up or put down at will.
Procedures usually relate to groups of activities
with a given output where that output may not be complete until acted upon by someone else at a later stage in the process. Therefore, procedures are the
actions taken by individuals in a process that may span across several functions and use multiple resources to deliver a predetermined output at a
given rate at a given location on a given date.
Whether any change is necessary depends upon
perception and attitude. If documented procedures merely respond to requirements in a standard they are not likely to demonstrate a clear line of
sight to the real purpose of why the procedure is necessary. This is very often the root cause of why the people involved do not see the value in
carrying out the actions. It is very likely that many organizations will have to undergo a fairly radical rethink of the way they regard their management
system. In order to satisfy the requirements, needs and expectations of the interested parties (customers, shareholders, employees, suppliers and
community) organizations have to identify the critical processes that deliver satisfaction. It is also clear that the effective management of those
processes depends upon common understanding and monitoring of how success is measured. Perhaps the most crucial and radical factor is the
constant focus and alignment of the key stages on achieving the end results.
The implication here is that in many cases
the organization and the activities must have a greater alignment. The previous notion of a 'functional' organization (for example, where different
departments have created their own internal agendas and cultures with no clear linkage to defined organizational objectives) has to be seriously
questioned. It is all too tempting for organizations to address this issue by simply adopting a 'cross-functional' approach which in
reality means that they gather together representatives from different functional bunkers and let them fight it out. In general, cross-functional teams
are not a substitute for process management. Simplistically, functions tend to be vertical in nature, processes are horizontal, with stakeholder
interest at both ends.
To make a transition away from managing procedures towards process management,
an organization must answer whether it has:
clearly defined what its objectives are and
how it will measure and review the success of achieving those objectives
evaluated the impact of those objectives on
the interested parties, the stakeholders
designed the critical, end-to-end processes
necessary to deliver the objectives
assessed and provided the resources, skills
and competence to make the processes work
The underlying principles of the business
excellence model and the latest versions of ISO 9000, ISO 9001 and ISO
9004 should leave people in no doubt that the change in language from procedure to process is not about
perception or semantics. There is a very real change of focus required by many organizations if they are to remain competitive, and
with this change comes the significant opportunity to ensure that their processes are designed to consistently add value.
Now look at our FAQs on
processes for more information