Chapter 7: Process Owners: Assigning Real Accountability Without Creating New Titles

Here's where ISO implementation often derails at Canadian plants: someone decides every process needs a dedicated coordinator. Suddenly you have a "Materials Process Coordinator" and an "Inspection Process Coordinator," and the shop floor supervisor who actually runs the stamping press every day isn't involved.

The right question isn't: *Who should we hire?* It's: Who already owns this work?

At Precision Fabrications, the stamping process is owned by Dave, the shop supervisor. He's also responsible for scheduling, equipment maintenance sign-off, and operator break coverage. Dave wears multiple hats. That's reality at a 45-person shop.

The ISO 9001 process approach *acknowledges that reality instead of denying it*.

How to Assign Process Ownership Correctly

1. Name the person already doing the work, not a new title.
2. Define the scope clearly (what is Dave accountable for in the stamping process, and what's outside his scope?).
3. Document any cross-functional dependencies (Dave coordinates with the quality inspector on first-piece acceptance; he doesn't make that decision alone).
4. Give the owner authority to improve the process (Dave can suggest changes to the stamping SOP; he doesn't need four approvals).
5. Hold the owner accountable to measurable KPIs (stamping first-pass yield, changeover time, preventive maintenance compliance).

Common Mistake to Avoid

Many plants make the quality manager the owner of every process. The reasoning is: "Quality touches everything." But that creates a bottleneck. The quality manager becomes the gatekeeper instead of the enabler.

Shop floor staff become passive—they execute procedures instead of owning outcomes.

The fix: Separate process ownership from quality assurance oversight. Dave owns the stamping process. The quality manager audits it, provides training and tools, and escalates systemic issues. But Dave is the one accountable for stamping output quality.