I've got a cross-functional flowchart. I've got a checklist, and quality record.

NOTE: I can pass along the checklist and flowchart if you like me to, but I'm sure they are blatant clones of things I've seen here and other places. (and for that I apologize before I offend.)

This will make the question I have to think thru today. Knowing how chaotic we run our company at times? If we tried to make the case that we are ALREADY doing all those items; i.e., 1) discussing, 2) making action items, 3) deploying plans -- then in what meeting(s) could I show evidence to?

1) I'm convinced that Management Review should be both periodic and continual. Most folks do the "once or twice a year, or quarterly" routines.

2) It should be natural. Somehow I don't see us saying, "It is how we do business. Plan, do, check, act."

The Visio file can't be opened in my program because it is a newer version. Any chance you can "down-save" it to an older version?

I can understand that you probably already do those items and you probably have some sort of structured meetings where you do them. How about defining the meetings you already do as part of your Management Review process and then document the agenda and actions of those meetings. If they don't meet all the requirements you have set up, add an annual or semi-annual "summary" to cover what wasn't covered. There is no requirement that Management Review has to be one meeting at a specific date. If your system states you will have them daily, (obvious over-exaggeration) then go for it.

Dave

I have one client that schedules their review on an annual basis. However, they have a list of about five items that trigger a management review, should they occur. This way, if everything is going smoothly, the review happens yearly. However, should something occur (either negative, or positive) to activate the trigger, then management review would ensure management is responding appropriately.

uploaded. it let me back it down to Visio, version 5.

its funny. two post, and two different views. ain't life good.

;)

I'm leaning toward first view. I think we already do it.

"How about defining the meetings you already do as part of your Management Review process and then document the agenda and actions of those meetings. If they don't meet all the requirements you have set up, add an annual or semi-annual "summary" to cover what wasn't covered. "

but I see importance of second view.

"if everything is going smoothly, the review happens yearly. However, should something occur (either negative, or positive) to activate the trigger, then management review would ensure management is responding appropriately. "

I'm thinking of posting the meeting names, typical attendance personnel, or at least who chairs it, and type/schedule (is it daily, weekly, monthly -- and it is at set time each period. What triggers it?)

I'm thinking of listing the 'required' discussion topics, and showing when they are discussed. I'm planning on the meeting minutes, or action items, or updated reports will show progress toward the goals -- or more specifically, "to ensure the continuing suitability and effectiveness.".. some objective evidence that this is not all for convenience sake -- and we aren't just too lazy to actually have a meeting for this specific purpose.

Making sense? Or am I rambling.

My checklist form shows the following:

There is no requirement that Management Review has to be one meeting ...

For that matter there is no requirement that it be a meeting!

what else might it be. elaborate?

The requirement is only that top management review the quality management system. So, if not during a meeting, how?

Well top management could gather all of the input data, and review it while lounging aboard the yacht. Or perhaps have a program developed that would automatically query the database to daily show metrics related to the required inputs. I suppose one could have “reporting and evaluation of the cost of poor quality” without a meeting. All you would do is publish the report and the evaluation.

Use your imagination!

Realistically, however, I know of no company that uses anything other than a meeting. Just like a one-page quality manual. It might meet the letter of the standard, but it would really raise some eyebrows.

It worked that time - thanks.

I think Dave and I are really saying the same thing. It is up to you to decide how often to have the review and if it fits the needs of your company, you get to define how it works.

I agree that it doesn't even have to be a meeting. It can be a review of submitted data by management. It doesn't have to be full management either. It could be reviewed by one or two if that's the way it works best for you.

Dave

Well top management could gather all of the input data, and review it while lounging aboard the yacht.

lmbo. works for me.

Seriously though. Excel spreadsheets, entitled departmental policy. Contains metrics, targets, major points of action plan. There's part of it. I'm thinking if truly all of your Management Review Inputs were linked thru a dynamic webpage, or at least a fairly complex spreadsheet.. you might make a case for --> Well top management could gather all of the input data, and review it while lounging aboard the yacht.

lmbo. works for me.

Just my opinion:
In my shops, formal "management review" was review of two types of reports - internal audit and incident reports (like a CAR) in addition to just plain "management by walking around."

Management review could be by one or more managers, depending upon the nature and scope of the report. It did not have to be a "meeting" with other humans, it could be strictly correspondence (text, pictures, charts.)

What made it a "review" was that we recorded the fact that Mr. A, Ms. B, and Mr. C reviewed the report and the action they "dictated" was [thus and such] with a follow-up evaluation required by [date.]

We also published the "action" to all pertinent parties and a final report of the evaluation (worked or didn't work.)

Well I think we are getting down to the process, Wes.. the action of review goes way beyond conducting another meeting -- for the sole purpose of acknowledging that a MR occurred. I like how you are looking at it. Parallel review, multiple reviews, ad hoc where necessary.. but.. but.. to ensure all items are considered (see earlier .gif checklist) -- I think some measure of listing how these reviews occur is warranted.

But I like how you think, Wes.

Here's EXACTLY the way we put it:
5.6 Management review
5.6.1 General
Executive Management formally reviews each department within the company at least once a year.

Quality Assurance helps in this process by creating and providing checklists to provide a framework for the review. The purpose of the review is to assess whether the Quality System is working according to plan.

The underlying theory for this review is the philosophy of quality guru W. Edward Deming about management which
“. . . needs to understand that the performance of anyone is governed largely by the system that he works in, the responsibility of management.”

We record review conclusions. Management Review Policy Procedure (EAD80-0001-16) provides uniform rules for scheduling, conducting and recording the management review.

Based on the conclusions, management may modify the plan or procedures to have a more workable system.

5.6.2 Review input
All operations of our organization come under management review at least annually. The input includes, but is not limited to

Customer feedback
Internal audit results
Status of preventive and corrective actions
Recommendations for changes or improvements
5.6.3 Review output
Management publishes the resulting decisions and actions of reviews to the affected departments and interested parties. The results may include

Acknowledgement of the effectiveness of the reviewed process
Recommendations for initiating a ‘Plan-Do-Review-Act’ procedure
Changes implemented based on suggestions

The management review inputs have been given in the clauses 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 of the ISO 9001 standard. The auditors do want to make sure that the relevant inputs have been addressed during the management review. I generally use these inputs as agenda for the management review meeting and discuss these points in addition to other points on the agenda.

4.2.1 Management Review meeting are held with the following agenda:

a) Results of corrective and preventive actions and their effectiveness.
b) Performance against regulatory norms.
c) Summary of performance results against set objective and target
including continual improvement.
d) Adequacy of policy in the light of changing and emerging business
and legislative needs.
e) Performance against continual improvement targets and plans for
future periods.
f) Resource requirements and organizational adequacy for targeted
QMS objectives.
g) Adequacy of internal communication procedures.

k) Review of the action(s) implemented arising out of the previous
meeting(s)

l) Results of Internal Audits & Corrective actions taken to resolve the
non-conformances;

m) Review of customer Feed backs - complaints, Statutory Complaints
and their resolution.

n) Any modifications in Statutory / Govt. Regulatory / Legal
requirements and emphasis on customer requirements

o) Performance of the departments with respect to product
conformity, Rejection, Straight pass, Warranty and process
compliance;

p) Status of Corrective & Preventive actions initiated to eliminate
potential causes of non-conformities;

q) Recommendations received from concerned Functional Heads for
continul improvements in their sections for QMS and the relevant
processes & EMS.

r) Review of resources and up-gradation of technology based on
progressive needs, if any.

s) All Requirements of QMS, Major changes in the system and
documentation as a result of corrective and preventive actions

t) Adequacy of company’s Quality Policy and objectives.

u) Quality Cost

v) Analysis of actual and Potential Field Failure and its impact over
Quality, Safety and Environment.