As per clause 5.1 of ISO 9001: 2000, the top management of an organization is required to provide evidence of its commitment to the development and implementation of QMS and continually improving its effectiveness. Five requirements have been specified for this:
a) communicating to the organization the importance of meeting customer as well as statutory and regulatory requirements,
b) establishing the quality policy,
c) ensuring that quality objectives are established,
d) conducting management reviews, and
e) ensuring the availability of resources.

During an audit it was observed that:
a) a written communicatiion has been issued by the top management to all personnel highlighting the importance of meeting customer as well as statutory and regulatory requirements,
b) a quality policy has been established and signed by the top management,
c) A statement of quality objectives has been prepared and signed by the top management,
d) decision of management reviews have been recorded,
e) Adequacy of resources has been reviewed during during management review.

As an auditor will you conclude that the top management has provided adequate evidence of its commitment and the requirements have been complied with? If not, then what more evidence you will need for accepting compliance to each of these requirements?

It appears as though the management's actions are meeting the minimum requirements. When addressing the terms "continually improving" and "ensuring" (which require more than slogans or decrees) the management's actions may also need to include efforts to apply needed corrections and/or improvements. This could mean:

(a) not only describing importance of complying to statutory regulations and requirements but making sure the employees know what those requirements are (or at minimum, have access to the information and their behavior indicates they are working within the regulations and requirements).

(e) so long as no one's resources fall short, simply reviewing them will probably be just fine. At what point in the process do they review--before the job is started, or afterward to be sure what is used can be speedily replenished? Ensuring the availability of resources implies that management is doing more than reviewing and saying, "Yes, we have XYZ" where they would more effectively be saying "We will need ___ quantities of X, Y and Z to ___." And they see to it that the resources are there.

Of course this can be built into the planning system, and managers do their part by simply reviewing that the planning system provides necessary resources though both their implementation and funding.

Do you understand what I mean? Management's reviewing, in the spirit of the standard means looking at the thing and saying "Yes, it looks fine" or "Yes, but this can be improved for greater effectiveness" or "No, we are not satisfied with that." In the letter of the standard it is very often enough to say "Yes, it's fine" and just fix problems as they arise.

That could be quite good enough. However more comprehensive registrars might, when shown that has happened, follow with the question, "And how have you worked to improve the system so the problem doesn't reoccur?" because continual improvement has been included in ISO's 2000 version.

I hope this helps!

One of our contracted trainers wrote this...Larry Whittington
http://www.whittingtonassociates.com

How can top management demonstrate their commitment to the quality management system as required by clause 5.1 of the ISO 9001:2000 standard? Some suggested actions for top management are:

1. Learn
Determine your customer needs and expectations. Understand the ISO 9001 requirements.

2. Imagine
Envision the policy and objectives needed to meet requirements and achieve your vision.

3. Plan
Formulate your strategy to achieve the quality objectives and manage change along the way.

4. Share
Communicate your direction and values regarding quality. Make relevant information available.

5. Train
Ensure the necessary competence is available for effective and efficient operation of the system.

6. Manage
Adopt the process approach. Ensure the system processes are working well together to meet objectives.

7. Lead
Direct the organization by personal example to establish unity of purpose and develop employee trust.

8. Support
Create an environment that encourages the involvement of people. Provide the necessary resources.

9. Delegate
Define responsibilities. Make assignments. Provide resources and authority. Hold people accountable.

10. Participate
Be actively involved in implementing and maintaining the system. Send a clear signal on its importance.

11. Observe
Leave the office and see the work being performed. Find out about possible obstacles and frustrations.

12. Listen
Be willing to hear concerns and gain feedback on system performance. Generate rapport with employees.

13. Promote
Raise the awareness level. Encourage involvement. Set a positive tone. Expect results. Be patient.

14. Measure
Request performance data on processes and products. Keep score of conformity and effectiveness.

15. Analyze
Look at measurement data for trends and patterns. Request changes for improved performance.

16. Review
Examine status and performance of the system on a regular schedule. Seek improvement ideas.

17. Act
Avoid paralysis by analysis. Make informed decisions based on facts. Follow up on assignments.

18. Improve
Establish continual improvement as a permanent objective. Monitor gains and set higher targets.

In other words, perform the basic management duties of directing, controlling, and improving the organization.

All excellent points, Randy. I may even drop a line to Larry to tell him so. thanks for sharing.

To the original question:
I'm curious why the question has arisen. Obviously, the management in question has met the minimum documentary requirements to demonstrate compliance to the Standard. The compliance may not be with the same fervor I might bring to the situation, but The Standard doesn't ask that. The Standard also doesn't require that the management actually implement any improvements, only that it has a mechanism in place to consider improvements. Actual implementation may be prohibited by budget considerations.

So, betterlife, what is your motive for asking the question? Do you feel the management is only paying lip service to the Standard? A lot of managements do. Is there a particular instance which stands out where you feel the management should have done something, but didn't?

In the words of a radio commentator, Paul Harvey, "Tell us the rest of the story."

Give Larry a shout. His site is pretty good and he publishes a free newsletter containg tidbits like the above. I've never met him personally, but I know his reputation and its all good.