How does your company structure management reviews of the quality system?

We are part of a world wide corporation with plants in every area. Each plant is a stand alone entity for P&L. We complete management reviews for our operating facility only. Some share sales offices depending on location, and we all share corporate inputs.

I voted, "My company is small enough that we only run one management review for the entire company."Although, we have four facilities (all within a fifty mile radius) and upwards of nearly 300 personnel.

We have at least several management reviews a year, and sometimes more as determined by top management.

My current experience is almost identical to Muleskinner's. A fourth facility is being built and we have a similar number of employees. However, we have just one formal QMS Review a year. We also have quarterly top management meetings where QMS related issues are followed up. Das ist alles.

I am lucky to get everyone to sit down for a QMS MR meeting at all. Still, they fidget. I think that they don't see a benefit - so we must be doing something wrong. I see a benefit...it's called communication and the output is beneficial in my eyes. We were holding these meetings 2x/year.

We are implementing ISO 9001, our pre-audit is next week, and we have switched to a 1x/year meeting as a trial. The registration audit is Oct 24-28 for the main facilities (certified QS since Nov 1998) and a separate audit Nov 9-11 for a facility(sister company) that is 2 hours away and that has never been certified to anything. Oh my....

I am lucky to get everyone to sit down for a QMS MR meeting at all. Still, they fidget. I think that they don't see a benefit - so we must be doing something wrong. I see a benefit...it's called communication and the output is beneficial in my eyes. We were holding these meetings 2x/year.

We are implementing ISO 9001, our pre-audit is next week, and we have switched to a 1x/year meeting as a trial. The registration audit is Oct 24-28 for the main facilities (certified QS since Nov 1998) and a separate audit Nov 9-11 for a facility(sister company) that is 2 hours away and that has never been certified to anything. Oh my....

I don't know about yours, but my external auditor requires a minimum of 2 Management Reviews per year. And we are increasing it to try to add more value. Too many dropped balls with 2 per year.

We used to do 1 annual MR, and then added 4 quarterly meetings where much of the same topics were covered.

So we then renamed the quarterly meetings to MR's, added any mandatory bits of MR that were not already checked and dumped the annual one.

We found that we don't need a single "Management Review Meeting". What we did find was that we already had several other meetings we conducted weekly or bi-monthly, or monthly that addressed all the issues of review and at the appropriate levels. We continuously do Management Review around here. My meetings include Project Status Meeting, Business Planning Meeting, Executive Meeting, Safety Meeting, and Steering Committee Meeting.

Sure, it is just easier to have one meeting once of twice a year, but our in our company we constantly look over everything in these other meetings as part of our normal business practices.

QMS used to be monthly, but that became too much a hand-holding session and there was no value to it. So QMS reviews are now quarterly, with a large annual reviewed scheduled for next month.

EMS is still monthly. Safety is still monthly.

Keeping in mind, however, that those reviews above are with only senior management present.

All three still present monthly updates at all levels.

I don't know about yours, but my external auditor requires a minimum of 2 Management Reviews per year. And we are increasing it to try to add more value. Too many dropped balls with 2 per year.

This week is just the pre-audit. We had 1 meeting already and will have another in 3 weeks....just to get caught up for the Reg audit at the end of October.
Lee

Lee - good luck - let us know how it goes!:bigwave:

rafrost - can he show you where the requirement is for a minimum of 2 meetings a year? Is it in your contract or one of your own internal documents? 'Cause it ain't in the standard.

We have a monthly warranty review meeting strictly for reviewing customer returns - this usually only takes about half an hour. We also have quarterly management review meetings where we review our key process indicators and any open quality issues (corrective actions, preventive actions, employee suggestions) - this meeting is usually an hour or two long. Then we have our big annual meeting where we review our business plans, policies and objectives, strategies and indicators and the effectiveness of our QMS for the past year so we can revise or reaffirm for the coming year.

:topic: A little comic relief:

Our monthly warranty review meeting is next week, Wednesday, so I have a meeting memo hanging on the cork board by the fax machine. My favorite friend at work - the Engineering Manager - altered this Dilbert and hung it just below my meeting memo - which does list the required attendees. Cute.

I don't know about yours, but my external auditor requires a minimum of 2 Management Reviews per year. And we are increasing it to try to add more value. Too many dropped balls with 2 per year.
Sorry I missed this first time around. I agree with Cari. The decision as to management review frequency rests with the organisation's management.

The auditor has no business "requiring" a more frequent review. S/he can ask if the frequency is appropriate and can even raise a NC if the review isn't effective.

If you have decided the review needs to be more frequent in order to be more effective then I am happy.

P.S. Loved the Dilbert, Cari.

I don't know about yours, but my external auditor requires a minimum of 2 Management Reviews per year. And we are increasing it to try to add more value. Too many dropped balls with 2 per year.
As a suggestion I can see an external auditor desiring two or more Management Reviews in a year - given the newness of the implementation and so as encourage management to get familiar with the format - But the Standard makes no such demands. One Management Review meeting per year is complaint with the text and intent of the Standard.

We have a Report that we complete on a monthly basis that covers all the elements of a management review. It is called the Quality Report.
This Report are circulated amongst the Top Management for their approval and/ recommendations. We find it is easier to do it on a monthly basis as the info is still fresh

Regards
Rickmel.:)

We find it is easier to do it on a monthly basis as the info is still freshNow, there is a point to consider. The timespan will differ between companies, but sooner or later the data will become too old to act on.

Not to mention how much foggier our memories will be... :rolleyes:

/Claes

We are working on a new format here having tired of the old boring "bring your data to the meeting and we will discuss it" meetings. We have done some preliminary work on formatting a "Management System Scorecard" that would spark discussion about the various processes that make up our system. We would issue this prior to the Management Review meeting so that everyone could come prepared to review where we are and what things we want to work on with action items. I have attached our scorecard so that you can see how we would like to take this new format. Could I have some opinions from those at the cove on how this format looks? Do you think this is a good direction to take to get things discussed in the review meeting?

We are working on a new format here having tired of the old boring "bring your data to the meeting and we will discuss it" meetings. We have done some preliminary work on formatting a "Management System Scorecard" that would spark discussion about the various processes that make up our system. We would issue this prior to the Management Review meeting so that everyone could come prepared to review where we are and what things we want to work on with action items. I have attached our scorecard so that you can see how we would like to take this new format. Could I have some opinions from those at the cove on how this format looks? Do you think this is a good direction to take to get things discussed in the review meeting?

I'm interested in the criteria you use to categorize problems. For example, what constitutes "serious harm"? What's the difference between "poor" and "need improvement"?

Our annual objectives list states the frequency that we review the objective. The time intervals are monthly, quarterly, semi-annually and annually.

We have 10 one hour monthly meetings and 2 four hour 6 month reviews. The 6 month reviews follow the clauses of the 9001 standard, and are held right before our 6 month surveillance audit, so I have a fresh data pack to start each audit with.

For example, for section 6.3, Infrastructure, we look at the capitol budget expenditures and the status of Lean projects. For 6.4 Work Environment, we review the Environmental Health and Safety program. I've worked a bunch of places and never seen a more in-depth management review.

I'm interested in the criteria you use to categorize problems. For example, what constitutes "serious harm"? What's the difference between "poor" and "need improvement"?
Our thought is "serious harm" is affecting our business now and is quite visible, "poor" is probably going to affect us soon if it hasn't already, and "needs improvement" means it's OK and probably won't cause any problems but it sure could be better!

I must mention that we have quite a few initiatives going on here which look at the key metrics of the business daily, weekly, and monthly. Thus we have no desire to rehash any of this in a meeting every 6 months. On top of that our Operations Manager is very anti-ISO saying it's just too beaurocratic for good business. :caution:

.... On top of that our Operations Manager is very anti-ISO saying it's just too beaurocratic for good business. :caution:

Well, can you make it less bureaucratic, so it serves your needs better? ISO isn't intended to make things worse, but it does have to be properly tailored to meet each organization's own needs.

In my experience, we conduct Management Review once in three months at the organisation level attended by all process owners.
In which every process owner's Process Measure achievement Vs. Target during the period will be reviewed using score card mechanism we have implemented.
All negative deviations needs to be supported by "effective" Corrective Actions and will be discussed in detail if deemed necessary.
The effectiveness of CA initiated for the previous period required to be proved/explained to all.
Ofcourse, every aspects of MR input will be discussed.
As a continual improvement measure, we introdcued a monthly review within the Process and the outcome of this will help for compilation during Management Review presentation.

:agree1:

Rgds,
Robert Thomas
Project Quality Manager
Dubai

In my experience, we conduct Management Review once in three months at the organisation level attended by all process owners.
In which every process owner's Process Measure achievement Vs. Target during the period will be reviewed using score card mechanism we have implemented.
All negative deviations needs to be supported by "effective" Corrective Actions and will be discussed in detail if deemed necessary.
The effectiveness of CA initiated for the previous period required to be proved/explained to all.
Ofcourse, every aspects of MR input will be discussed.
As a continual improvement measure, we introdcued a monthly review within the Process and the outcome of this will help for compilation during Management Review presentation.

:agree1:

Rgds,
Robert Thomas
Project Quality Manager
Dubai

Welcome to the Cove, Robert and a very nice first post! :bigwave: Can you explain a bit more on what you mean by a monthly review within the process and how the outcome of this reviews helps the compiliation for Management Review?

yesi beleive that sd

Looks like I'm in the majority.

And, coincidentally, I'm just sitting down to write the Management Review Procedure today.

Our corporation runs on CMMI and our location runs on ISO. So, we have multiple layers of review on all of our products and systems. We require that all topics under the management review system be discusses at least twice a year. We hold full system (ISO) management reviews twice per year. Project managers report to the next level up every month while the process folks report two levels up each month. The folks recieved those reports report to the folks about them quarterly.

Everything "required" is often covered 8 times per year, but it differs as to when.

We've had some discussion on management reviews with our certifying auditor, and we both agreed on lowering the frequency from 4 times/year to once a year. Reason for this is the fact that management reviews with a higher frequency tend to turn into "quality meetings" where no real review of the effectiveness of the management system takes place. Instead people start discussing specific complaints, perfomance indicators, etc. All this is fine, but not as a management review.

And since i want the quality topics to be covered in normal business meetings and not specific quality meetings, we've said the frequency to yearly.

And for all good order, I'm not talking about our reporting structure, which does have monthly and quarterly frequencies.

To sum it all up, my opinion is that one management review a year is enough.

To sum it all up, my opinion is that one management review a year is enough.As usual, there is no single solution for this quandary. The adequacy of frequency for management reviews depend on many aspects such as system maturity level, business size & stability, market stability, product complexity, production volumes, customer feedback, etc...

My organization reviews objective related reports monthly via electronic media and we hold the formal Management Review meeting annually. The monthly reviews have allowed us to reduce the time required for the formal Managment Review Meeting by about 2.5 hours.

As usual, there is no single solution for this quandary. The adequacy of frequency for management reviews depend on many aspects such as system maturity level, business size & stability, market stability, product complexity, production volumes, customer feedback, etc...

When i discussed this with my external BSI auditor, he said he thought a quarterly management review is to frequent, and because of that will lack the ability to distance the management team from every day business, which results in very "operational" management review, and not the "strategic" management review he (and me) would like to see.

The point is that a management review is not the same as a monthly quality meeting/reporting structure like mshell is saying as well.

There is a risk Mgt. Review is too frequent that it becomes diluted. But, if you are aware of that risk, you can prevent it. What I see at my clients is 4, 2 or 1 meeting per year. A few do one every month. The frequency is less important, than making sure it is effective.

A uniques twist that some do, is to review part of the system at each meeting, but to focus on those processes which were audited in the previous quarter. This allows them to review the freshest material.

...will lack the ability to distance the management team from every day business, which results in very "operational" management review, and not the "strategic" management review he (and me) would like to see. Would it be possible for you to elaborate on what are the issues discussed during a "strategic" management review, opposed to the issues listed in 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 of ISO 9001:2000?

Would it be possible for you to elaborate on what are the issues discussed during a "strategic" management review, opposed to the issues listed in 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 of ISO 9001:2000?

Course i can :) (try). To start with i ifully agree with everyone telling me the 9001:2000 doesn't say a certain frequency is better. My point is that very frequent management reviews tend to turn into regular quality meetings where middle management is taking the lead instead of top management. Middle management knows what happens on the workfloor, and these issues are discussed. Businesswise you can't tell top management that they need to review a quality management system more then once a year. They'll ask what happens if i do it only once a year? Middle management should do "quality meetings" or other meetings in which the monitoring & measurement of products and processes is discussed as ongoing daily business. This should form the major input for a yearly strategic management review. Now, to get back to your question :D .

I believe the input and output of a management review mentioned in 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 can be done from an "ongoing business point of view" which should be done by middle management. Example = customer feedback, lots of issues with delivery time, decision to look for a new logistics provider.

But they can also be reviewed on a more strategic level, not looking at just what customers think of you at this moment, but also in a wider perspective. Example = customer feedback, lots of issues with delivery time, decision to investigate a possible investment in a logistic provider. Top management looks at overall company performance, not just what the status of preventive and corrective actions are for example.

Point is the top management really only has strategic output. Tactical decisions are made at middle management level. So to turn the question around, if you do a management review with top management, how can it not be strategic?

Here's some quotes from the 9004:2000 where i got some inspiration from.

5.6.1 9004:2000 "outputs from review should provide data for use in planing for performance improvement of the organization."
5.6.3 9004:2000 "Top management can use this review as a powerful tool in the identification of opportunities for performance improvement of the organization. The schedule of reviews should facilitate the timely provision of data in the context of strategic planning for the organization.

Regards, Martijn

I believe the input and output of a management review mentioned in 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 can be done from an "ongoing business point of view" which should be done by middle management. But that would not comply with ISO 9001, which requires TOP MANAGEMENT to review the QMS....
Here's some quotes from the 9004:2000 where i got some inspiration from.

5.6.1 9004:2000 "outputs from review should provide data for use in planing for performance improvement of the organization."
5.6.3 9004:2000 "Top management can use this review as a powerful tool in the identification of opportunities for performance improvement of the organization. The schedule of reviews should facilitate the timely provision of data in the context of strategic planning for the organization.

Regards, MartijnI commend you for looking into ISO 9004, and obviously, review of the system with a strategic perspective is highly advisable, but I contend that the management review required in ISO 9001 is an operational-type management review.
Thanks for clarifying your post.

I have attached the chart of meetings that make up what our company considers management review. The chart defines who the chairperson for each meeting is, what the purpose is, the schedule and what some of the inputs are. I have also attached a process map that shows how Management Review ties into continuous improvement for our company.

But that would not comply with ISO 9001, which requires TOP MANAGEMENT to review the QMS....

What i meant is that middle management should handle these issues from an operational point of view, in other words, deal with them, "quality meeting style" if you wish. Only top management does the yearly strategic management review.

In my present company there is little support from management for ISO and in adopting the ISO mentality in management. We have not had a management review in more than 3 years. As I prepare for ISO recertification (lapsed in Feb of 2005) tentatively schedule for the end of this year, I find it extremely difficult to accomplish the goal of haolding at least one MR before we go for recertification. Here in quality we have a manager that possesses NO experience in Quality or ISO, and has NO education. His experience is in Planning and inventory control. He was given the title of Business process improvement manager. He DOES NOT have any continual improvement or process improvement experience either.
I have tried to point him in the learning direction where he can take seminars and a self study course on Quality. He has not...
He basically has asked me to prepare him to run the Managemetn review meetings and I have real issues with this.
Needless to say, what advice would my forum pals offer in this quandry...?
Thank You:confused: :nopity:

I think this is a sad scenario that many quality professionals can identify with. Here are some ideas from my experience: (The common theme is trying to relate improvement of business performance with measurements, action and structure, using ISO 9001 as a framework for this -- rather than a model to be merely complied with.)

1. Are customers demanding ISO 9001? What's the driver? Who stands to lose if certification fails? (And avoid making it "quality's problem".)

2. Can you align the QMS with real business performance?

3. Do you have data on business performance. I've noticed that the most powerful quality managers have data on things like defect rates and customer satisfaction that they can correlate with revenues and costs: hit your management team in the wallet!

4. How did you get away without MRs for so long? Can you get a more useful registrar?

5. Try putting onto the MR agenda business indicators like on-time delivery, defect rates, return rates, customer satisfaction, problem reports and response time. Relate them to costs and revenues, and ask for action to improve negative trends. If they won't do that, ask them what kind of business managers they think they are?? (Then duck, quick.)

6. Or, look for another job. (Sorry, but it's a serious suggestion. I stayed in one place way too long with this kind of nonsense and nobody thanks you while you go quietly mad.)

Hope this helps,
Patrick

I agree with the above. You can also declare "Compliance" to ISO9001 if you don't have to be registered. You don't have to have it all in one meeting. You can break down the topics and review in separate meetings and still comply.

Or request a pre-assessment, where the auditor can give the management team some frank feedback about the cost of their lack of management review.

I agree with the above. You can also declare "Compliance" to ISO9001 if you don't have to be registered. You don't have to have it all in one meeting. You can break down the topics and review in separate meetings and still comply.

...except of course, that they do not appear to be compliant, even though the registrar seems to think they are...:truce:

Or request a pre-assessment, where the auditor can give the management team some frank feedback about the cost of their lack of management review.


It would not appear the auditor in question has been competent to see that, or to provide meaningful input. Further, it is very difficult for an auditor solely to move a company in the right direction, unless there is some buy-in from management.

This appears to be a sinking ship, unless they get true religion in time. This scenario is what gives ISO a bad name, and why the ABs get so ugly sometimes.

The standard says that management review must be hald at "planned intervals". It does not say twice a year, once a week or whatever.
It also clearly outlines what aspects need to be covered, but it does not say that all of these have to be covered at the same time.
It says that records must be maintained.
Most importantly though are those "recommendations for improvement".

What we do, and has been acceptable for a good few audits, is we spread the review inputs, - and obviously minuted outputs - over a number of sessions. By doing this, the meetings are shorter and more focused. Our collegues with ADHD manage easier too. We also get better attendance out of the people who need to be in on the various review items. For example - customer feedback will involve representitives from production but include our whole sales team. Folow up actions are raised, but are specific to the item on the agenda. When all the minutes are put together, we have a rather complete and detailed record of management review.

I dont know if this will work for you, but we had the same issues in the past with a bunch of people together, some got bored, some suddenly became politicians, some hid at the back etc.
Doing it this way made the meetings shorter and helped to get alot more involvement and meaningful output rather than a :bonk: gathering because ISO says we have to.

I feel like an outcast. I hold QMS Man. Revs. once per month. Brownie points with the registrar. :applause:

I feel like an outcast. I hold QMS Man. Revs. once per month. Brownie points with the registrar. :applause:



You shouldn't feel like an outcast. Many companies do monthly or quarterly.

...Not sure why it should get brownie points though? Do what is best for your management team, not the registrar.

I feel like an outcast. I hold QMS Man. Revs. once per month. Brownie points with the registrar. :applause:

Echo hjilling's point somewhat. It is what's best for you - matter of fact I would be more likely to raise an NC - I have yet to see a very frequent Management Review that effectively looks at the whole system - broad generalization but it is generally too close to the day to day to be effective as a strategic tool.

Pretorian, out of curiousity, how long has your organization been registered to ISO 9001? Do review the same topics every month or are they rotated?

We, too, used to hold Management Review monthly. However, having been registered since 1998, in 2004 I put for the "Recommendation for Improvement" that a formal meeting be held at the beginning of each quarter to discuss the past quarter and YTD trends. Annually, as well, we have the "Huge Honkin' Management Review" where annual data is reviewed and compared against historical data - a higher level analysis of the numbers.

The reason for our change to quarterly was that the monthly sessions seemed more like baby-sitting. I'd nag, Management would do. Monthly, I still do an email about any outstanding issues, but moving to a quarterly has made our reviews more about discussions and less about baby-sitting.

I agree with Paul, that the greater the period under review, the more strategic it tends to be. Many process improvements take longer than a month to implement and see results, so often at the end of each month the players just say, "yeah, we're still working on it."

We have quarterly strategic meetings which include follow up of QMS issues, and one "Huge Honkin" (thanks Roxane) review annually, which is linked to the strategic business plan updates.

We explain to the auditor(s) why our system is effective for us. It is not to please them.

Doing it this way made the meetings shorter and helped to get a lot more involvement and meaningful output rather than a :bonk: gathering because ISO says we have to.

Great. A lovely example of having a system that works for you and in your business context. Which is what it's supposed to be about, IMO.

We found that we don't need a single "Management Review Meeting". What we did find was that we already had several other meetings we conducted weekly or bi-monthly, or monthly that addressed all the issues of review and at the appropriate levels. We continuously do Management Review around here. My meetings include Project Status Meeting, Business Planning Meeting, Executive Meeting, Safety Meeting, and Steering Committee Meeting.

Sure, it is just easier to have one meeting once of twice a year, but our in our company we constantly look over everything in these other meetings as part of our normal business practices.

I came in here asking if this was a feasible approach as it's what I intend on implementing. I guess I was right. The QMS review shouldnt be an "event" but rather a continuous review through the information gathered and mulled over from various other reviews (financial, productivity, etc...)

You shouldn't feel like an outcast. Many companies do monthly or quarterly.

...Not sure why it should get brownie points though? Do what is best for your management team, not the registrar.

Precisely. Everything you do must first make good business sense, then it must make ISO sense. Damn the standard for being a dictator.

Precisely. Everything you do must first make good business sense, then it must make ISO sense.

Sometimes I think we lose the point when we start 'damning' things or insisting something shouldn't be done 'just because it's in ISO'. While I agree with that to some extent, what about why it contains what it does? I've found that that the Standard itself is focussed on good sense (business sense if you're a profit-making business, organisational otherwise.) So what works well is to seek to understand the meaning of the requirement... and then apply it.

I've worked with it for a couple of decades now, in various roles and more organisations than I can remember. And the more I see it in a whole range of organisations, ranging from done abominably with almost no understanding to incredibly well and all shades in between, the more I see why it contains the various elements that it does.

Damn the standard for being a dictator.

The Standard ain't a 'dictator'. And no one, but no one, is forced to achieve it. It's a choice. As the Standard itself says, it's a 'strategic decision of an organisation'.

If you choose to damn it, it's akin to choosing to enrol in a university for a particular qualification, and then damning the content of the course that you chose! When you had every opportunity beforehand to read what was in it, & what would be required.

The only dictators around are people. And if people like to dictate, or think it works, then they use whatever tool is to hand to support their dictating, whether that's a Standard, a holy book, or a political tract, or whatever. Let it off the hook, and put the responsibility where it belongs.

I came in here asking if this was a feasible approach as it's what I intend on implementing. I guess I was right. The QMS review shouldnt be an "event" but rather a continuous review through the information gathered and mulled over from various other reviews (financial, productivity, etc...)


It can be feasible, and I used to be a proponent of it. However, there is a risk that the meetings all just become daily or weekly production meetings, and that none step back and look at the longer view. You must guard against this and keep records to ensure you cover all the required inputs if you want to try this approach.

But, try it. It can be successful if done correctly.

The Standard ain't a 'dictator'. And no one, but no one, is forced to achieve it. It's a choice. As the Standard itself says, it's a 'strategic decision of an organisation'.


Oops...sorry. I originally forgot to put my smiley next to that. I know it isnt a dictator...just playing on that too many people build their business around ISO...like writing a quality manual that is identical to the standard with their company name in place of 'the organization'. :)

It can be feasible, and I used to be a proponent of it. However, there is a risk that the meetings all just become daily or weekly production meetings, and that none step back and look at the longer view. You must guard against this and keep records to ensure you cover all the required inputs if you want to try this approach.

But, try it. It can be successful if done correctly.

Understandable. We have plenty of production meetings but also quite a few pre-scheduled meetings for support processes etc...so it should be somewhat black and white. Thanks!

I originally forgot to put my smiley next to that.

Jawohl! Next time you vill remember to do! :lol:

In fact, although we are small, we decided not long ago that preliminary meetings to filter some points to cover in the single management review cause sometimes the sales people have so much info to provide and get that they take over the whole meeting!!

I could not see a category for what we do:
We have twice annual reviews at a site level with outputs and results cascading upwards to an annual company review.

Hi to All,
What should I review during managment review on "changes that could affect Quality Management System"? Could you provide some examples or what you have reviewed during your management reviews.

I appreciate your information.
Anerol C.:bigwave:

Hi to All,
What should I review during managment review on "changes that could affect Quality Management System"? Could you provide some examples or what you have reviewed during your management reviews.

I appreciate your information.
Anerol C.:bigwave:

Hello Anerol,

Examples of ISO 9001:2000, Clause 5.6.2 f) "Changes that could affect the quality management system":

New customers
New products
Mergers and acquisitions
Downsizing, reduction in workforce
Changes in responsibilities of key personnel
Supplier changes
New equipment, manufacturing systems, technology
Changes in government (federal, state, local) regulations
Revisions of standards
Etc.
Hope this helps.

Stijloor.

There seems to be this division between the frequent monthly reviews and the quarterly reviews or less. Is this the same as the difference between the operations method of task tracking and updating and the strategic method of review? I have trouble right now in settling on a good format. If I knew more about your meeting format it may help. :thanx:

We are just past our first certification and I'm trying to find a good way to review quality issues in our company. We plan to hold a quarterly MR. I have a quality meeting that my Management Rep. used to hold before the Cert. Audit. I've taken it over now but I'm not sure what it should aim to accomplish.

Our QMS still has many less than perfect parts I'd like to address. I also feel I need senior executive support to ensure middle management participation. Not all my middle managers understands they have to own their processes.

So I'm trying to make this fit our company. Top Management wants to make it short and informative in report format; middle management wants to discuss and address issues, as do I. This seems to indicate two different meetings?

Any help would be appreciated. :tg:

One interesting aspect of 'management' and which many failed to comprehend is that often there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers. Good Management is about making decisions that matches well with the environment or situation at that particular moment.

Similarly, there isn't an answer for the best 'frequency' for conducting management reviews. Do what suits you, your company and the business environment it is operating in.

Upon some discussion and consideration, it seems best to cancel this meeting.

Management Review already covers the QMS and strategic review. There's no need for us to do this on a monthly basis. My quality concerns should be addressed in this venue.

We can hold individual brainstorming sessions and meetings to resolve issues. There's no need to bring everyone into a small discussion.

As a startup who just ramped to not-so-much-a-startup, I still want to keep the small emails and watercooler discussion. Bring out the big hammer on the sesame seeds only makes people feel :bonk:

Root cause seems to be that we never put together a good Steering Committee.

One interesting aspect of 'management' and which many failed to comprehend is that often there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers. Good Management is about making decisions that matches well with the environment or situation at that particular moment.

Similarly, there isn't an answer for the best 'frequency' for conducting management reviews. Do what suits you, your company and the business environment it is operating in.

Which reminds me, we sometimes talk about changing the culture here from flexible and chaotic to something more organized and stiff. It was a major issue for ISO implementation.

It's probably better to fit the system to the culture and minimize change. Focus improvement efforts one spot at a time.

One interesting aspect of 'management' and which many failed to comprehend is that often there are no 'right' or 'wrong' answers. Good Management is about making decisions that matches well with the environment or situation at that particular moment.

Similarly, there isn't an answer for the best 'frequency' for conducting management reviews. Do what suits you, your company and the business environment it is operating in.

Quite so, Harry. Well said.

Ywang, you'll go mad if you try to find the one 'best answer' or the 'right answer' to this topic. There are perhaps as many different ways of doing management review as there are of running companies. Some of them are good, some are not so good, some are better than others, some are worse.

Harry's advice is very sound. You should do what works for, and suits, your company, your management and your environment.

By all means listen to various points of view, but do be aware that the forum has many people in it it, from many differing organisations, of various sizes, and experience, history and background.

Quite so, Harry. Well said.

Ywang, you'll go mad if you try to find the one 'best answer' or the 'right answer' to this topic. There are perhaps as many different ways of doing management review as there are of running companies. Some of them are good, some are not so good, some are better than others, some are worse.

Harry's advice is very sound. You should do what works for, and suits, your company, your management and your environment.

By all means listen to various points of view, but do be aware that the forum has many people in it it, from many differing organisations, of various sizes, and experience, history and background.

Hi, Jane. I'm not looking for the right answer. I'm looking for other people's experience so I can catch some common threads and develop an approach that works for us. I'm also polling my process owners to see what they want.

So far, what we have does not work. :(

Ywang,

Terrific - sounds you're very much on the right track.

We are just past our first certification and I'm trying to find a good way to review quality issues in our company. We plan to hold a quarterly MR.

Is there a sound reason behind the plan for the quarterly MR? Elsewhere you said you were polling management to see what they wanted.

Note, I'm not arguing against it. Some of my clients have found it works well to have their regular meetings to deal with operational business, and then have a less frequent meeting to stand back and review progress from a higher level. If the same people are at both, however, it requies some discipline from the chair, and a clear agenda & understanding of what each meeting is intended for, to keep it clear.

I have a quality meeting that my Management Rep. used to hold before the Cert. Audit. I've taken it over now but I'm not sure what it should aim to accomplish.
Then it's not a useful meeting. I'd refocus it (get a clear agenda in place and/or a meeting charter agreed by all) or cancel it.

Our QMS still has many less than perfect parts I'd like to address.
I'm sure it does. It's all about that continuous improvement, isn't it? This is very common for both newly certified organisations and for start-ups/just part start-up.

I also feel I need senior executive support to ensure middle management participation. Not all my middle managers understands they have to own their processes.
Absolutely! The Standard is very clear on the need for top management commitment - which has to be demonstrated, not just paid lip service.

So I'm trying to make this fit our company. Top Management wants to make it short and informative in report format; middle management wants to discuss and address issues, as do I. This seems to indicate two different meetings?
Sounds like it. Top management doesn't necessarily need or want the detail -a report is fine, provided that it raises issues when they need escalation and that top management does demonstrate its report (not just receive a report and do zilch).


We can hold individual brainstorming sessions and meetings to resolve issues. There's no need to bring everyone into a small discussion.
Yes you can - but beware the tendency to problem-solve without following a defined process, and then of course without producing any records.


As a startup who just ramped to not-so-much-a-startup, I still want to keep the small emails and watercooler discussion. Bring out the big hammer on the sesame seeds only makes people feel :bonk:
Yup. One seeks the happy medium. For example... it's entirely possible to have a watercooler discussion... and then write it up as a CA or meeting actions or whatever - just don't revert to a purely verbal culture, which ain't ISO 9001.


Root cause seems to be that we never put together a good Steering Committee.
Hmm, I dunno but the words 'Steering Committee' always fill me with a dread. I think of a ship with a committee at the helm... and along comes a storm... must be my mind, I think.:D 'Committee' always seems to me something that talks a lot but doesn't necesarily accomplish much - more to do with government & nonprofit than a dynamic startup (pace anyone from govt reading this). Terms such as 'Steering Group' or 'Strategy Team' or 'Executive Team' sound much more effective and business-like to me. And yes, I do think names are important.

It isn't the lack of structure, so much as the function and the actions, surely? If you have a business strategy (ie, goal/s plus some measurable objectives), then your senior management oughta be periodically at least assessing how they are doing against those objectives. If they aren't, then there's a problem.
Which reminds me, we sometimes talk about changing the culture here from flexible and chaotic to something more organized and stiff. It was a major issue for ISO implementation.

It's probably better to fit the system to the culture and minimize change. Focus improvement efforts one spot at a time.

I'm also polling my process owners to see what they want. So far, what we have does not work. :(
Then it's clearly time to do something different.
I would:
1. Poll senior execs and managers to see what they want (probably different things)
2. Review what they want & what you know about the culture, values & context of your organisation (which none of us know)
3. Come up with a proposed structure & approach.
4. Review that against the requirements of ISO 9001.
5. Communicate the new approach, why & how it meets the needs of the various stakeholders. Emphasise it is to be piloted (thus can be changed later) but set a minimum period of trial - eg, 4-6 months?
6. Try it out & see if it works better.
7. Review it at the end of the period. Study what worked well & what didn't.
Modify as necessary.


By the way, I posted a file called management-review-matrix.pdf in another thread (http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=4834), which sets out an example for an organisation of the differing forums in which 'management review' occurs. I'd post a link, but dunno how to. If you go to Post Attachments List (top of this page), then search with review-matrix in the <optional keyword> field, you should find it.

Hope this helps.

We have two facilities located within 200 miles of each other. We have a MR 2X/year and key measurable review 4X/year. Presentation is done via video telecommunication.

…for me, the structure of management review is least concerned… what matter most is the result from that review…

We have two facilities located within 200 miles of each other. We have a MR 2X/year and key measurable review 4X/year. Presentation is done via video telecommunication.

…like wise, as long as it satisfy the inputs requirement as per clause 5.6.2 of ISO 9001:2000 and appropriate outputs, with effective corrective & preventive action for continual improvement… you'll be doing great…

Reviews are held annually, with all local managers participating.

We're a medical device maker with separate Regulatory and Quality Managers. We have a monthly Corrective Action review meeting, led by the President, to make sure that no Quality issues are getting insufficient priority and action from other departments. We're just transitioning into four senior-management (CEO/owner and President) meetings a year at which Regulatory Review is a key agenda item, along with other departments' reports. From a Regulatory perspective we'll talk about the results of our latest audits, and any operational regulatory issues with customers that amount to current strategic problems, but the primary agenda item for Regulatory and all of the other departments is upcoming strategic issues within the next two years, along with our budgets and plans for what we're going to do about them.

I'm working today on my Regulatory report for the meeting next week.

We conduct quarterly MRs. While our organization is small, we do have two facilities in the Southeast and one in the Northeast. So to streamline, we web conference in the management at the other sites.

I tried to do a MR via email last month and to say the least it was less than satisfactory. I was and still intrigued on how to make this work but breaking down paradigms will take some work. In today’s world I do not see why this wouldn't work. I am thinking maybe a Webinar, but my goal was to make it (MR Meetings) time friendly not so much as location friendly, if that makes sense. I still plan on pursuing it but again because of the problems with the last one it will be a tough road.:2cents:

Bob this is interesting. You got me thinking (uh oh). I'm not so crazy about the email because you lose the collaboration side of it (in companies that actually do care about mgt review and understand the real reason for it). But Sharepoint or a similar tool might not be a bad alternative for interim reviews, since people can comment and collaborate in that environment.

It's always good to remember that the standard does not dictate the frequency of the reviews, does not say it has to be a meeting, and does not say that all things have to be covered at the same frequency in the same venue. So maybe Sharepoint might work for say the discussion around the latest Customer Satisfaction data? Just a couple of thoughts. Cheers:bigwave:

Desara01,

I have never used Sharepoint and will look into that. Have you used it? Is it challenging for us less than IT level people? And of course the age old question all management asks, how much?:biglaugh:

It's always good to remember that the standard does not dictate the frequency of the reviews, does not say it has to be a meeting, and does not say that all things have to be covered at the same frequency in the same venue.

How right you are. Well said. :applause:

Re Sharepoint, as I understand it, is bundled into more recent versions of microsoft. But, I do not know what the "free" functionality is (ok, it's microsoft - is it ever free?) I will have to defer to my colleagues on the pricing etc on this one... I just know it can be very useful. There must be other Sharepoint users out there... :bigwave: