I got an internal audit finding and was wondering if it is legit.

"During review of management review, the quality objectives were discussed as required by ... procedures. It was found that elements of OTP and service levels were not at the company's goal. It is not evident in the output that corrective action was initiated to correct this issue."

I could not find that results of mgt. review needed a corrective action. I could see maybe putting it on our action plan but this is an issue that is monitored and worked on daily. (the biggest issue we are facing) We never thought it had to be documented as a result of mgt. review. It is documented in all our daily activities . The person who gave it to me is a lead auditor from outside our plant. They could not give a strong argument on where it states that it has to be.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

...elements of OTP and service levels were not at the company's goalIf there is nothing in your system stating that "not being at the company's goal" is a breakdown of some sort, then no CAR is necessary. Most of our goals are not being met yet - that's why it is a goal! When it is met, we may select a new goal (which will obviously not be met for awhile).

And your statement about an "action plan" is on target. Somewhere in your system you likely state what you are doing to reach those goals. That is your "output".

The key to your post is:They could not give a strong argument on where it states that it has to be.

"During review of management review, the quality objectives were discussed as required by ... procedures. It was found that elements of OTP and service levels were not at the company's goal. It is not evident in the output that corrective action was initiated to correct this issue."

I could not find that results of mgt. review needed a corrective action. I could see maybe putting it on our action plan but this is an issue that is monitored and worked on daily. (the biggest issue we are facing) We never thought it had to be documented as a result of mgt. review. It is documented in all our daily activities . The person who gave it to me is a lead auditor from outside our plant. They could not give a strong argument on where it states that it has to be.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

5.6.1 talks about "...assessing opportunities for improvement and the need for changes to the quality management system, including the quality policy and quality objectives."

5.6.2 talks about reviewing "process performance".

5.6.3 talks about decisions and actions related to "improvement of the effectiveness of the quality management system and its processes" and "resource needs."

So, getting back to the source of the finding which, while probably not worded in the best manner possible, sounds like there is a possible issue. Your organization had two goals and did not meet the goals. There was no evidence that the results were looked at and a decision made so that goals could be met (i.e., change the goals or review resource allocation).

Was there evidence stating that management made a conscious decision not to take action?

I got an internal audit finding and was wondering if it is legit.

"During review of management review, the quality objectives were discussed as required by ... procedures. It was found that elements of OTP and service levels were not at the company's goal. It is not evident in the output that corrective action was initiated to correct this issue."

I could not find that results of mgt. review needed a corrective action.

Try looking up the requirement that states... "where planned results are not achieved, correction, and corrective action shall be taken as apporpriate..." I do not have my TS standard in front of me... but, it is a requirement.

I got an internal audit finding and was wondering if it is legit.

"During review of management review, the quality objectives were discussed as required by ... procedures. It was found that elements of OTP and service levels were not at the company's goal. It is not evident in the output that corrective action was initiated to correct this issue."

I could not find that results of mgt. review needed a corrective action. I could see maybe putting it on our action plan but this is an issue that is monitored and worked on daily. (the biggest issue we are facing) We never thought it had to be documented as a result of mgt. review. It is documented in all our daily activities . The person who gave it to me is a lead auditor from outside our plant. They could not give a strong argument on where it states that it has to be.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

Casey,

Which standard are we talking about: TS or ISO9001:2000?


Coury Ferguson
Program/Contracts Manager

TS 16949

There is evidence that it was discussed @ management review. There is no evidence that it was decided not to issue a CA. Just the fact that none got issued. I tried to argue the evidence available that it is reviewed by management daily regarding this issue. This is why we made no action plan to address the issue. It is being addressed and very strongly.

Thanks for your help so far.

I got an internal audit finding and was wondering if it is legit.

"During review of management review, the quality objectives were discussed as required by ... procedures. It was found that elements of OTP and service levels were not at the company's goal. It is not evident in the output that corrective action was initiated to correct this issue."

I could not find that results of mgt. review needed a corrective action. I could see maybe putting it on our action plan but this is an issue that is monitored and worked on daily. (the biggest issue we are facing) We never thought it had to be documented as a result of mgt. review. It is documented in all our daily activities . The person who gave it to me is a lead auditor from outside our plant. They could not give a strong argument on where it states that it has to be.

Any help is greatly appreciated.


Casey

Could this have been it? I guess it depends on how you look at QMS processes...and when you look at their results ...if found not to meet target during mgmt review, I would expect some kind of CA.

8.2.3 Monitoring and measurement of processes

The organization shall apply suitable methods for monitoring and, where applicable, measurement of the quality management system processes. These methods shall demonstrate the ability of the processes to achieve planned results. When planned results are not achieved, correction and corrective action shall be taken, as appropriate, to ensure conformity of the product.

TS 16949

There is evidence that it was discussed @ management review. There is no evidence that it was decided not to issue a CA. Just the fact that none got issued. I tried to argue the evidence available that it is reviewed by management daily regarding this issue. This is why we made no action plan to address the issue. It is being addressed and very strongly.

We have a similar problem here. Lots of action, but no documentation.

I call it the difference between 'splain and show.

If it is written down anyone can show the auditor, if it is all just happening, it needs someone to 'splain.

I need to be convinced that all the quick, undocumented, unplanned action (aka fire fighting) is better than a little formal planning.....but what do I know...

I got an internal audit finding and was wondering if it is legit.

"During review of management review, the quality objectives were discussed as required by ... procedures. It was found that elements of OTP and service levels were not at the company's goal. It is not evident in the output that corrective action was initiated to correct this issue."

I could not find that results of mgt. review needed a corrective action. I could see maybe putting it on our action plan but this is an issue that is monitored and worked on daily. (the biggest issue we are facing) We never thought it had to be documented as a result of mgt. review. It is documented in all our daily activities . The person who gave it to me is a lead auditor from outside our plant. They could not give a strong argument on where it states that it has to be.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

When I audit a management review of metrics and data, when I see issues, I ask the management I am interviewing what actions they took about this one or that. I look to see if action items were initiated. Emails, project teams, improvement projects, preventive actions. Their level of knowledge of the particular issues and their explanation of actions taken generally corroborates whether action was taken. Usually there is something to back it up. However, it is rarely a formal 8D type corrective action. If one was needed, it generally was issued weeks ago in real time.

I do NOT however, expect that every single metric that is not at goal must show actions taken. That is not how top management works. If you review cl 5.6, and particularly 5.6.3, there is no such requirement spelled out. I think the auditor is reaching too far.

I do NOT however, expect that every single metric that is not at goal must show actions taken. That is not how top management works. If you review cl 5.6, and particularly 5.6.3, there is no such requirement spelled out. I think the auditor is reaching too far.If the objective / target is one that the management team set then I would expect some record in the output of the managment review about what actions they required to take place to bring the O & T back on track - that is what they are there for. "The output from the management review shall include any decisions and actions ...."

If, however, there is an O & T at a lower level that is not dragging down a top management O & T then there is no requirement for it to be reviewed at the top table.

"The output from the management review shall include any decisions and actions ...."


The quoted passage doesn't say anything about a requirement for actions. It just says that output of management review must include reference to actions if there are any actions.

[quote=Paul Simpson]If the objective / target is one that the management team set then I would expect some record in the output of the managment review about what actions they required to take place to bring the O & T back on track - that is what they are there for. "The output from the management review shall include any decisions and actions ...." quote]

Many times there are 3 of 10 metrics that are below goal, and often the decision is to continue on the current course because mgt. believes it will right itself. That is a decision that is frequently made. My previous answer expanded on that theme. I suppose they could write that down, but if several managers all agree that was the decision, that satisfies ISO's definition of objective evidence.

If however, the metrics are off significantly, and nothing is being done, then I agree I would wade in deeper. I don't run their company, I just audit whether they are managing it appropriately.

The quoted passage doesn't say anything about a requirement for actions. It just says that output of management review must include reference to actions if there are any actions.
As mentioned in my earlier post this comment is confined to the high level O & Ts that the management team sets for the business. The output from the review must include actions arising if these O & Ts are not on track - otherwise why bother with a review?

I can't think of an example of where an objective is going to be missed or a target is not being achieved that does not require some corrective action - perhaps we can have some from other covers?

5.6.3 refers to not only actions, but decisions, as well. 5.6.1 requires records be maintained of Management Review. Does this not mean that a decision - be it to take action or not take action - be recorded as an output of Management Review?

If all of the managers agreed not to take action on a missed goal...fine. This is their decision to make. This is an output of Management Review and should be recorded. Otherwise there is no objective evidence to clearly state process performance and the effectiveness of the management system were reviewed.

5.6.3 refers to not only actions, but decisions, as well. 5.6.1 requires records be maintained of Management Review. Does this not mean that a decision - be it to take action or not take action - be recorded as an output of Management Review?

If all of the managers agreed not to take action on a missed goal...fine. This is their decision to make. This is an output of Management Review and should be recorded. Otherwise there is no objective evidence to clearly state process performance and the effectiveness of the management system were reviewed.


Good question. But, remember, ISO intended to reduce paperwork deemed not value-added. Not all procedures need to be documented. Only those documents needed to ensure control over a process.

If, interviewing the folks demonstrates the same answer, that is deemed objective evidence. If they don't have the same answer, then it is evidence the control is not adequate (I don't necessarily like it, but this was their intent).

So, if that is applied to auditing objective evidence, records of management review will not record every bit of discussion. It is very common to see records of decisions made, projects initiated, and so on.

Let's say, I ask about a utilization metric where some items are not meeting target. I may ask about what they are doing. They explain sales are low from one key customer, the customer indicated he expected it to ramp up over the next few months, and for now they are using some of the downtime to do more training. That decision does not have to be recorded, because no action was being taken, other than to wait it out. If everyone knew that answer, what value is there to say you must write down, "we are going to wait it out?" No value added.

So, if that is applied to auditing objective evidence, records of management review will not record every bit of discussion. It is very common to see records of decisions made, projects initiated, and so on.

Let's say, I ask about a utilization metric where some items are not meeting target. I may ask about what they are doing. They explain sales are low from one key customer, the customer indicated he expected it to ramp up over the next few months, and for now they are using some of the downtime to do more training. That decision does not have to be recorded, because no action was being taken, other than to wait it out. If everyone knew that answer, what value is there to say you must write down, "we are going to wait it out?" No value added.

So, a decision was made to not take action on goal related to the effectiveness of a process. I am not saying that every word uttered during Management Review be documented...in some cases, mine would have lots of **** and *&#%$! throughout them! ;)

However, people come and go and sometimes not all of the managers are able to attend Management Review. The people who missed a meeting or new people should be able to review past records and understand what was discussed and decisions made (even if the decisions was to not take action).

What is the purpose of retaining minutes? To record the decisions made for due diligence reasons associated with our systems. Using your example, hjilling, if I saw "we are going to wait it out" as part of Management Review, I wouldn't be satisfied with that. I would expect to see the reason(s) why.

Of course, perhaps I have come to expect this as our own Management Review records are this detailed. :cool:

So, a decision was made to not take action on goal related to the effectiveness of a process. I am not saying that every word uttered during Management Review be documented...in some cases, mine would have lots of **** and *&#%$! throughout them! ;)

However, people come and go and sometimes not all of the managers are able to attend Management Review. The people who missed a meeting or new people should be able to review past records and understand what was discussed and decisions made (even if the decisions was to not take action).

What is the purpose of retaining minutes? To record the decisions made for due diligence reasons associated with our systems. Using your example, hjilling, if I saw "we are going to wait it out" as part of Management Review, I wouldn't be satisfied with that. I would expect to see the reason(s) why.

Of course, perhaps I have come to expect this as our own Management Review records are this detailed. :cool:


Actually, it may not sound like it, but I do agree with you in principle. But there are degrees. I see records from 3 pages to 50 pages.

For example, I am auditing a company that reviews 80+ charts monthly. (Too many, in my opinion). I would not expect them to record a comment on every chart they reviewed. But I do expect recording significant items.

But, each company will do it a little different, and I try to work with it. The criteria I have to apply is if it is effective for them.

But, remember, ISO intended to reduce paperwork deemed not value-added. Not all procedures need to be documented. Only those documents needed to ensure control over a process. The only inent was to reduce the "procedures for the sake of procedures" that was rampant in 3rd party auditing. Revisions to 9k2k did not take out any requirements for records - if anything they made it more important.

If, interviewing the folks demonstrates the same answer, that is deemed objective evidence. If they don't have the same answer, then it is evidence the control is not adequate (I don't necessarily like it, but this was their intent). This is applicable in the absence of a procedure - so if people understand the way of working there is no need for a documented procedure. This does not mean there is no requirement for a record as evidence the process is operating effectively.

So, if that is applied to auditing objective evidence, records of management review will not record every bit of discussion. It is very common to see records of decisions made, projects initiated, and so on. Agree with RCBeyette's comments the record of review should demonstrate key decisions taken and, in the unlikely event there is a measure off track that they don't want to do anything about, some justification as to why.

Let's say, I ask about a utilization metric where some items are not meeting target. I may ask about what they are doing. They explain sales are low from one key customer, the customer indicated he expected it to ramp up over the next few months, and for now they are using some of the downtime to do more training. That decision does not have to be recorded, because no action was being taken, other than to wait it out. If everyone knew that answer, what value is there to say you must write down, "we are going to wait it out?" No value added. Utilization is not really a quality objective. The more typical objective would be to do with on time delivery, quality at the customer, warranty etc. Any examples as to how a company might "wait out" one of those?

This is slightly :topic: , but still relevant to the subject matter of achieving desired results...

Just this week I performed an internal audit on our HR department. One of their objectives was to achieve 10 days' training per employee per year, with performance running at around 3 for the past few years. :nope:

When I asked what actions were in place to achieve the intended 10 days, the HR manager replied that "some objectives aren't intended to be achieved, they're aspirational". He also reckons there is strong evidence that companies who set such "aspirational" objectives achieve better business results than those who restrict themselves to traditional objectives and fixed deadlines.

A long (and fairly intense) debate ensued :argue: and we failed to find any common ground before he had to catch a flight back to his home planet. :)

I'm interested to know how a TS16949 assessor would counter this argument. Does anyone have any opinions?

Well.... here's a tidbit borrowed on "aspirational objectives".... Personally, I agree with this statement.

"Improving specification of SMART objectives and actions
Setting SMART objectives is proving more challenging and complex than was often anticipated. Some objectives remain highly aspirational and too vague to know what they seek to achieve.

In some instances aspirational objectives were necessitated by the lack of ownership by senior managers in various departments and other agencies to sign up to quantifiable objectives (see above).

In other instances further research or other activities needed to be undertaken before credible and SMART objectives could be established.

Consultation tended to focus on the identification of strategic issues rather than sharpening objectives.
Risks include:

• Unless clear outcomes and planned outputs can be visualised and specified, it is almost impossible to develop monitoring and evaluation.

• By not specifying responsibilities there is a danger that other departments/ partners do not appreciate that they have a lead role. As a result LHS team may by default become accountable for everything.

• Difficult to assess if action is manageable, to examine barriers to implementing actions and to identify how each barrier will be overcome and within what time frame.

• Proving difficult to proceed with implementing poorly specified objectives.
Definitions of the terms used in objectives are crucial and should be agreed between all concerned. Terms such as affordability and intensive housing management are open to different interpretations and should be defined for your situation. In order to keep objectives short and concise, most participants favoured including definitions in the body of the LHS rather than in the objective itself.

Action verbs (such as reduce, revise, investigate, and develop) are observable and communicate the intent of what is intended to be achieved.

Avoid “cluttering up” objectives with unnecessary statements of how to deliver an objective.

Process based objectives are acceptable so long as the large majority of LHS objectives are outcome based and clearly communicate type of change required."

This is slightly :topic: , but still relevant to the subject matter of achieving desired results...Disagree that it is off topic - it is right on the mark!:applause: The issue is whether top (or any other level) management is to be accountable for measures in their processes.

Just this week I performed an internal audit on our HR department. One of their objectives was to achieve 10 days' training per employee per year, with performance running at around 3 for the past few years. :nope:

When I asked what actions were in place to achieve the intended 10 days, the HR manager replied that "some objectives aren't intended to be achieved, they're aspirational". He also reckons there is strong evidence that companies who set such "aspirational" objectives achieve better business results than those who restrict themselves to traditional objectives and fixed deadlines.Did anyone see a bull around - I can certainly smell it has been here. There are lots of companies that subscribe to the "stretch target" philosophy - none of them would accept missing the target by a factor of 2. Setting of targets is a sensitive affair (Dr Deming would have none of it) and to set unrealistic goals leads to people giving up early on.

The argument for stretch targets is that they can really get people motivated and driven to achieve and, even if you fail, you still achieve more than if you had set a "standard" target, clearly not the case in this example.

A long (and fairly intense) debate ensued :argue: and we failed to find any common ground before he had to catch a flight back to his home planet. :)

I'm interested to know how a TS16949 assessor would counter this argument. Does anyone have any opinions? If the objective setting process fails the first time I would expect the organization to take efective corrective action - this could lead to more realistic goals or changes to the process to achieve the goal.

If achievement of the target fails consistently then the objective setting process (and the corrective action process) are ineffective.

Did anyone see a bull around - I can certainly smell it has been here. There are lots of companies that subscribe to the "stretch target" philosophy - none of them would accept missing the target by a factor of 2. Setting of targets is a sensitive affair (Dr Deming would have none of it) and to set unrealistic goals leads to people giving up early on.

And I agree, to a point....a goal without a plan is an exercise in futility. I'd give up, too. It's a PDCA cycle...not 0.5P-with-a-hint-of-C-thrown-in-for-good measure cycle. ;)

The argument for stretch targets is that they can really get people motivated and driven to achieve and, even if you fail, you still achieve more than if you had set a "standard" target, clearly not the case in this example.

We have a performance reward system set up for certain metrics. They have our goals (and plans) for 2006, 2007 and 2008. If we reach a future goal (i.e., 2007 or 2008) in 2006, we get a "stretch" reward. If we "only" attain our 2006 goal, we receive the normal reward.

If the objective setting process fails the first time I would expect the organization to take efective corrective action - this could lead to more realistic goals or changes to the process to achieve the goal.

If achievement of the target fails consistently then the objective setting process (and the corrective action process) are ineffective.

I agree. I've shared this story before, but my organization used to set goals and then cry "Woe is us!" at the end of the year when we hadn't achieved them. Over the past few years, we have worked on our planning skills and understanding of resource availability. We've also started to understand that goals need to be set so that there is improvement but that they are also attainable...as long as we work smart and diligently towards them.

Utilization is not really a quality objective. The more typical objective would be to do with on time delivery, quality at the customer, warranty etc. Any examples as to how a company might "wait out" one of those?



paul, I really don't understand your point of view at times. Utilization of Equipment is a very common metric at American companies, as are many others. There is nothing that defines delivery and ppm is all there is.

My point was, if a client reviews and discusses 50 charts, I am not going to expect 50 entries as to what decision was rendered. If you want to, well, ok, do so.

I do expect and see significant decisions are documented.

Agree with RCBeyette's comments the record of review should demonstrate key decisions taken and, in the unlikely event there is a measure off track that they don't want to do anything about, some justification as to why.



key decisions absolutely. But, most American companies I know do not record every stray conversation and decision. Most do, however, document the significant ones. The whole intent of the new standard was to reduce non-value-added activities in all areas, not just procedures. That is why they leave so much to the organization to define, rather than us auditors.

I may appear lenient to you, but I assure you my clients don't think I'm loose or careless in any way. I exercise them, but only in value-added ways. I insist the new standard is not about compliance in minutae.

Let's say, I ask about a utilization metric where some items are not meeting target. I may ask about what they are doing. They explain sales are low from one key customer, the customer indicated he expected it to ramp up over the next few months, and for now they are using some of the downtime to do more training. That decision does not have to be recorded, because no action was being taken, other than to wait it out. If everyone knew that answer, what value is there to say you must write down, "we are going to wait it out?" No value added.
Those are your words I quoted. The customer not meeting their own purchase forecast is not a "quality" issue. I understand the business will want to monitor sales turnover and utilization of its workforce but it tells the business nothing about the effectiveness of its Quality Management System - the purpose of clause 5.6.

Utilization metrics such as OEE can be valuable measures of the manufacturing process quality - as they use First Time Through, Machine Availability and Build To Schedule, all quality measures in one way or another.
Not, however, how you phrased it in your earlier post.
key decisions absolutely. But, most American companies I know do not record every stray conversation and decision. Most do, however, document the significant ones. The whole intent of the new standard was to reduce non-value-added activities in all areas, not just procedures. That is why they leave so much to the organization to define, rather than us auditors.I hope your use of "American" is not an attempt to create another "us and them over the water" battle that have been pretty tiresome over the past years. Believe me, I do not require any "stray conversation and decision", just the key ones. My definition of key is recorded earlier in the thread but I will reproduce it so it is clear:

If the management team (that reviews the system effectiveness) sets a target or objective that makes it "significant".
If that objective or target is not being met at the time of the management review then I would expect a record in the minutes as to why and what is being done about it.


I may appear lenient to you, but I assure you my clients don't think I'm loose or careless in any way. I exercise them, but only in value-added ways. I insist the new standard is not about compliance in minutae.I take it your use of "minutiae" is meant to imply the areas I am talking about are trivial.
I cannot speak for your audit process - I can only judge by your posts. If you are allowing registered companies to miss objectives and targets and not record actions in their review of system effectiveness then I have to record in my posts that IMHO you are wrong. Nothing more or less.

paul, I really don't understand your point of view at times. Utilization of Equipment is a very common metric at American companies, as are many others. There is nothing that defines delivery and ppm is all there is. See above, I also believe measures of utilization are "quality measures", even over "here", but not as you first posted (see quote above) my examples of delivery and PPM as quality measures were just that - examples.

My point was, if a client reviews and discusses 50 charts, I am not going to expect 50 entries as to what decision was rendered. If you want to, well, ok, do so.If your client chooses to use 50 measures then there should be as many records of actions as there are failing metrics - if they say it becomes too much work then you can suggest they review their objective setting process to make it more effective (perhaps by reducing the number of measures). If they are going to get the desired benefit from the standard then they have to buy in to the PDCA / PDSA cycle - pretty basic stuff.

I do expect and see significant decisions are documented.As above anything set by the management team is significant.

For months our posts used to agree on most things, but lately, we seem to always find ourselves on opposite sides of a point. I will comment on a few items for the sake of clarity, then bow out of this one.

We have a different take on the requirements of the standard, you and I. Both mean well, but we see things differently.

[quote]Those are your words I quoted. The customer not meeting their own purchase forecast is not a "quality" issue. I understand the business will want to monitor sales turnover and utilization of its workforce but it tells the business nothing about the effectiveness of its Quality Management System - the purpose of clause 5.6.


The standard is not limited to "quality" issues in as strict a sense as you seem to view it. If a company is to be a beneficial supplier, it must be robust in every sense, not just in making good parts. I audit a whole company, including the supporting functions that only indirectly affect quality. These may also have metrics, and those metrics are part of the processes discussed in 4.1.



Utilization metrics such as OEE can be valuable measures of the manufacturing process quality - as they use First Time Through, Machine Availability and Build To Schedule, all quality measures in one way or another.

The organization defines their processes and metrics, not the auditor. I will not impose my viewpoints on a client. I will hold them to the requirements as stated. Other things are limited to recommnedations. You appear to be more prescriptive with your clients. We both make many good suggestions, but I have learned that I don't want to try to make an auditee do it my way.



I hope your use of "American" is not an attempt to create another "us and them over the water" battle that have been pretty tiresome over the past years.



No, but it does recognize there are seemingly different nuances to how ISO has been applied in Europe and Asia, as opposed to USA. No slight intended.



Believe me, I do not require any "stray conversation and decision", just the key ones. My definition of key is recorded earlier in the thread but I will reproduce it so it is clear:

If the management team (that reviews the system effectiveness) sets a target or objective that makes it "significant".
If that objective or target is not being met at the time of the management review then I would expect a record in the minutes as to why and what is being done about it.Then we almost agree. In the USA, most companies set many metrics, and designate some to be key metrics. However, it is common to set objectives for dozens of metrics. If a significant decision or action is made, it is generally recorded, and I review it. It is not the custom however, to document every "stray conversation and decision." That is not consistent with my training as an ISO and TS auditor. If I were to require it, they would simply review less, and record less.

In that case, ISO would be dumbing down the system, as we say. How does that benefit anyone?



I take it your use of "minutiae" is meant to imply the areas I am talking about are trivial.


No, I was referring to ISO 9k2k does not focus on minutae, it focuses on substantive areas. The "document reduction" efforts of ISO were not limited in scope to procedures alone. In fact, the word itself is not even used much in the standard this time. It was a conscious act to take it out. The intent, as I understood it, was to reduce the unnecessary documentation in the systems. That had been a primary complaint of certified companies. It was such a significant position in the minds of the TC176, that the USA delegation voted against adoption of TS-16949, because it put a little greater emphasis on documentation, which violated one of their primary intentions.




I cannot speak for your audit process - I can only judge by your posts. If you are allowing registered companies to miss objectives and targets and not record actions in their review of system effectiveness then I have to record in my posts that IMHO you are wrong. Nothing more or less.

If your client chooses to use 50 measures then there should be as many records of actions as there are failing metrics - if they say it becomes too much work then you can suggest they review their objective setting process to make it more effective (perhaps by reducing the number of measures).


I already stated that all significant decisions are documented, and actions taken generally are too. But, not every "stray conversation and decision."




As above anything set by the management team is significant.



Not necessarily.


Nice chatting with you mate, but I'm bowing out of this thread...it is becoming a bit wearying.

This is slightly , but still relevant to the subject matter of achieving desired results...

Just this week I performed an internal audit on our HR department. One of their objectives was to achieve 10 days' training per employee per year, with performance running at around 3 for the past few years.

When I asked what actions were in place to achieve the intended 10 days, the HR manager replied that "some objectives aren't intended to be achieved, they're aspirational". He also reckons there is strong evidence that companies who set such "aspirational" objectives achieve better business results than those who restrict themselves to traditional objectives and fixed deadlines.

A long (and fairly intense) debate ensued and we failed to find any common ground before he had to catch a flight back to his home planet.

I'm interested to know how a TS16949 assessor would counter this argument. Does anyone have any opinions?

I'm surprised Deming hasn't come up here yet.

His point to abolish targets used to hurt my head (I had to push out a lot of MBA think to make room for it).

Then I had an experinece that perhaps gave me an insight to what he meant.

We did a Kaizen on the most profitable job in the plant. In 5 days we had made it at least 100% better. Very happy. During our presentation the President asked us how much better could it still be made (already the best job by far, already made better by our Kaizen). I had it on film. Eveyone looked down, shuffled their feet, looked embarassed, and had no answer until someone finally said 10%. We all said "yeah" and it was left at that.

What the Kaizen team knew was that 10% wasn't close, 100% wasn't even close. There were almost unlimited improvement opportunities avaialble (in the best job).

So I now wonder is that part of what Deming meant? We could have set a target of 10% improvement and hit it, or we could have just got to work and achieved infinitely more than 10% - no target needed...

So an aspirational goal could be a good thing in Deming world....work every day to get better....the results will follow.

The ISO/TS idea of metrics is based on Management by Objectives - already considered old hat in the early 70s.

Tom Peters is also not focused on metrics...he wants us to be passionate about things and the results will happen.

Captain Bob is another - do what you know is right in your heart and you will succeed.

Ricardo Semler is another - the numbers are only to see what happened in the past, not what you can do in the future

This takes real leadership and courage. And effort. And time. So it is doomed.

We all know how to "make our targets" don't we? It's easier than working every day to get better.

...The ISO/TS idea of metrics is based on Management by Objectives - already considered old hat in the early 70s.

Tom Peters is also not focused on metrics...he wants us to be passionate about things and the results will happen.

Captain Bob is another - do what you know is right in your heart and you will succeed.

Ricardo Semler is another - the numbers are only to see what happened in the past, not what you can do in the future

This takes real leadership and courage. And effort. And time. So it is doomed.

We all know how to "make our targets" don't we? It's easier than working every day to get better.


Interesting comments. IMO, I think these comments apply to how TS is commonly implemented. But not how it should be.

What I mean is, it is commonly thought "ISO/TS idea of metrics" is what matters. I don't agree. Metrics are just report cards. The key ingrediaent most people miss is to redefine the criteria of effectiveness for each process. The metrics don't matter move, because 40% of the time, we are measuring the wrong thing, or there is alot of noise in the metrics.

If we can define what "Good Looks like" for each process, we can do a better job of striving toward reaching those objectives. The metrics just measure the progress. I would focus on the criteria for "targets" rather than just 10% improvement in this or that. The data shouldn't be the goal, it should be the report card.

In the same way that "defining a problem correctly is halfway toward solving it," so, defining the true criteria for effectiveness for each process is halfway toward achieving it.

Often this exercise results in a lot of course corrections because we find we're going in the wrong direction. That is what 4.1.c is all about. It provides the framework upon which we work to optimize our processes.

I argue that it is a "magic ingredient" in my seminars.

A required output of management review is resources allocation, so the practical approach is to see that managment did take some sort of action to improve. It may be too lofty of a goal based on market forces-

TS guidance document may shed some light here also. A practical approach to the specific situation may be in order. Sometimes forces beyond control, such as material shortages , price increases, industry slow down affect metrics and performance.