:) Hey everyone,
The external auditors tell us that we have to track our action items as evidence of continouous improvement and management review.These action items must be dated and show completeion in a timely manner.What is happening is that everyone is calling everything an action item. I fear that after a month or two focus will be lost and action items will not be updated and there will be 100 action items open when the external auditors come in.
My definition of an action item in reference to TS 16949 and management review is : :an issue that is systemic to the Quality System (such as records not being kept or not having a proper training process) or an issue that could affect customer requirements such as delivery compliance.
I do not believe that action items are day to day issues such as units having mechanical problems or production flow is disrupted due to a issue at a unit up stream. Day to day operational issues are just that day to day normal things. I feel we have to be careful of what we call action items.
So my question(s) are What is the definition of an Action Item and has anyone else has this problem.
Thanks Mike:thanx:

The action item will be, for each item's person assigned to it, from an area within normal control. That means production for the production manager, etc.

Items should be based on mission, policies and objectives. They should be developed by reviewing and considering, among other things, internal and external audit reports, appeals and complaints, continuous improvement requests, and matters arising from peer evaluation processes etc..

Spreadsheets can be used to track the items, owners, schedules and milestones; and to thus indicate attention and progress. Minutes from management review meetings can show the more detailed progress.

In the early process of defining action items it may help to chart the various problems and try to establish if there are relationships between them. Management members may then discover some of their action items can be combined as steps in a larger project.

All in all management needs to learn to ask the 5-whys to boil down causes of the problems so action items aren't symptoms, but the actual problems.

Does this make sense?

The external auditors tell us that we have to track our action items as evidence of continouous improvement and management review.These action items must be dated and show completeion in a timely manner.

Not only does it demonstrate Continual Improvement and that Management Review is being done, but it demonstrates Management Commitment. It shows that there is an interaction at the Review and it's not just one person talking. It shows that there is a conscious decision - and hopefully willingness - to adjust, revise and improve the system.

What is happening is that everyone is calling everything an action item. I fear that after a month or two focus will be lost and action items will not be updated and there will be 100 action items open when the external auditors come in.

Define "everything", please.

If there are 100 action items to be done, my concern is that there are ongoing and systematic lapses in your system...that people may not be fulfilling their responsibilities. If there are 100 action items, that should be a trigger for an agenda topic at your next Management Review to discuss why there are so many items.

My definition of an action item in reference to TS 16949 and management review is : :an issue that is systemic to the Quality System (such as records not being kept or not having a proper training process) or an issue that could affect customer requirements such as delivery compliance.
I do not believe that action items are day to day issues such as units having mechanical problems or production flow is disrupted due to a issue at a unit up stream. Day to day operational issues are just that day to day normal things. I feel we have to be careful of what we call action items.
So my question(s) are What is the definition of an Action Item and has anyone else has this problem.

I agree that the day-to-day issues do not need to be action items generated from your Management Review, but things like results from Internal Audits not being addressed, Opportunities for Improvement that have been generated, and so on are areas where action items can be generated. As are aspects that are key to your Business System and company philosophies that are monitored and actions that need to be taken (everything from updating monthly results to addressing an outside-of-the-control-limits result).

Basically, use the agenda and Management Review requirements as the sources for your action items.

The discussions in Management Review Meeting are based on the agenda and action points coming out during discussions are somewhat broad. The responsible persons have to work out their own action plan individualy to complete them.These are not day to day kind of issues(unless a kind of fire fighting in the same area often which affects operations or system maintenance) but aim at improvements.

The format for recording "Minutes of management review meeting" may include columns for (i)S.No. (ii)Points Discussed/Action Points (iii)Responsible (iv)Target Date(v)Date of completion(vi)Remarks . The MR,whille reviewing the minutes(monthly or quarterly) may update the date of completion and record the reasons, if any for deley, against each action points.

...What is happening is that everyone is calling everything an action item. I fear that after a month or two focus will be lost and action items will not be updated and there will be 100 action items open when the external auditors come in....

So my question(s) are What is the definition of an Action Item and has anyone else has this problem.
Thanks Mike


As in everything, a little balance may be called for. It is useful to consider why this requirement is in the standard. Then, it provides guidance as to how to proceed. It might be useful to consider these action items to be more like Continual Improvement projects. Little items should just be done. It is not worth the time and effort to track everything.

For example, a reminder that the coffee supplies are low and need to be reordered certainly does not need to be tracked as an action item.

:) Hey everyone,
The external auditors tell us that we have to track our action items as evidence of continouous improvement and management review.These action items must be dated and show completeion in a timely manner.What is happening is that everyone is calling everything an action item. I fear that after a month or two focus will be lost and action items will not be updated and there will be 100 action items open when the external auditors come in.
My definition of an action item in reference to TS 16949 and management review is : :an issue that is systemic to the Quality System (such as records not being kept or not having a proper training process) or an issue that could affect customer requirements such as delivery compliance.
I do not believe that action items are day to day issues such as units having mechanical problems or production flow is disrupted due to a issue at a unit up stream. Day to day operational issues are just that day to day normal things. I feel we have to be careful of what we call action items.
So my question(s) are What is the definition of an Action Item and has anyone else has this problem.
Thanks Mike:thanx:

Is exactly the way to go, Mike!

As with most things in life, there should be some priority to doing things. A principle idea from an effective management review is to identify and then make assignments for a few items which need correction or improvement. That way you won't overwhelm the whole system and it's people with 'busy work' Just as you said.....

I know, you just needed validation!:agree1:

Andy

From my point of view:
Management Review (in terms of ISO conformance) is typically the review of an internal audit, so it probably would not have items like low coffee supplies or lightbulb replacement on the agenda (which typically have someone assigned to do those things on a regular basis) UNLESS the function of replacing lightbulbs was not being accomplished. If the lightbulbs aren't being replaced, the ACTION ITEM would be to "train" or "remind" someone to perform the function. (Think of this as the difference between a "corrective action" and a "correction" where a correction on a machine might be to replace a broken tool bit and the corrective action would be to add a step to the process to check for broken tool bits on a regular basis.)

During the Management Review, managers look at each item on the agenda and decide one of the following:

Leave as is, no action required
Determine Corrective Action to fix a nonconformance, assign someone to be responsible and grant authority to perform the task and set a review date to determine if the nonconformance is permanently eliminated by the Corrective Action.
Set up a study to determine if a process currently conforming can be improved or made more efficient, assign one or more folks with responsibility and authority to conduct the study and try experiments and a target date to report

During the Management Review, managers look at each item on the agenda and decide one of the following:

Leave as is, no action required
Determine Corrective Action to fix a nonconformance, assign someone to be responsible and grant authority to perform the task and set a review date to determine if the nonconformance is permanently eliminated by the Corrective Action.
Set up a study to determine if a process currently conforming can be improved or made more efficient, assign one or more folks with responsibility and authority to conduct the study and try experiments and a target date to reportYou provide a good generic example of a management review process; it's the way that most, I think, would agree that things should happen.

I have to wonder, though, if something important isn't being missed. Why should people have to wait for a management review meeting in order to get permission to fix a problem? I think the whole Deming 85/15 thing needs to be rethought; many problems don't get solved at the point of attack because the people best qualified to fix them can't get permission to do it.

From my point of view:
Management Review (in terms of ISO conformance) is typically the review of an internal audit, so it probably would not have items like low coffee supplies or lightbulb replacement on the agenda (which typically have someone assigned to do those things on a regular basis) UNLESS the function of replacing lightbulbs was not being accomplished. If the lightbulbs aren't being replaced, the ACTION ITEM would be to "train" or "remind" someone to perform the function. (Think of this as the difference between a "corrective action" and a "correction" where a correction on a machine might be to replace a broken tool bit and the corrective action would be to add a step to the process to check for broken tool bits on a regular basis.)

During the Management Review, managers look at each item on the agenda and decide one of the following:

Leave as is, no action required
Determine Corrective Action to fix a nonconformance, assign someone to be responsible and grant authority to perform the task and set a review date to determine if the nonconformance is permanently eliminated by the Corrective Action.
Set up a study to determine if a process currently conforming can be improved or made more efficient, assign one or more folks with responsibility and authority to conduct the study and try experiments and a target date to report


Actually, all the companies I am familiar with do much more in management review, than to review the audits. The list of ISO 9001 agenda inputs is much broader as well. Most of my clients use it as a business review of the system and their performance levels. They review all their metrics, etc.

The rest of your comments I agree with.

I also agree with Jim's comment, that audit results should not wait until a management review for consideration. Most of my clients review audits right after they take place, with the affected departments. At the management review, they review audit results as they pertain to the processes being reviewed.

Actually, all the companies I am familiar with do much more in management review, than to review the audits. The list of ISO 9001 agenda inputs is much broader as well. Most of my clients use it as a business review of the system and their performance levels. They review all their metrics, etc.

The rest of your comments I agree with.

I also agree with Jim's comment, that audit results should not wait until a management review for consideration. Most of my clients review audits right after they take place, with the affected departments. At the management review, they review audit results as they pertain to the processes being reviewed.

The results of audits isn't simply the details of the non-conformities found and, surely, they should be addressed at the time of the audit.

I've seen many management reviews where folks are forced to sit a listen to the audit manager/MR reviewing individual 'findings' of the audits, done since the last management review..............wow, no wonder no-one wants audits or to attend the meeting!:yes:

In these cases, something's missing from the 'results of audits' that management can understand. So, my recommendation is to treat this report out as an analysis of trends from the audits and what requirements are affected (by conclusion). So, if the metrics of product and process show overall good performance, then the 'results of audits' should confirm to management that the documented qms is being followed, and that the metrics can be 'trusted'. If not, the audits will have revealed what needs to be fixed.........

Any other kinds of report out on audits is just dull!:rolleyes:

Andy

Actually, all the companies I am familiar with do much more in management review, than to review the audits. The list of ISO 9001 agenda inputs is much broader as well. Most of my clients use it as a business review of the system and their performance levels. They review all their metrics, etc.

The rest of your comments I agree with.

I also agree with Jim's comment, that audit results should not wait until a management review for consideration. Most of my clients review audits right after they take place, with the affected departments. At the management review, they review audit results as they pertain to the processes being reviewed.
If you will note: I did put in a mild comment(which typically have someone assigned to do those things on a regular basis) about things which should have someone EMPOWERED to take care of as they arise. In my organization, for example, any of the personnel were empowered to put down the "oil soak" compound if a leak or a spill occurred without running to a manager first for permission or approval - that's "correction" versus "corrective action" which might delve into how to prevent recurrence. Once the life/health/safety issue of the spill was addressed, THEN a report would be made for a manager to assess and determine a future course of action, if any.

In terms of management review vis a vis internal audits, I agree that immediate concerns uncovered by the internal audit should be addressed immediately. Sometimes, where life/health/safety issues are concerned, it may mean something as drastic as stopping a process (by the department manager) while the situation is investigated (I liken the process to quarantining "suspect" material.) It would not necessarily require a wait until a scheduled "management review." I also am of a mind that not ALL managers are necessary to review every item on the agenda, nor to make a decision on action versus no action. I do, however, believe that the crucial point of a management review, whether by a platoon of managers or by one person (the owner?), is that the review and action or no action on each agenda item be recorded. The most frequent criticism I hear of management review is not what they do, but that they don't record their activity, nor do they communicate their activity (or decision not to act) in a due and timely manner to the affected personnel.

In hierarchal organizations, the worst factor in inefficiency is micromanagement of the entire organization by the top managers instead of through the levels of the hierarchy. (Things "wait" until a decision is delivered by a top manager on anything from a missing lightbulb to replacing a multimillion dollar process machine.)

In "flat" organizations, it is important for managers to set up a series of systems with "self-repairing" mechanisms to avoid micromanagement.