What is considered to be acceptable for frequency of Management Review Meetings?

There is no set frequency on Mgt Review meetings. Minimum, IMHO is annually. I would prefer quarterly. What's more important is the content, rather than the frequency. The most important reason to have them is to measure the effectiveness of the Quality Management System. You as a company, decide the frequency required to accomplish this. I knew a company that had them monthly, but to me they did not meet the intent of the standard and took away from the importance of these meetings.
energy

There is no defined frequency. What ever works for your company to determine if your system is suitable and effective is acceptable.

We have an off site business planning and management review meeting once per year.
Throughout the year we have bi-monthly team meetings to assess the the elements for suitability and effectiveness. Each department gives an analysis of the element that directly effects them and presents it for review at the meeting.
Interwoven in this cycle is our internal audits which is focused on improvement rather then compliance.

Originally posted by Anna Seaman:
What is considered to be acceptable for frequency of Management Review Meetings?
During our first couple years of registration, we met monthly allowing each division manager/VP to review a section of the QM and associated procedures. Discussion during the meeting focused not only on the standard requirements but also how our manual and procedures fit to the standard, kind of a GAP analysis.
We now meet quarterly to discuss CARs, NCMRs, Improvement, etc.
The President has asked me to audit specific projects (ones that are losing money) to find root cause. Add new title to business card - QA/MR/"PI"


------------------

Hi Everyone,
We have a management review based on the 1994 edition of ISO9001. We did it recently. Part of pur continual improvement and one of the major plan is to upgrade from the 2000 edition. My concern is: For example, after the upgrade that is upgrading the documents, quality manual, department standards, instructions, etc. Are we going to perform another management review based on the 2000 version? Are the auditors will audit as from the 1994 edition? Or do we have to prepare another management review based from ISO9000:2000? Please advice.
Thanks in advance,
Raffy
ffyra@yahoo.com

Raffy:

You State:
"Are we going to perform another management review based on the 2000 version?"

You used the word "another" which leads me to assume you have done only one management review. If I'm wrong, how many management reviews have you completed? It is a continuous process, not a one time review.

The auditor will audit you to whatever quality system you have in place. If you upgrade all your documentation to the 2000 version and audit to the 1994 version you will be in trouble.

Remember, management committment, input, review, and action are a major part of a successful qyality system.

This really is time to call your registrar and auditor to get some valid direction. Believe it or not, their on your side, you pay the bills.

ASD...

At my company the management review of the QMS is included within the yearly management meeting. The review is recorded in the minutes of this meeting which has restricted access to only top management because it includes financials etc..

Do the management review records need to be a document all by itself?
Should it have any type of restricted access?

cmcking:

Try keeping two minutes, one for financials and one for other topics. The financial records can be stored/kept with top management and the other is kept as evidence of management review.

Somewhat along the same lines as a business plan, auditors have no right or authority to look into your financial planning.

ASD...

It is advised to have at least 2 annually, though some companies have monthly meetings to stay on top of things and I find this a good way for organizations to be able to take actions sooner rather than later. You can reduce the size of the meeting inputs if done monthly. For example, you could say the January meeting will cover customer communication and complains, CAPA and audit results. Then the February meeting will cover process improvement, vendor issues and on time delivery, and so on. Bill Goss

It is advised to have at least 2 annually
'Advised' by who? To state this as though it was a well known piece of info is just a furphy.

There's no set frequency for a 'Management Review meeting', nor, for that matter does there need to be any thing called that.

Different organisations have different sizes, different needs and different management structures. Some have a separate thing called an 'MR meeting', some don't.

For some companies, bi-annual might be too infrequent, for others it might not be often enough. It entirely depends upon the organisation itself, and its unique context and needs. And what topics and issues are dealt with at what levels of the organisation, and in what forums.

Seeing as some believe me to be an expert in the field I'll advise no less than 260 meetings a year or at least one a day, every day of the normal work year (5 days X 52 weeks). By holding this many everything will be kept up to date and current and evidence of management committment will abound.

For those lazy souls out there you may be able to get by one a single weekly meeting or 52 annually. Try not to cause a strain on anyones schedule though.

But 2 a year? Who's paying attention the rest of the time? Is the QMS just going to wither on the vine between meetings or what? Not too much committment to just set aside an a hour or two twice a year.

:sarcasm::sarcasm::sarcasm:

You get to decide how frequently it needs to be as long as it is effective.

It does need to follow a planned schedule.

Support meetings of various types in which parts of the requirements of Management Review are covered may help to keep down the need for more frequent reviews.

When I'm auditing a company that is only doing it once a year, I'm looking hard to determine if it is effective. Actually, I'm always looking to see that Management Review is effective, just more so when it is infrequent.

Here's an idea: Have no Management Review Meetings at all!

The standard calls for periodical reviews, not review meetings.

Upload your KPIs to a wiki periodically, then management can review, comment, raise bugs, make decisions and take action, all asynchronously. No need for a meeting or even having to be in the same time-zone. The wiki page and its links are the evidence of review required by the standard.

Here's an idea: Have no Management Review Meetings at all!

The standard calls for periodical reviews, not review meetings.

Upload your KPIs to a wiki periodically, then management can review, comment, raise bugs, make decisions and take action, all asynchronously. No need for a meeting or even having to be in the same time-zone. The wiki page and its links are the evidence of review required by the standard.

I agree. I have removed all references to "Management Review Meetings" when I write a Quality Manual and Procedures. I leave it open for this approach.

I do, however, believe that meetings work best for most companies. I recommend the non meeting approach mostly for the occasion that a meeting just will not work, that is when the intended members are traveling or otherwise unable to get together for a meeting.

I couldn't get the quotes to work...I agree with Panchobook/Big Jim (good clarification)

Where on earth did the notion of "management review meetings" come from? Ah yes...management hasn't been around long enough to figure out a way to review WITHOUT meetings.:sarcasm:

I enjoy your discussions and hope to actually make a positive contribution soon enough. ~mike~

IWhere on earth did the notion of "management review meetings" come from? Ah yes...management hasn't been around long enough to figure out a way to review WITHOUT meetings.:sarcasm:

Yes, exactly. :lol: I often find managers are doing some/all of what is required, but not always in a systematic way and/or not consistently generating records to demonstrate.

I suspect someone came up with the idea of The Management Review Meeting (drum-roll please) and people have just adopted it without bothering to actually read and think about what the Standard itself says on the topic. Which specifies review, but never so much as mentions the word meetings.

Re. your quotes problem, see getting quotes to work (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=10792)here. Lots of info about using the Forum software (http://elsmar.com/Forums/forumdisplay.php?f=86) in that forum.

Thank you, Mike, Jane and others.

If I had a nice bright shiny penny for every time I've seen organizations engaging in activities that are pointless and where there is no requirement in any standard, I could maybe afford that sailboat I've been dreaming of.

Kind Regards -John

I think there are three schools of thought.

The first is that management should have the pulse of the quality system all the time, so they should not need any special meetings at all. Once a year, just to get the monkey off our back. And, quite frankly that may be good solid logic...if so, I would think the same logic should work for all management functions, such as financials, etc. for that organization. One meeting, goodbye. Omnipotence is bliss.

The second school of though is that the quality system is just a pile of overhead to keep customers happy. So, meetings would be non-value added. So, again, once a year just to get the monkey off your back.

The third school of thought is that companies work in a blur of activity, and from time to time it makes sense to step outside of the forest and make sure that where everyone is headed is really going in the right direction. It is an opportunity for areas that may be working on separate paths to get updated to the progress and goals of the other areas - maybe provide some well needed input. If the quality system is part of the overall business system, and it is generally held that quarterly meetings are typically used to verify business progress and conditions, then there is a good benchmark.

So, there is no set, standard frequency. Pick the school of thought that most closely fits your firm and go with it. If quality is just overhead to your management, then please don't waste everybody's time doing quarterly meetings. It is teaching pigs to sing...save those pennies and go sailing!

It is teaching pigs to sing...save those pennies and go sailing!
What? And quit show business?? (http://www.pigsnstuff.com/barn.html)

We find that even a quick, to the point once a month meeting about Quality issues and twice a year in-depth meetings keep us all focused in our small company of 7 employees. I use the monthly meetings to deal with problems that have popped up since the last meeting and occassionly educate us all on some aspect of Quality ranging from Corrective/Preventative Action differences to discussing the 3 levels of customer satisfaction. Bi-Annual Meetings focus on Quality Goals and the like. It works well for us.

Despite those posts which describe Management Review without meeting(s) I have found that to call a 'round table' meeting of peers -to have them discuss their processes performance, to describe what is being done to correct or improve process performance - is a very powerful tool!

Indeed, the GM of an organization was delighted with the way the meetings/reviews progressed, since it gave her a 'window' on a facet of her management team she'd previously not witnessed - their abilities to prepare and talk to their specific process performance, issues etc. As a result, there was a significant 'growing up' of many individuals.

This is due, in part, to the fact that the 'Management Rep' did very little of the presenting......:mg:

The aim was to have all Process Owners talk to their key performance results, issues etc. etc. The GM asked them (was schooled ahead of time, initially) what those things were and knew also what the answers should be.

The role of the Management Rep. - as the internal audit process owner - was to add the validation of the implementation of the quality system, through the use of audit findings.

It truely was an interesting thing to see unfold before our eyes.......

We find that even a quick, to the point once a month meeting about Quality issues and twice a year in-depth meetings keep us all focused in our small company of 7 employees. I use the monthly meetings to deal with problems that have popped up since the last meeting and occassionly educate us all on some aspect of Quality ranging from Corrective/Preventative Action differences to discussing the 3 levels of customer satisfaction. Bi-Annual Meetings focus on Quality Goals and the like. It works well for us.
Excellent, Mary. This sounds like a very effective way to get things done effectively, with a structure that ensures you (all) keep your finger on the pulse, and review and consider the things that need to be reviewed on a regular basis, as well as those that benefit from a more in-depth coverage at longer periods. Well done - this is the kind of structure I often have to work to convince a client in a small organisation is a Good Thing:applause:

...a 'round table' meeting of peers -to have them discuss their processes performance, to describe what is being done to correct or improve process performance - is a very powerful tool!

Indeed, the GM of an organization was delighted with the way the meetings/reviews progressed, since it gave her a 'window' on a facet of her management team she'd previously not witnessed - their abilities to prepare and talk to their specific process performance, issues etc. As a result, there was a significant 'growing up' of many individuals......

It truely was an interesting thing to see unfold before our eyes.......

Yes, another excellent example Andy, and I thoroughly agree with you.

I've seen the same thing occur also. One that comes to mind was a client organisation, which significantly changed its understanding and involvement in quality to become a highly focussed, and intelligent one. One that no longer repeats the same old, same old mistakes but really used the forum of peers to delve into any problems, improve processes and effectively resolve issues that needed to be resolved, plus looked at how could it do things better? What would have prevented this happening in the first place? Where else should they look?

As you say, they grew. And from battling away on 'quality' and spending almost all of their time on rehashing and fixing problem after problem, they're now spending most of their time on optimising and improving and growing. The MD is now extremely happy about what they do and how they do it; instead of spending all his time chasing up people and fighting the latest fires, he's able to focus on more valuable activities as well.

And none of this would happen with a 'once a year, by-the-book-just-do-the-mandatory-inputs-and-outputs and have it run by the MR' type of limited thinking & blinkered approach. 'Management review' done properly - done intelligently - is one of THE most powerful tools in the arsenal!

Yes, exactly. :lol: I often find managers are doing some/all of what is required, but not always in a systematic way and/or not consistently generating records to demonstrate.

I suspect someone came up with the idea of The Management Review Meeting (drum-roll please) and people have just adopted it without bothering to actually read and think about what the Standard itself says on the topic. Which specifies review, but never so much as mentions the word meetings.



In some of the writings during the 1990's, management review was a multi-functional activity and records were to be kept. That clearly inferred an assumption that it would be a meeting. The origin is not so unique.

Thank you, Jane! I am a novice at all of this and so I appreciate the kuddos even more! :thanx:

We have a weekly management meeting and the agenda includes quality issues as well as the ususal production issues.

Our registrar accepts this as a fullfillment for management review we therefore do not have a formal management review meeting. It works out very well!

tamale

We have a weekly management meeting and the agenda includes quality issues as well as the ususal production issues.

Our registrar accepts this as a fullfillment for management review we therefore do not have a formal management review meeting. It works out very well!

I was curious if your management handles the finanacials in the same manner. It is always an interesting comparison. Also, on the meeting agenda, does it include setting and verifying progress towards company quality goals - in addition to the day to day quality issues? Just interested in the level of quality issues the agenda covers.

The agenda covers items in a timely manor. Our internal audits are monthly and our quality objectives are quarterly so the agenda is adjusted accordingly.

Financials are treated independantly.

tamale

There is no defined frequency on Mgt Review meetings,it depend on your system, your company's size,your products risk. At least, once per year; but generally speaking, for Medical device manufacture, the common frequency is every three months. some will shorter,once per week or per month.

I agree with what the 2# floor said: what's more important is the content,raher than the frequency.

There is no defined frequency on Mgt Review meetings,it depend on your system, your company's size,your products risk. At least, once per year; but generally speaking, for Medical device manufacture, the common frequency is every three months. some will shorter,once per week or per month.

I agree with what the 2# floor said: what's more important is the content,raher than the frequency.

Almost. I feel the most important thing of all is that it be effective, and to do so includes content and appropriate frequency.