Greetings all,

As some may have read from a previous post, I'm helping re-implement a troubled QMS at my new employer. While reviewing the documentation I was a bit surprised by the strange look I got when I asked to see the old management review minutes. I got them, but was told to keep them close because there was sensitive information in there. ??? I found that strange from a company that posts their financials in the luchroom... Anyway, my main point here is that I discovered that attendees of management reviews were this: The two owners and the General Manager.

I'm accustom to management reviews where all department directors or managers attended and as process owners, they submitted their metrics and in general added good input to the meeting. I would have thought that at least the Quality Manager and Production Manager would attend. Turns out they never even see the minutes.

I'm thinking I need to recommend that they open up these meetings to the department managers because I think it will be more effective. It's one thing to turn in a report that the owners discuss. It's another thing to have some real discussion from the horse's mouth.

What do you think? Who is the "Top Management" group that shall review the QMS?

Greetings all,

As some may have read from a previous post, I'm helping re-implement a troubled QMS at my new employer. While reviewing the documentation I was a bit surprised by the strange look I got when I asked to see the old management review minutes. I got them, but was told to keep them close because there was sensitive information in there. ??? I found that strange from a company that posts their financials in the luchroom... Anyway, my main point here is that I discovered that attendees of management reviews were this: The two owners and the General Manager.

I'm accustom to management reviews where all department directors or managers attended and as process owners, they submitted their metrics and in general added good input to the meeting. I would have thought that at least the Quality Manager and Production Manager would attend. Turns out they never even see the minutes.

I'm thinking I need to recommend that they open up these meetings to the department managers because I think it will be more effective. It's one thing to turn in a report that the owners discuss. It's another thing to have some real discussion from the horse's mouth.

What do you think? Who is the "Top Management" group that shall review the QMS?

Tym,

My personal opinion is anyone that has the authority to implement change within the organization would be top management.

Opening the meetings for the Department Heads can't hurt and most likely will make if more effective, under the condition that input creates a good output for change within the organization.

Also, having sensitive minutes, are fine and would not be subject to audit, in my opinion even though there is a disclaimer that Registrar's won't divulge sensitive information about the organization.

Top management
person or group of people who directs and controls an organization

Definitely, there is something amiss here. The purpose of management reviews is to evaluate the effectiveness of the QMS in delivering it's objectives and keeping customers happy. Action items are decided upon to make corrections and/or improvements.
Your expectation that process owners, department managers and other relevant personnel should be present and actively involved is 100% correct.
A management review that resembles a secretive cult ritual (as you describe) is just another symptom of a dysfunctional organization.

In my humble opinion, It seems the group of people that meet is not meeting for the purpose that we are discussing. maybe they need to introduce a separate get together for the real issues where the stake holders are present.
this needs to start from scrach, eg : whats improtant to our busness ?
every area needs to be looked at in order to find what needs to be tracked? what are the goals ? etc etc.... this will not happen overnight as this is a large culture change (I would think)

It does sound a bit odd to me

But my question is, is the output of these meetings clear to the rest of the organisation? Can imagine that the minutes itself are not public but the actions resulting from this meeting should be communicated in order to take any effect. Is it the only mgt review being held? We have Mgt reviews on several levels within our company. It's what 12345 said "what's important to the business"

Greetz

ISO 900:2000 has this to say:

3.2.7 top management
person or group of people who directs and controls an organization (3.3.1) at the highest level


Look to ISO 9001 itself for the answer. Within the language is information related to TM's RRA's.

5.1 Management commitment
Top management shall provide evidence of its commitment to the development and implementation of the quality management system and continually improving its effectiveness by
a) communicating to the organization the importance of meeting customer as well as statutory and regulatory requirements,
b) establishing the quality policy,
c) ensuring that quality objectives are established,
d) conducting management reviews, and
e) ensuring the availability of resources.

The above and on through Clause 5 the responsibilities of TM are defined.

We can put it all into a nutshell by understanding that TM is commonly understood to be the management level of the organization that can:
* establish strategic goals for the organization,
* can establish organizational policy and commit the orgainization to particular paths or directions,
* and has control over organizational level resources and can commit their use without the need to obtain permission.

As with anything there may be exceptions but, but more often than not this is what you find.

Guess what? Your owners and their General Manager are probably the "real" decision makers and TM to boot.

hears it is very strange if a company considers management review confidential, as I remember during my previous four years experience, any management review should be open to every dept head, because they are all the inputs. also, they should buy off the minutes through signature on the papers...

cheer...

If your description is accurate, it seems the top management at this organization is missing both the intent and spirit of a "management review" of a Quality Management System.

In my own practice and experience, world class companies conduct a "management review of a QMS" in a number of ways, which might include, but are not limited to:

review of internal audit reports by an individual or a group with the power to implement changes or declare systems may remain at status quo. (this includes power over budget for money and manpower to implement a change.)
review of both internal audit reports and "management by walking around" [by individual or group with power as above] to make decisions whether to leave as is or change a system.The review may be an actual meeting by several individuals with a formal agenda or simply a "desk review" of written reports by one manager.

In any regard, almost always, the "management review committee" (whether one or ten people) writes up a summary of the activity and releases a report to all affected parties, describing the issues reviewed and the action taken [or not taken] on each issue. (Sometimes, but not always, the committee may also issue an explanation of the reasoning for each decision.)

Where action is to be taken, the person or department responsible for carrying out an action is listed, together with a target date for completion and presentation of an evaluation report on the effectiveness of the change.

Openness of communication is vital in keeping employees, suppliers, and customers aware of the status of the QMS throughout the organization.

If your description is accurate, it seems the top management at this organization is missing both the intent and spirit of a "management review" of a Quality Management System.

In my own practice and experience, world class companies conduct a "management review of a QMS" in a number of ways, which might include, but are not limited to:

review of internal audit reports by an individual or a group with the power to implement changes or declare systems may remain at status quo. (this includes power over budget for money and manpower to implement a change.)
review of both internal audit reports and "management by walking around" [by individual or group with power as above] to make decisions whether to leave as is or change a system.The review may be an actual meeting by several individuals with a formal agenda or simply a "desk review" of written reports by one manager.

In any regard, almost always, the "management review committee" (whether one or ten people) writes up a summary of the activity and releases a report to all affected parties, describing the issues reviewed and the action taken [or not taken] on each issue. (Sometimes, but not always, the committee may also issue an explanation of the reasoning for each decision.)

Where action is to be taken, the person or department responsible for carrying out an action is listed, together with a target date for completion and presentation of an evaluation report on the effectiveness of the change.

Openness of communication is vital in keeping employees, suppliers, and customers aware of the status of the QMS throughout the organization.

Good points and suggestions.

If your description is accurate, it seems the top management at this organization is missing both the intent and spirit of a "management review" of a Quality Management System.

In my own practice and experience, world class companies conduct a "management review of a QMS" in a number of ways, which might include, but are not limited to:

review of internal audit reports by an individual or a group with the power to implement changes or declare systems may remain at status quo. (this includes power over budget for money and manpower to implement a change.)
review of both internal audit reports and "management by walking around" [by individual or group with power as above] to make decisions whether to leave as is or change a system.The review may be an actual meeting by several individuals with a formal agenda or simply a "desk review" of written reports by one manager.

In any regard, almost always, the "management review committee" (whether one or ten people) writes up a summary of the activity and releases a report to all affected parties, describing the issues reviewed and the action taken [or not taken] on each issue. (Sometimes, but not always, the committee may also issue an explanation of the reasoning for each decision.)

Where action is to be taken, the person or department responsible for carrying out an action is listed, together with a target date for completion and presentation of an evaluation report on the effectiveness of the change.

Openness of communication is vital in keeping employees, suppliers, and customers aware of the status of the QMS throughout the organization.


Wes, I would want to slant this approach quite a bit more to the process approach. In my view, it reflects the previous ISO approach too much.

I believe the intent of the current list of required inputs in cl 5.6 are designed to drive a review of the performance of each process, considering its effectiveness in achieving its process criteria and objectives, particularly from a customer's (internal and external customers) point of view.

I always suggest Management Review is much broader and deeper than just a review of the audit reports. My clients generally use the audit results as just one of several inputs for consideration.

Greetings all,

As some may have read from a previous post, I'm helping re-implement a troubled QMS at my new employer. While reviewing the documentation I was a bit surprised by the strange look I got when I asked to see the old management review minutes. I got them, but was told to keep them close because there was sensitive information in there. ??? I found that strange from a company that posts their financials in the luchroom... Anyway, my main point here is that I discovered that attendees of management reviews were this: The two owners and the General Manager.

I'm accustom to management reviews where all department directors or managers attended and as process owners, they submitted their metrics and in general added good input to the meeting. I would have thought that at least the Quality Manager and Production Manager would attend. Turns out they never even see the minutes.

I'm thinking I need to recommend that they open up these meetings to the department managers because I think it will be more effective. It's one thing to turn in a report that the owners discuss. It's another thing to have some real discussion from the horse's mouth.

What do you think? Who is the "Top Management" group that shall review the QMS?


ABSOLUTELY! Your viewpoint is right on track and is the commonly accepted approach.

Top management? The system is a process so the folks that are the process owners?

How about the peoiple that can fire everyone else? They may be the real decision makers. Just a guess of course.

Wes, I would want to slant this approach quite a bit more to the process approach. In my view, it reflects the previous ISO approach too much.

I believe the intent of the current list of required inputs in cl 5.6 are designed to drive a review of the performance of each process, considering its effectiveness in achieving its process criteria and objectives, particularly from a customer's (internal and external customers) point of view.

I always suggest Management Review is much broader and deeper than just a review of the audit reports. My clients generally use the audit results as just one of several inputs for consideration.
You are correct, of course. I was trying to be "too generic" in emphasizing the "distribution of decisions and actions" of the management review, as well as the fact a management review does not necessarily entail a mob scene of managers, but can be performed by one person, regardless of the source of input of data.