I am a bit stuck on this one!

I cannot see it as an output as a whole, but a business plan should include quality objectives so a management review could mean that amendments are made to it. Hence it has been transformed by the process.

I can see it as an input because of the above, but not if it is simply used as a reference, as I believe this would make it a resource (I.e. it is not actually transformed by the process).

It's not 100% important I know, but it is not just limited to the business plan. What is all Business Planning and Objective activity in relation to the Management Review?

This is similar to asking whether Check (C in PDCA) is an input, resource or output. It can be all.

We make a Plan, Do it, and Check to see how it went. The Check results help us accept our current plan, or revise it.

I chose "all of the above" because without a business plan what would you have.

It is an input to the process of formulating the new plan which is the output of this process. The resources used to perform this process are defined in the business plan.

+1 on the All of the above.

All of the above.

Input - when the management wants to decide on the process and resources required to work as per plan. Also when the management want to review the progress of the work according to the plan.

Resource - when the management wants to measure the process in the plan.

Output - when the management amends or comes out with a business plan as a result of the discussions in the review.

I went for none of the above.

The business plan is an output from the business planning process (surprise, surprise!). Management review in most organizations is a (small) part of the overall business planning process.

I am not putting down management review - if used properly it can be a really powerful tool and contribute to the business planning process - I just know in most organizations it is a case of "do it for the auditors :bonk:."

I went for none of the above.

The business plan is an output from the business planning process (surprise, surprise!). Management review in most organizations is a (small) part of the overall business planning process.

I am not putting down management review - if used properly it can be a really powerful tool and contribute to the business planning process - I just know in most organizations it is a case of "do it for the auditors :bonk:."

I can see your point, Paul. Things would be different if the title of this thread is:
Is elements of the Business Plan an Input, Resource or Output of Management Review?

HI All,

Thanks for the input as always! I see people that went for "none of the above" didn't actually go for none of the above, they told me to get on with some real work!

I undertsand it is an output of the business planning process. But it should in my opinion form part of a good management review, as your quality objectives are stated in the business plan, and a good management review should surely be analysing the stated versus actual?

I therefore disagree that this is not at least a resourse used for the management review, if not something that can be transformed by it.

HI All,

Thanks for the input as always! I see people that went for "none of the above" didn't actually go for none of the above, they told me to get on with some real work! :notme:

I undertsand it is an output of the business planning process. But it should in my opinion form part of a good management review, as your quality objectives are stated in the business plan, and a good management review should surely be analysing the stated versus actual?

My post was to say that management review should be part of the business planning process but as one step in a (very) large process, review does not even get onto the radar as far as inputs and outputs are concerned.

You can't (or shouldn't) try and break processes down to individual steps - a recipe for sub optimization!

Would it be more useful to think of management review as an input of the business planning process?

Would it be more useful to think of management review as an input of the business planning process?

It depends on your process, really. If you have a review before you start the planning process then the output from review becomes an input to planning.

From my own point of view I would rather not separate Review from the rest of the business planning process and just acknowledge it as a step in the process (and not bother too much about I/P, O/P and measures for the individual step).

If it hadn't been for this thread I wouldn't have really gave the topic much thought but if your trying to understand how activities interelate with each other I find it easier to relate management review to business planning rather than relate business planning to the management review.

The planning process in the company where I work doesn't really start or end but is a continual cycle, and in the few years I have worked here it is moving closer to what I would recognise as a PDCA cycle (which is nice).

Certainly in management review items such as on time delivery, repair TAT's, bugs found after release are all discussed and this certainly feeds into business planning to determine resources required by departments etc.

I sometimes find it useful to seperate things and determine how they interact in terms inputs and outputs to benefit my own understanding of the process but I wouldn't contend that doing this intrinsically brings any other benefits or adds any value.

I would say that business planning, and by that I guess we are talking of 3 or 5 year strategic plans, are the output of the management review process at the very highest level.

Personally I would state this to an auditor as being my 'management review' in terms of ISO9001 compliance. Now I know inexperienced auditors will get all shirty if they cannot see that the written quality policy statement hasnt been reviewed in this process, but that is largely ISO9001 compliance auditing trivia.

You may have a secondary level managment review when you talk about things going wrong, the traditional approach if you like, but really that should just be a feed into the main strategic business planning process.

I agree that the business plan is a very high level function that ought to be influenced by management review, not the other way around, especially since management review covers so much besides the business plan.

...... especially since management review covers so much besides the business plan.
Sorry, Jennifer. I don't get this comment. :confused:

IMHO Management Review (of the Quality System) is a very small part of what the business does whereas the business plan covers everything the organization is planning to do in the time period it covers.

Should we maybe stop thinking of 'management review' as an event, e.g. a specific meeting of this title chaired once a year/quarter/month or whatever, and think about the process of management review, e.g. senior staff looking at process performance and taking actions to ensure future direction is kept on course with business objectives, which to my mind happens all the time, in fact is a day to day function of managers.

Difficult to present to auditors I know, but management review is what managers do isnt it ??

Should we maybe stop thinking of 'management review' as an event, e.g. a specific meeting of this title chaired once a year/quarter/month or whatever, and think about the process of management review, e.g. senior staff looking at process performance and taking actions to ensure future direction is kept on course with business objectives, which to my mind happens all the time, in fact is a day to day function of managers.

Difficult to present to auditors I know, but management review is what managers do isnt it ??

Great point! Exactly! Why "Management Review" became just an "ISO" activity to be performed at some interval is beyond me... My view is that any time managers meet to talk business, you have a management review. Period.

Stijloor.

I would say that business planning, and by that I guess we are talking of 3 or 5 year strategic plans, are the output of the management review process at the very highest level.

Personally I would state this to an auditor as being my 'management review' in terms of ISO9001 compliance. Now I know inexperienced auditors will get all shirty if they cannot see that the written quality policy statement hasnt been reviewed in this process, but that is largely ISO9001 compliance auditing trivia.

You may have a secondary level managment review when you talk about things going wrong, the traditional approach if you like, but really that should just be a feed into the main strategic business planning process.

The Business Plan is very important, in that it sets the strategic goals and objectives for the whole business, as best it can forecast. It usually is not produced DURING a Management Review meeting, so it would not be an output. If you want to make it during a MR meeting, that would be OK. Then it would be an output...but what does it matter?

Management Review meetings and other management meetings are not necessarily the same thing. A Management Review meeting is designed to periodically review whether objectives and targets are being met, and the expectations the internal QMS sets forth are being performed effectively. It is not an ordinary business meeting, and certainly should not be a daily production meeting. Because it is different, and has a specific purpose for review and planning, it should have a specific and different agenda.

Because the MR meeting should have a specific purpose and agenda, the standard lists, as a minimum, the inputs and outputs that must be considered. It would appear, maybe in previous standards, some people's meetings were not focused and did not cover these required items.

Since we auditors must audit whether you are meeting the standard at a minimum, us "inexperienced, 'shirty' auditors," (and even a few of us experienced ones), must review that these required inputs are reviewed. That includes the darn Quality Policy, even though we don't expect to see too many changes. But gee, it would be a good opportunity to remind the managers what they supposedly COMMITTED to work to...

A MR meeting (MRM) should be reviewing the performance of the past, based on metrics, against the defined objectives. It should be discussing the current affairs, particularly these objectives that are not being met, and making course adjustments for the future, to ensure that the objectives are achieved. There you have past, present and future in one strategy meeting.

The meeting may propose changes to certain objectives or items in the business plan, which would be perfect. That is the intent of this "review" meeting.

And, all the other meetings that managers do are intended to run the day-to-day details of the business.

hjilling, you simply seem to be re-stating the ISO requirements for 'management review' without question.

Saying that gee the managers should know what they are committed to by reviewing the quality policy, which is just yet another ISO 9001 required piece of documentation, is just naive !

I simply dont buy it.

Who says management review has to be a meeting? In the Lead Auditor course I deliver this is one of the "potential" N/Cs. There doesn't have to be a meeting just the right people need to review the QMS.

I am all for integrating quality with all the other aspects of the organization's business ..... heck I even support quality objectives being included with other business objectives like sales, HR etc. ;)

But, and it is a big but, if an organization is carrying out a review of "just" the QMS then that is a couple of levels below the importance of the business planning activity that all organizations tend to treat very seriously.

Don't get me wrong, I wish the organization's leader would take quality seriously (as they should) .... I just know they generally don't so won't hold my breath for review being given a priority.

Then we get back to the definition of 'quality' - what important stuff are these fella's reviewing that has nothing to do with 'quality' ??

Our manager who is in charge of systems quality often tells second and third party auditors that our management review takes place at various levels in the company, by having meetings and reviewing process performance and setting new goals (PDCA). This is a great performance given with a highly detailed power point presentation. Then behind closed doors he tells us (his auditors) that we have a big problem with management review because review of the QS is not taking place by TOP Management. We are have annual business planning sessions, customer complaint metrics and audit results however these are only reviewed by mid-level managers, not by TOP Management. There there is also a known disconnect of not having anything from the business plan align with quality objectives. Which is not the intent of ISO9001.

However we always "get by" with showing auditors siloed functional meetings and individual departmental goals and objectives. Our manager is politically intimidated by Top management who probably would fire him if he bugged them after all they just fired a member of the board of directors for speaking out against the lack of discpline in execution to the business plan. (Actually they didn't fire him, he resigned due to personal reasons two days after the statement was published in a local newpaper).

:topic:Also we have not been questioned at all by any auditors as to why the corporate quality group reports into manufacturing. It just goes to show that anyone can always BS their way through audits. 3rd party ISO auditors really need some better teeth to decommission registrations.

Sorry, Jennifer. I don't get this comment. :confused:

IMHO Management Review (of the Quality System) is a very small part of what the business does whereas the business plan covers everything the organization is planning to do in the time period it covers.Well, you're right of course. But the part of the business plan that is affected by the management review would arguably be small. A business plan might include a project to improve a process that management decided to focus on during the management review. But the review will have many things that don't end up as business plan aspects, and the business plan covers a lot of areas that might not be a part of a QMS management review anyway. For example, expanding or changing a product line to attract a new customer group.

Hope I made sense out of that one. I stayed up late to watch the baseball game again.

Should we maybe stop thinking of 'management review' as an event, e.g. a specific meeting of this title chaired once a year/quarter/month or whatever, and think about the process of management review, e.g. senior staff looking at process performance and taking actions to ensure future direction is kept on course with business objectives, which to my mind happens all the time, in fact is a day to day function of managers.

Difficult to present to auditors I know, but management review is what managers do isnt it ??However it is done, there should be a way to verify that needs for the managers' action were recognized, that action was taken, and that the results of action were reviewed--some kind of follow up was performed to make sure the actions were successful. The reason that management reviews end up as meetings is so minutes can be taken to show these things have been done.

Jennifer, why do you say we must do these things ?

Also why is a decision to bring in a new product not a quality issue ? (apologies in advance if I mis-interpreted your previous post).

Well, you're right of course. But the part of the business plan that is affected by the management review would arguably be small. OK. Now my point is that there is very little of your average Management Review that even gets onto the Business Planning Radar. The two processes should be better aligned but IMHO they are not.
A business plan might include a project to improve a process that management decided to focus on during the management review. Now that should get picked up in the section:
5.6.2 f) changes that could affect the quality management system but I bet it doesn't.
But the review will have many things that don't end up as business plan aspects, Unlikely there is anything of the review that top management think is important that doesn't get covered in the business plan. Often the results of audits and status of corrective actions etc. just aren't seen as important.
.... and the business plan covers a lot of areas that might not be a part of a QMS management review anyway. For example, expanding or changing a product line to attract a new customer group. Again this should be covered under the same clause f) above. If there is a new product line there will be a need to produce new processes to see the new requirements can be met. Product and process development etc., etc.

Hope I made sense out of that one. I stayed up late to watch the baseball game again.Good for you! I hope it was worth it.

Then we get back to the definition of 'quality' - what important stuff are these fella's reviewing that has nothing to do with 'quality' ?? Sorry, Martin. I didn't get this one ... :confused: or was it aimed at another post? Please excuse the stupidity - it is Friday afternoon after all!

Jennifer, why do you say we must do these things ?

Also why is a decision to bring in a new product not a quality issue ? (apologies in advance if I mis-interpreted your previous post).I said should, not must.

Why? So managers can avoid the stuff-in, stuff-out approach in favor of Plan-Do-Check-Act:

Here's what we noticed;
This is what we will do about it.
Progress report (if not done by next management review)
Thing is done.
Did it work? Problem is not recurring. Okay! Or, start at the beginning again.

Our manager who is in charge of systems quality often tells second and third party auditors that our management review takes place at various levels in the company, by having meetings and reviewing process performance and setting new goals (PDCA). This is a great performance given with a highly detailed power point presentation. Then behind closed doors he tells us (his auditors) that we have a big problem with management review because review of the QS is not taking place by TOP Management. We are have annual business planning sessions, customer complaint metrics and audit results however these are only reviewed by mid-level managers, not by TOP Management. There there is also a known disconnect of not having anything from the business plan align with quality objectives. Which is not the intent of ISO9001.

However we always "get by" with showing auditors siloed functional meetings and individual departmental goals and objectives. Our manager is politically intimidated by Top management who probably would fire him if he bugged them after all they just fired a member of the board of directors for speaking out against the lack of discpline in execution to the business plan. (Actually they didn't fire him, he resigned due to personal reasons two days after the statement was published in a local newpaper).

:topic:Also we have not been questioned at all by any auditors as to why the corporate quality group reports into manufacturing. It just goes to show that anyone can always BS their way through audits. 3rd party ISO auditors really need some better teeth to decommission registrations.


Sadly, the specific examples you cite would probably not result in decertifying someone. The lack of committemnt, and games playing, does rob companies of the benefits the audits they buy could give them. If they collaborate, they win, If not, they lose out.

Who says management review has to be a meeting? In the Lead Auditor course I deliver this is one of the "potential" N/Cs. There doesn't have to be a meeting just the right people need to review the QMS.

I am all for integrating quality with all the other aspects of the organization's business ..... heck I even support quality objectives being included with other business objectives like sales, HR etc. ;)

But, and it is a big but, if an organization is carrying out a review of "just" the QMS then that is a couple of levels below the importance of the business planning activity that all organizations tend to treat very seriously.

Don't get me wrong, I wish the organization's leader would take quality seriously (as they should) .... I just know they generally don't so won't hold my breath for review being given a priority.


Half of them do, half don't. Some who don't, probably would, if they understood better. I focus on the half that want to benefit, and help them understand how to do it. The others....will take care of themselves eventually....

hjilling, you simply seem to be re-stating the ISO requirements for 'management review' without question.

Saying that gee the managers should know what they are committed to by reviewing the quality policy, which is just yet another ISO 9001 required piece of documentation, is just naive !

I simply dont buy it.


Ummm...not really sure how to respond to this, cuz, that comment has no link to the meaning of my reply.

For the record, I spend 2 minutes checking whether the Quality policy was changed in the MR meeting. It really was, and I move on.

BUT, if mgt. is committed to their quality improvement program, then I will spend a significant amount of time reviewing what was addressed in the mgt. review MEETING. It is a meeting, and it should be all the things I described in my previous post.

If you have read my posts over the months, you know I am not a shallow flack for ISO. I am passionate ONLY about the results a company can get if they commit to using this system. If they don't want that, I don't keep them as a client.

hjilling, you simply seem to be re-stating the ISO requirements for 'management review' without question.

Saying that gee the managers should know what they are committed to by reviewing the quality policy, which is just yet another ISO 9001 required piece of documentation, is just naive !

I simply dont buy it.

I don't understand your point? Can you explain?