ISO 9001:2000 Sec. 5.5.2 Management Representative.

Standard Requirement states, oppoint member of management who, irrespective of other responsibilities.

Can anyone elaborate and define?

If you scroll down the screen, you will find several threads on the subject.

Issue has been exhaustively discussed here.


Management Review: Define "Top Management" (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=17806)
Management Representative - Is there a requirement for a substitute management rep? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8901)
Interpreting and Implementing ISO 9001:2000 5.5.2c - Management Rep Responsibilities (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=5421)

ISO 9001:2000 Sec. 5.5.2 Management Representative.

Standard Requirement states, oppoint member of management who, irrespective of other responsibilities.

Can anyone elaborate and define?


Short definition:
This is the person appointed to walk around with the auditors and get beat up, then has to fix everything after they leave. (This is supposed to be funny-Ha, Ha ,Ha,)

Here's guidance from ISO 9004:2000

5.5.2 Management representative
A management representative should be appointed and given authority by top management to manage, monitor, evaluate and coordinate the quality management system. This appointment is to enhance effective and efficient operation and improvement of the quality management system. The representative should report to top management and communicate with customers and other interested parties on matters pertaining to the quality management system.

The management representative represents (Top) management within the QMS and could be the manager, supervisor, head dude or whatever position of management there is in the janitorial, shipping and recieving, HR, Quality department or any other department or activity that is deemed appropriate.

ISO 9001:2000 Sec. 5.5.2 Management Representative.

Standard Requirement states, appoint member of management who, irrespective of other responsibilities.

Can anyone elaborate and define?

Hello Sylvan,

Simple answer: It means that this member of management can have responsibilities other than being a management representative. In other words: being a management representative does not have to be this person's sole responsibility.

Stijloor.

Here's guidance from ISO 9004:2000

5.5.2 Management representative
A management representative should be appointed and given authority by top management to manage, monitor, evaluate and coordinate the quality management system. This appointment is to enhance effective and efficient operation and improvement of the quality management system. The representative should report to top management and communicate with customers and other interested parties on matters pertaining to the quality management system.

The management representative represents (Top) management within the QMS and could be the manager, supervisor, head dude or whatever position of management there is in the janitorial, shipping and recieving, HR, Quality department or any other department or activity that is deemed appropriate.

Is the above referenced standard still current ie ISO 9004:2000? Is it ok to reference a superceeded version in a new SOP? If not, is there a recent definition of Man. Rep? .....:confused:

Is the above referenced standard still current ie ISO 9004:2000? Is it ok to reference a superceeded version in a new SOP? If not, is there a recent definition of Man. Rep? .....:confused:

Even though ISO 9004:2000 is currently ungoing a (major) revision, it is still a valid (guidance) Standard.

Stijloor.

9001 will always supercede 9004. 9001 is the requirements standard and 9004 is a guidance standard. The difference being 9001 is an absolute must or will and 9004 is a you can if you want but you don't have to.

Is the above referenced standard still current ie ISO 9004:2000? Is it ok to reference a superceeded version in a new SOP? If not, is there a recent definition of Man. Rep? .....:confused:

I wouldn't be referencing any ISO standard in an (internal) SOP, if I were you.....

9001 will always supercede 9004. 9001 is the requirements standard and 9004 is a guidance standard. The difference being 9001 is an absolute must or will and 9004 is a you can if you want but you don't have to.
That's not what "supersede" means; that which supersedes replaces something else, usually due to the superseded thing being outdated or revised.

Thanks very much!

Yeah, bad choice......9001 will always have primacy over 9004

Is the above referenced standard still current ie ISO 9004:2000? Is it ok to reference a superceeded version in a new SOP? If not, is there a recent definition of Man. Rep? .....:confused:

FYI the latest is ISO 9001:2008, and it says-

5.5.2 Management representative

Top management should appoint a member of the organization's management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes

a) ensuring that process needed for the quality management system are established, implemented and maintained

b) reporting to top managementon the performance of the quality management system and any need for improvement, and

c) ensuring the promotion of awareness of customer requirements throughout the organization.

NOTE The responsibility of amanagement representative can include liason with external parties on matters relating to the quality management system.

Umang :D

Yes I am aware of the requirements of a Management Rep., but was looking for more of a definition, the one Randy quoted looked like what I was looking for.
Why can't I quote an ISO standard in an internal SOP though? We would always Reference ISO material as this is where we get our guidance.

I wouldn't be referencing any ISO standard in an (internal) SOP, if I were you.....


Why can't I quote an ISO standard in an internal SOP though? We would always Reference ISO material as this is where we get our guidance.
You can reference ISO 9001 if you want to, but it's not very useful and tends to reinforce the misbegotten notion that things are done in a certain way "because ISO says so."

I understand where you are coming from, but I don't see any harm quoting definitions from ISO- just shows you are inline with the standard. I wouldn't be quoting the standard for the "how" though, not that its that specific anyway!