Hi everybody... I need your help in this issue. Recently we conduct the management review meeting and that has been filed into our records. For the agenda of the management review, their is a section call suggestion for improvement. Anyone know anything that can be added into that section? We have no idea on this, so we have get one NC regarding on this issue.
The NC raised state that there is no improvement has been susgested. Please advise.
Thank you.

Hi derice - there are a few ways of achieving this. Some people like to have an agenda item for improvements, these can be any improvements related to the business e.g. scrap levels, complaints, audits completed on time, etc. and the improvements should be what you have achieved and what future improvements you want to make.

My preference is to attach improvements to each agenda item e.g. customer feedback - you may report on the levels of complaints and positive feedback. I would report how this compared to previous reviews but then I look to see what can be improved from the present position. The revised points may also impact on your quality objectives - which is where much of this information can be derived from in the first place.

Thanks, Colpart for your reply. We do have a standard agenda which include the: 1) The suitability of policies and procedures
2) Reports from managerial and supervisory personnel
3) The outcome of recent internal audits
4) Corrective and Preventive Action
5) Assessment by external bodies
6) the results of proficiency test
7) Changes in the volume and type of the work
8) Customers Feedback
9) Complaints
10) Recommendation for improvement
11) Other relevant factors, such as quality control activities, resources and staff training.

We have gone through the management review and most of the item being review are positive. In that case, how should I make any improvement on that? Thank you.

Hello Derise,

As Colpart says: Basically anything from the review input could lead you to a need for improvement. Don't forget to have a look at the examples in ISO9004:2000, clause 5.6.2.

It would seem that you got the NC because you listed data and "filed it into your records", without any decision about how to act on it. Is that correct?

Added later (we posted simultaneously): We have gone through the management review and most of the item being review are positive. In that case, how should I make any improvement on that? Thank you.If so, I would suggest a comment that the item in question is on track and no action is required (To show that you have in fact considered it).

/Claes

Can you let us know how you address item 10 in your agenda? My guess is that you kept quiet about it because there wasn't anything to recommend.

For a new system, it could be possible that there isn't anything to recommend - in which case just record that since the system was just set-up, there isn't anything to recommend yet.

Perhaps the name of clause 5.6 does not give the whole story about this process. Being called management review, maybe suggests that it is only looking back i.e. reviewing what has happened. Whilst it is important to review performance, I believe it should also be used to project forwards and set plans for what we want to happen as well.

Perhaps the name of clause 5.6 does not give the whole story about this process. Being called management review, maybe suggests that it is only looking back i.e. reviewing what has happened. Whilst it is important to review performance, I believe it should also be used to project forwards and set plans for what we want to happen as well.

Hello Colin,

It looks forward....

5.6.3 Review output
The output from the management review shall include any decisions and actions related to
a) improvement of the effectiveness of the quality management system and its processes,
b) improvement of product related to customer requirements, and
c) resource needs.

What do you think?

Stijloor.

Good point Stijloor, I quite agree that it is used to look forward, I just wonder if the name gives that impression?

Good point Stijloor, I quite agree that it is used to look forward, I just wonder if the name gives that impression?

Hi Colin,

You're right. "Review" sounds somewhat reactive. The "looking forward" is supposed to happen in 7.1. If you put these activities (5.6 and 7.1) in the "Plan-Do-Check-Act" cycle, it makes sense.

Stijloor.

Derice:
Your agenda item 6 'the results of proficiency testing' appears to indicate that your organization is a laboratory, is that true?

If you are working on implementing an ISO/IEC17025:2005, the idea is that you should look at the operation of the lab to see if there is something which needs to be improved. The primary focus of a lab is to provide the customer with a (testing) service and, then, for the lab to do this in an effective manner.

Your management should be looking for opportunities to improve something which will affect the customer (like the time it takes to product the results) or, if there's no opportunities there, to look at an improvement internally, (like reducing waste).

Hello Colin,

It looks forward....

5.6.3 Review output
The output from the management review shall include any decisions and actions related to
a) improvement of the effectiveness of the quality management system and its processes,
b) improvement of product related to customer requirements, and
c) resource needs.

What do you think?

Stijloor.

Colpart/Stijloor - please be careful with your references, this is a post in the ISO/IEC 17025 forum - the references you cite are not relevant. Management Review in ISO/IEC 17025 is covered in 4.15.

The requirement talks of introducing changes or improvements.

So, although it's difficult to conceive of a lab which doesn't need to improve, the review might only identify changes........

Colpart/Stijloor - please be careful with your references, this is a post in the ISO/IEC 17025 forum - the references you cite are not relevant. Management Review in ISO/IEC 17025 is covered in 4.15

I stand to be corrected.

Stijloor.

Colpart/Stijloor - please be careful with your references, this is a post in the ISO/IEC 17025 forum - the references you cite are not relevant. Management Review in ISO/IEC 17025 is covered in 4.15.

Oops! I had not noticed that we were in the ISO 17025 forum.

Oops! I had not noticed that we were in the ISO 17025 forum.Nor had I. :lmao: Well done, Andy. :agree1:

/Claes

The prescriptive agenda in Clause 4.15.1 is partly historical and partly forward-looking.....

Suggestions for improvement are primarily forward-looking, but the source can be from anywhere.....corrective actions, customer complaints, customer feedback (they are two different things in 17025), calibration, training, ideas you pick up at a trade show, results of PT/ILC (proficiency test or inter-laboratory comparison).....almost anything from almost anywhere.....but certainly it should relate (1) to your business needs and operations, and (2) to the integrity of your quality system.

Hope this helps.

Yes, Andy. You are right. We are a lab providing the calibration services in the scope of temperature and humidity. For some part of our review, we review on the customer feedback based on 10 customer survey. Averagely we got a positive feedback from our customers. Then for the PT program, all of our staff do pass the PT program (internally). In this case should I still need to do any improvement on it? I really got no idea on this? Do anyone of you have some sample of review that you have done?
Attached is the Management Review Minutes that we used to record the minutes,the action plan, and action review. Please advise if need any improvement. Thank you.

Hi there, in my opinion, an NC given for MR without improvement discussed is not too right... I would have probably gotten just an observation/recommendation.

Anyway, Improvement can be in any form... there was a debate that improvement can come from Preventive action carried out. However, we make it simple with projects. Eg., using a new software to reduce test hours or even improvement on record forms or processes.

My understanding from auditors - they just want to see some evidence of documented improvements done in the Lab for clause 4.10.

Hope this helps.