The QS Manager, our registrar and management in our company in general continually dance around and support Top Management not being involved in Management review/commitment. Instead this is being explained as it done at all levels in the organization. The President and CEO never have even looked at an internal audit or reviewed any internal / external audit metrics. The registrar is just happy to meet with the QS manager and his boss the VP of Manufacturing and call it good (we have 7 VPs in our organization very siloed to their own departments). Now we are going through some gap audits for the TS 16949 and there are people applying section 5.1 and on to mid-level managers and departments. I was schooled by BSI and that was not the intent of 5.1. I am so tired of the Emperor's new clothes...:mad:

The QS Manager, our registrar and management in our company in general continually dance around and support Top Management not being involved in Management review/commitment. Instead this is being explained as it done at all levels in the organization. The President and CEO never have even looked at an internal audit or reviewed any internal / external audit metrics. The registrar is just happy to meet with the QS manager and his boss the VP of Manufacturing and call it good (we have 7 VPs in our organization very siloed to their own departments). Now we are going through some gap audits for the TS 16949 and there are people applying section 5.1 and on to mid-level managers and departments. I was schooled by BSI and that was not the intent of 5.1. I am so tired of the Emperor's new clothes...:mad:

qualityboi,

Your emperor is bare-ass naked, and somebody needs to tell 'm. :agree1:

You just hope it's not a customer that will point this out! :nope:

Stijloor.

This is the kind of top management who just wants to see the the accreditation on the wall.

I had to deal with one like yours before. And trust me, I couldn't find a shoulder to cry on either. :mad:

There is no way I work with such management in my life again.

qualityboi,

Your emperor is bare-ass naked, and somebody needs to tell 'm. :agree1:

You just hope it's not a customer that will point this out! :nope:

Stijloor. I fear that is what will be required to drive home the point that Management Review means management will be the ones reviewing. And yes Virginia, audit results must be reviewed too...good grief.

I fear that is what will be required to drive home the point that Management Review means management will be the ones reviewing. And yes Virginia, audit results must be reviewed too...good grief.

Our sister plant failed a TS audit for this.

The auditor asked the plant manager about Mgt Review and he said "quality takes care of the sh*T, I've got real work to do".

Audit promptly ends with a major system failure.

Yes Virginia, the sometimes is a Santa Claus

....Top Management not being involved in Management review/commitment. Instead this is being explained as it done at all levels in the organization. I've seen this argument 'Passed / Accepted' in large organizations many times. And several times the argument was valid. As an example, I saw this in what was the Motorola Semi-Conductor group. And they were right. There was plenty of evidence / data showing all the numerous lower level meetings (and other) from plants around the world were generated, and how the 'summaries', including data, floated (bubbled?) up to the 'top' level meetings.

The QS Manager, our registrar and management in our company in general continually dance around and support Top Management not being involved in Management review/commitment. Instead this is being explained as it done at all levels in the organization. The President and CEO never have even looked at an internal audit or reviewed any internal / external audit metrics. The registrar is just happy to meet with the QS manager and his boss the VP of Manufacturing and call it good (we have 7 VPs in our organization very siloed to their own departments). Now we are going through some gap audits for the TS 16949 and there are people applying section 5.1 and on to mid-level managers and departments. I was schooled by BSI and that was not the intent of 5.1. I am so tired of the Emperor's new clothes...:mad:Jim, when I connect this post with your other one Experience with multiple sites operating under one ISO certificate? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=226379&postcount=17) and you mentioned that your organization is certified under the Advanced Surveillance & Reassessment Procedure (ASRP), I become even more baffled. From the IAF Guidance document on the ASRP, protocol, I extract:

In addition to auditing a statistically significant number of samples of the organization’s management system processes to confirm the adequacy and effectiveness of the internal audit process, the certification/registration body itself shall continue to carry out the
following activities at each on-site surveillance and reassessment visit, as a minimum (with other activities defined by the ASRP; see clause 1.4 below):

�� interview top management and the management representative;
�� evaluate management review inputs and outputs, including a verification of the organization’s ability to meet the agreed performance targets;

�� review the internal audit process, including the procedures and records of internal audits, and the competence of internal auditors;

�� review corrective and preventive actions plans, and verify their effective implementation. Since you are also supposed to have a VERY ROBUST internal audit process, to be eligible for the ASRP protocol, how come your internal auditors are not keeping top management honest? It seems to me that, not only your external auditor is lacking cojones, but so is your internal audit team.

PS. There are only four ANAB-accredited CB's under the ISO 9001 ASRP (Advanced Surveillance & Reassessment Procedure) protocol.

Jim, when I connect this post with your other one Experience with multiple sites operating under one ISO certificate? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=226379&postcount=17) and you mentioned that your organization is certified under the Advanced Surveillance & Reassessment Procedure (ASRP), I become even more baffled. From the IAF Guidance document on the ASRP, protocol, I extract:
Since you are also supposed to have a VERY ROBUST internal audit process, to be eligible for the ASRP protocol, how come your internal auditors are not keeping top management honest? It seems to me that, not only your external auditor is lacking cojones, but so is your internal audit team.

PS. There are only four ANAB-accredited CB's under the ISO 9001 ASRP (Advanced Surveillance & Reassessment Procedure) protocol.
[/left]

Awesome detective work, but it is unrealistic to expect internal auditors to keep top managment honest when they are holding your cojones! There was a lot more to my post but I deleted in fear that you might blow a whistle...

...but it is unrealistic to expect internal auditors to keep top management honest when they are holding your cojones! ....
Right on!

I damaged my mental health a while ago trying to get top management to change...now I'm standing ready and willing to help when (and if) they decide a change is needed.

You are right, it's not our job to make them change, just to point out the problem, and suggest solutions...

but it is unrealistic to expect internal auditors to keep top managment honest when they are holding your cojones!You are right, it's not our job to make them change, just to point out the problem, and suggest solutions...Obviously, internal auditors should not manage the organization on behalf of top management, but when an organization is certified under the ASRP protocol, there are strengthened requirements about the efficacy and robustness of the internal audit process, as well as heightened expectations about the competence of internal auditors. Further, the management review process should be very effective in evaluating and correcting the system at hand.

If the internal auditors, external auditors and top management are not performing appropriately, there is an obvious concern.

You started this thread by questioning the performance of the external auditor for not keeping top management accountable. I am just expanding the concern over who is not doing their jobs.

IMHO the reason 3rd party CBs especially people employed as a contract auditor, gets huffy about ASRP is that they lose money in the deal. The Quality and Money conflict has always been the 800lb gorilla between AB, CBs and the Organizations that keep them afloat.
That said, again IMHO those who are compensated the most should be those with the greatest responsibility and "heightened performance" requirements now who would that be, the CB, Top Management or the Internal Auditor? - DOH! I know it rolls downhill, after a while one gets tired of wading in it.

I am going to actively study and use the "bubbling up argument" (I am printing it out and putting it on my wall) for the next 3rd party CB audit, which would be something of use rather than DOE or regression analysis, which is on my training requirements, something that I never use, but looks great to meet the "heightened expectations" of internal auditors that the ASRP calls for...that gorilla isn't all bad after all.:thanks:

IMHO the reason 3rd party CBs especially people employed as a contract auditor, gets huffy about ASRP is that they lose money in the deal. That is the current paradigm. One day, if I have my way, ASRP will actually be the salvation of the certification sector. Most CB's, with their constrained thinking misperceive and/or mis-apply the ASRP protocol. But it could be a major blessing, for all parties involved. The only drawback: it would require even more accountability. From everyone.

But reverting back to your case. If the CB was doing their job appropriately, they should have identified by now that your management review is not robust enough, nor your internal audit process efficacious. That would give them reasons to deny your certification via ASRP, and revert back to the traditional process, increasing the monetary transfer from your accounts payable to their accounts receivable. So, why don't they pull the plug on your ASRP program? :confused:

... One day, if I have my way, ASRP will actually be the salvation of the certification sector.

Sidney

Sounds good, everyone needs a little salvation.

So, what the heck is ASRP? I live in TS World and have never even heard of it.

Could you please do a quick backgrounder and/or post some links? If there is something out there that can improve the value of TS registrar audits we get, I'll be all over it.

Sidney

Sounds good, everyone needs a little salvation.

So, what the heck is ASRP? I live in TS World and have never even heard of it.

Could you please do a quick backgrounder and/or post some links? If there is something out there that can improve the value of TS registrar audits we get, I'll be all over it.

Caster,

Look at Sidney's post" "New IAF Mandatory Documents (MD Series)" (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=237021&postcount=1). Look at the 3rd reference in the box.

Stijloor.

I've seen this argument 'Passed / Accepted' in large organizations many times. And several times the argument was valid. As an example, I saw this in what was the Motorola Semi-Conductor group. And they were right. There was plenty of evidence / data showing all the numerous lower level meetings (and other) from plants around the world were generated, and how the 'summaries', including data, floated (bubbled?) up to the 'top' level meetings.
This process described by Marc makes a lot of sense for large organizations. Recall the exact wording of ISO 9001:2000 (UPDATED TO NO CHANGE IN 2008 VERSION)5 Management responsibility
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.
Nowhere in the Standard is there a prescription of "how" a management review shall be conducted, nor a prescription of what material or input shall be required to be considered. If top management of an organization feels customer, regulatory, investor, employee, supplier, etc. considerations are adequately covered in a capsule summary of a capsule summary [yes, I mean a summary of a summary!] of an original internal audit, no third party auditor has any "shall" to point to which says differently.

CAVEAT:
That said, however, "some" formal documented review should be conducted by top management of a registrant to a Standard, however meager the material used in the review. The problem with many top managers is they believe the mere fact they have initialed a summary is sufficient to constitute a review. The documented part is the record of ACTION or NO ACTION after such reading and initialing.

Our sister plant failed a TS audit for this.

The auditor asked the plant manager about Mgt Review and he said "quality takes care of the sh*T, I've got real work to do".

Audit promptly ends with a major system failure.

Yes Virginia, the sometimes is a Santa Claus


Wow, I am impressed. I would like to think I would have the guts to be that blunt, but I am not sure. I applaud them, and the registrar if they backed that up, however. That is how it should work. :applause:

If there is something out there that can improve the value of TS registrar audits we get, I'll be all over it.The ASRP is an evolution of the old "Alternative Certification Program". But the IATF will never allow this protocol to be used in the TS certification scheme.

Our sister plant failed a TS audit for this.

The auditor asked the plant manager about Mgt Review and he said "quality takes care of the sh*T, I've got real work to do".

Audit promptly ends with a major system failure.

Yes Virginia, the sometimes is a Santa Claus


Did the plant manager keep his job?

Sidney

Sounds good, everyone needs a little salvation.

So, what the heck is ASRP? I live in TS World and have never even heard of it.

Could you please do a quick backgrounder and/or post some links? If there is something out there that can improve the value of TS registrar audits we get, I'll be all over it.

Caster,

In my lay understanding and current application, ASRP is a way to have less 3rd party assessments, based on the "maturity" and "heightened expectations" of Internal Assessments and Management Review. So instead of having Surveillance audits once a year or once every 18 months we may have them once in a 3 yr period...
The issues here is that it is basically a win win situation, for both the CB and the Registered Organization. In relation to the original post I was complaining that our Managment Review is weak, however, after reading Marc's comment and applying that thinking, then our organization does meet requirements. That said, the CEO and COO have yet to even read an internal assessment much less review any metrics from a quality systems standpoint. We use the bubble up method of management review and it seems to be good enough, however, idealistically or rather naively, I view the intent of the 9001 standard to really mean the CEO and COO really should review quality system metrics regardless if they are a GE or Motorola...I will generalize and say the relationship between AB, CB, and registered companies are very machiavellian in our particular situation. I stay because I have bills, and very little ambition to re-start another career at my age.

I got sick of fighting it. I now have a blank template that covers all of the required agenda items - a Section for signatures, Actions, and determination if additional resources shoud be allocated or are they sufficient. And.....a section for top management to sign off indicating they found the system effective! End of story. So far - so good - no longer arguing about management review.

I got sick of fighting it. I now have a blank template that covers all of the required agenda items - a Section for signatures, Actions, and determination if additional resources shoud be allocated or are they sufficient. And.....a section for top management to sign off indicating they found the system effective! End of story. So far - so good - no longer arguing about management review.Seems to definitely cover the "RECORD" requirement!

I got sick of fighting it. I now have a blank template that covers all of the required agenda items - a Section for signatures, Actions, and determination if additional resources shoud be allocated or are they sufficient. A simple Management Review Form.pdf (http://elsmar.com/pdf_files/Mgmt_rev.pdf) for a small ISO9K company from over 10 years ago. I always told clients it's easiest to make it simple for the auditors, which a form does quite well. It doesn't cover some of the 'new' stuff, but can easily be added to.

Did the plant manager keep his job?

No - and sadly he took the entire plant down with him. 250 good manufacturing jobs gone forever!