We state in our Quality Manual the following:
• Management review meetings are conducted at the minimum of two times per year to determine the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the quality management system in meeting the requirements of ISO 9001:2000, customer requirements and the stated quality policy.
• Additional management review meetings may be scheduled by management, as necessary.
• The Vice President/MR and/or Quality Assurance Manager determine the date of the management review meeting.


Our next internal audit is in March and our surveillance audit is in April. We haven't had a complete Management Review Meeting since September 2008. Will we get written up for not having a complete management review meeting this year prior to the audits? We state we will have a minimum of two per year and not necessarily state we will have them before our scheduled audits.

What does everyone think?

Thanks

We state in our Quality Manual the following:
• Management review meetings are conducted at the minimum of two times per year to determine the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the quality management system in meeting the requirements of ISO 9001:2000, customer requirements and the stated quality policy.
• Additional management review meetings may be scheduled by management, as necessary.
• The Vice President/MR and/or Quality Assurance Manager determine the date of the management review meeting.


Our next internal audit is in March and our surveillance audit is in April. We haven't had a complete Management Review Meeting since September 2008. Will we get written up for not having a complete management review meeting this year prior to the audits? We state we will have a minimum of two per year and not necessarily state we will have them before our scheduled audits.

What does everyone think?

Thanks

What's 'incomplete' about them?

What's 'incomplete' about them?

This past January we gathered everyone to discuss only Review Input: Quality Policy and Quality Objectives based on the objective results from 2008.

All other inputs/output discussion points were not held.

This past January we gathered everyone to discuss only Review Input: Quality Policy and Quality Objectives based on the objective results from 2008.

All other inputs/output discussion points were not held.

I would think it's appropriate not to review every aspect of the qms at the start of a new year and the review of policy and setting of (new) quality objectives by which the implementation was going to be reviewed as effective was a good story to tell any CB. Did you consider whether the results you got 'last year' were any good (either in this or a previous review)?

We state in our Quality Manual the following:
[I]• Management review meetings are conducted at the minimum of two times per year to determine the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the quality management system in meeting the requirements of ISO 9001:2000, customer requirements and the stated quality policy....


If this is your only requirement for the frequency for Management review meetings, I'd say its possible (defining a "year" as 1st Jan to 31st Dec.) to have Meeting #1 starting at 3pm and Meeting #2 starting at 3:45pm, both on 31st Dec.

As an auditor I would be very concerned if you actually did that, but (provided all requirements of ISO 9001 were met) I would not write a nonconformity.

More realistically, I would look back over the past 12-month period (or from the start of your last "year") to see if you met the requirement in force for that period.

If this is your only requirement for the frequency for Management review meetings, I'd say its possible (defining a "year" as 1st Jan to 31st Dec.) to have Meeting #1 starting at 3pm and Meeting #2 starting at 3:45pm, both on 31st Dec.

As an auditor I would be very concerned if you actually did that, but (provided all requirements of ISO 9001 were met) I would not write a nonconformity.

More realistically, I would look back over the past 12-month period (or from the start of your last "year") to see if you met the requirement in force for that period.

And that's what I figured would happen. We have evidence of past meetings and evidence of the smaller meeting we had this past January. We'll still try to gather everyone together before our internal audit, but I just wanted to be sure it wasn't completely necessary to do so based on what we say we do in our manual.

Let me throw in a disclaimer: I am not (nor have been) an Auditor for a Certifying body.

It's just my opinion.

Let me throw in a disclaimer: I am not (nor have been) an Auditor for a Certifying body.

It's just my opinion.


But I'd wager you probably know Sean Victor or know of him.........


Back to Management Review........based on the procedure I see the requirement and your procedure could be met (conformance achieved) if you had a review on Jan 1st @ 8AM and another review on the same day @2PM.

Procedures written like the one provided demonstrate that management will only be interested, or at least feign interest on 2 occasions during a 365 day year.

We state in our Quality Manual the following:
• Management review meetings are conducted at the minimum of two times per year to determine the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the quality management system in meeting the requirements of ISO 9001:2000, customer requirements and the stated quality policy.
• Additional management review meetings may be scheduled by management, as necessary.
• The Vice President/MR and/or Quality Assurance Manager determine the date of the management review meeting.


Our next internal audit is in March and our surveillance audit is in April. We haven't had a complete Management Review Meeting since September 2008. Will we get written up for not having a complete management review meeting this year prior to the audits? We state we will have a minimum of two per year and not necessarily state we will have them before our scheduled audits.

What does everyone think?

Thanks

Do the managers only meet twice a year? I'll bet they have regular meetings, talking about all kinds of business/operational activities. If they do, why could those meetings not be considered "Management Review?" Just keep track of topics discussed, decisions made regarding the business, and you should be OK. Why "Management Review" became an ISO thing just to pass an audit is beyond me...:frust::frust:

Stijloor.

Do the managers only meet twice a year? I'll bet they have regular meetings, talking about all kinds of business/operational activities.... Why "Management Review" became an ISO thing just to pass an audit is beyond me...:frust::frust:


Me too.

Any idea of tying 'management review' to your external audit schedule defeats the purpose and aim of the Standard. :nope:

Friends,

Many organizations and their management still live in a dual universe; one that they use on a daily basis, the other one called ISO. It amazes me that after all these years (1987-2008), some still don't understand the intent of the applicable standard and how an organization meets that intent. Training and Consulting Covers, we still have a lot of work to do....

:topic:

Living in this hotel...and drinking way too much coffee! Forgive me for ranting ;)

Stijloor.

And, Jan, too many CB auditors who accept these bizarre parallel existences, which can be dismantled during an audit quite easily, if you truly test the system!

And, Jan, too many CB auditors who accept these bizarre parallel existences, which can be dismantled during an audit quite easily, if you truly test the system!

Amen! :applause:

Jan.

Nup. I still don't get it.

It's eminently possible - it's even highly desirable! - to have only one world, in which there's just one system and that's what is actually used to run the organisation with, with the aim of satisfying one's customers and doing things with consistency and improving... which can achieve and maintain certification (if desired) without making things into a living hell on earth or one of those impossible-to-work-with, let alone maintain ones, and don't even get me started on bureaucracy-and-paperwork...

Why on earth and how on earth do these parallel, 'separate and definitely not the same' kinds of worlds come into being? Or stay there?

Rhetorical question, folks. As Jan says, there's still lots of work to do. (Best of luck in the hotel. It's hot again today and forecast >43 again tomorrow. Yuk. I'm praying for rain.)

I'm reminded (not meaning to hi-jack this thread) of a situation where I was doing a 'gap' audit. I was interviewing a maintenance supervisor and he kept saying 'do you mean what we do for ISO, or what we really do?'

After four or five times of trying to get him to tell me what their process was and getting that response, I could have slapped him! No wonder then, that I found all kinds of desperate maintenance issues, including the fact that they'd sprayed the surroundings (cars, houses etc) with veg. starch due to a maintenance issue!

No wonder then, that I found all kinds of desperate maintenance issues, including the fact that they'd sprayed the surroundings (cars, houses etc) with veg. starch due to a maintenance issue!

No wonder at all. Just the sorts of failures that occur when the 'quality system' isn't a living, breathing everyday one.

Nup. I still don't get it.

It's eminently possible - it's even highly desirable! - to have only one world, in which there's just one system and that's what is actually used to run the organisation with, with the aim of satisfying one's customers and doing things with consistency and improving... which can achieve and maintain certification (if desired) without making things into a living hell on earth or one of those impossible-to-work-with, let alone maintain ones, and don't even get me started on bureaucracy-and-paperwork...
<snip>

That's just crazy-talk!! :bonk:

Or that's what most ppl would say: "We can't actually live the way the standard intends us to".

But I'd wager you probably know Sean Victor or know of him.........

<snip>

:topic:

Sure - as I alluded to in another post, we live in a very small pond here.

And Sean is the biggest export in Quality Management from our little country. I did my Lead Auditor training with him as the facilitator back in '99 (amazing that BSI could have gotten accreditation to the FDIS!)

Seems like you big fish all know each other (j/k).

:topic:
I did my Lead Auditor training with him as the facilitator back in '99 (amazing that BSI could have gotten accreditation to the FDIS!)

Seems like you big fish all know each other (j/k).

Did pretty good didn't I?

I taught the class that was audited by the RABQSA.....We had good students and the auditor was pretty thourough...No N/C's btw.

Sean is a very good friend....and I really just like to listen to him.

<snip>(Best of luck in the hotel. It's hot again today and forecast >43 again tomorrow. Yuk. I'm praying for rain.)

Thank you Jane!:)

:topic:

I am in another part of the Southeastern USA, in another hotel...still drinking too much coffee, but now my dear wife is with me......

Today is our 38th anniversary....

Jan.

Jan - Happy anniversary!

most ppl would say: "We can't actually live the way the standard intends us to".

Then they are wrong. It's not only 'possible' but it can be done, and it is done as many posters attest.

JaneB - we agree on that! It's a mis-perception in many cases.

Although, some companies I've seen in the 3rd world really do not have the resources (even using innovative approaches) to meet all requirements (e.g., infrastructure). But then it's going to take more than just putting in a QMS to fix their problems.


Jan - Happy anniversary!!

If you held 2 reviews in 2008, you have met your internal requirement and the standard. Make sure you covered all of the inputs and outputs required by the standard. Don't rush to do a review just to show the auditor - you will likely miss something and have a greater risk of a nonconformity.

I have a full management review twice a year, but hold a quality meeting monthly where we review action items, look at the status of CARs, audits, customer and 3rd party audits that are coming or happened recently. This keeps everyone focused, keeps the boss up to speed on places we are falling behind. Since I started this, I rarely have a late CAR or an overdue audit! They hate having the boss see that they are not cooperating...

Back to the original question. From what you have described, you are conforming. As an auditor, if I felt that you were slacking off and were in danger of not having the two reviews a year you say you will, I might write an observation that if you were not careful you may miss your requirement.

Now, let's say, that you held two management reviews in December in an attempt to meet your requirement of two times a year. As an auditor, I would be looking real hard to become convinced that your management reviews were effective (reference element 4.1c "The organization shall . . . determine criteria and methods needed to ensure that both the operations and control of these processes are effective . . . ").

I started working for a client just after they had just been written up by the CB for not holding a management review meeting at the appropriate time. The organizations quality manual said that they would hold management review meetins annually and the QM interpreted this as sometime during the year but not within one year of the previous meeting. The CB had a clause in their contract (not part of the standard) that clearly stated a completed management review be completed between each surveillance / certification audit. In addition, per the contract one had to have completed a full internal audit cycle between audits (not just have them scheduled as the standard implies). I would check with your CB just to be sure and make sure there is nothing hiden - who reads all the fine print of the contract.

As to your point regarding the incomplete management review meetings. I remember from my training on audits a question regarding this. The question stated if management review did not cover all of the required inputs / outputs in one meeting but split the meeting into two sesions (several months apart) is this a nonconformance. The answer (per the training) was that yes this was a nonconformance since the standard clearly defines that a management review meeting must cover certain inputs / outputs. They were not buying the line that one could split the meeting in two. I don't know if I agree with this, but it stuck in my head.

Hope this helps.

We scaled back our MR review to annual based on the fact that we have monthly quality meetings with upper management. We also have a yearly Company Performance review as well. You can take credit for both of the other meetings however, MR must cover the required elements. If the required elements are not met twice per year, I recommend modification to annually. We did that here and it is working out well.

The external auditor will want to see evidence of course for the other meetings and this I provide in the form of a binder with the monthly meetings and actions to be taken as well as a separate one for the yearly Company Performance.

It seems to me that it's not clear what the purpose of a 'management review' is! Forgetting how many times a year you can fool your CB auditor into agreeing to, what's the purpose of a review of the system?

From my perspective, it's a 'navigational' exercise to ensure the business 'ship' is heading in the correct, planned direction! Just as a pilot or navigator needs to get the map out periodically, gather data on position etc. to see what progress is being made to the plan. Same thing with the management system!

Frankly, it's too late to do it once a year! If you fail to meet your business objectives, then there's no opportunity to change course, make the adjustments to the system to get those results! It's like arriving at the end of a journey only to find you're in the wrong place!!

If you are meeting monthly, it seems to me that such a frequency might be O.K for navigating the system, but obviously not everything needs to be looked at every time. To do one review, annually might be missing the point - even if your CB auditor 'buys' it!

I try it like this (with friendly smile):

"Management Review is a strategic process (i.e. not a meeting per se). Please can you explain your strategic process, and how the meeting(s) fit into that process?"


There tends to be a lot of umming and aahing after that, with the client waving the meeting agenda in my face. :rolleyes:

I remember from my training on audits a question regarding this. The question stated if management review did not cover all of the required inputs / outputs in one meeting but split the meeting into two sesions (several months apart) is this a nonconformance. The answer (per the training) was that yes this was a nonconformance since the standard clearly defines that a management review meeting must cover certain inputs / outputs. They were not buying the line that one could split the meeting in two. I don't know if I agree with this, but it stuck in my head.



If I were you, I'd seriously reconsider who you are/were using to provide your training, and find someone better! And if you're also using them as your certifier, switch!

I totally (and strongly) disagree with this flawed and rigid interpretation of the Standard. And it is an interpretation because it absolutely, absolutely does not say that in the Standard!

Indeed, I challenge your 'trainer' to even find the word 'meeting' in the relevant clause (5.6). Because it isn't there. Lord save me from such black & white, limited thinking and short-sighted 'trainers' who aren't worthy of the title. :bonk: :bonk: They are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Management review is a strategic process. It is not (or isn't supposed to be) a single meeting. As for insisting that 'everything' listed in the Standard be covered at the same, single meeting, sheesh!! :nope: :nope:

(I'd say 'words fail me' but actually they don't, but the words that come to mind most readily are a little unprintable).

I agree with Jane - "Management Review" has to be done, but whether it is a single meeting (more frequently than once per year, or every 6 months), a number of meetings, an email sent to top management with all of the input criteria which they then make decisions and take action on, videoconferences with sub-groups of top management on different occassions or something else which satisfies input/output criteria I'd say go with it!

Just to throw something into this discussion. One problem I had with management review was getting a time slot for managers to attend. Even if we had a date, it could be cancelled due to customer visits on other issues which came up at short notice.

What I ended up doing was a "virtual review". There is nothing in ISO/TS which says you need a physical meeting. One of the last reviews I had (before I switched groups) was to do a powerpoint executive summary of the key data with conclusions / li nks to supporting data/ associated Correcitive action and a 1 hour review via a netmeeting. I had email confirmations from each of the managers confirming they had read the summary and documented any questions/clarification/actions they had for consolidated output of that review.

Our internal auditor confirmed this met the intent. This was a productivity improvement to us as previous mgt reviews were normally 1/2 a day.

This was a productivity improvement to us as previous mgt reviews were normally 1/2 a day.

Now, there's a good way of doing it, and presumably one that accomplished what needed to be done, but without tying up a whole lot of people on a meeting all in the same physical location if they didn't need to do that. IN this increasingly digitised world, and where companies have scattered locations (Australia is a big country, and we don't have the frequency of airflights as USA because much smaller population)

I sometimes think that many of us could achieve quantum leaps in productivity if we banned meetings from occurring unless:

they're really needed - it really is essential to have people together
there's a clear agenda, a good chair, and a time limit


Too often, they're just a waste of time, a gabfest, and/or a misguided 'we have to do this because we mistakenly think the Standard insists on it'.

Congratulations for finding another way that works for you in your context.

*there's a clear agenda, a good chair, and a time limit
The management team at my work is about 13 people. We don't gather every person to every meeting and the people here are pretty good at keeping to the agenda. I am the QA Representative mentioned in this procedure so I organize and chair most of them.

The monthly and quarterly reviews go into a lot more detail and generally last an hour or so; the annual review is a synopsis of the entire year and lasts a couple of hours. I'm fortunate that here the CEO lets me arrange for lunch for the team for the annual meeting.

I think the dimension of 'maturity' is missing in these posts. If you have a maturity with management regarding the purpose of reviewing the system, then by all means do it 'remotely'.

My experiences have been that, in the early stages of implementation, it's beneficial to round up the management team, have them sit around a conference table and 'talk' to their use of the quality system as a tool to achieve objectives!

Indeed, by doing such, I have had a CEO say it was the most productive meeting they'd ever had. It became apparent that some of the management team couldn't get prepared with their figures, trends etc and were unable to give a good account of their process. This is despite only having to hand off their numbers to someone else who formatted the graphs and charts!

Needless to say, those (managers) who didn't get it (and they were given more than enough time) eventually couldn't stand the heat, so got out of the kitchen (by themselves).

By holding a management review in this manner, where the MR doesn't do all the work, brought about a maturity that was necessary to get the organization to the next level of implementation. Any pressure was purely peer pressure and the CEO was delighted with the value the review brought, outside of the need for complying with 'ISO'.

We just held our management review yesterday (to cover July - December 2008). We hold ours once every 6 months. Our Auditor wishes we would hold 1 quarterly, but we are meeting the standard and our stated documentation. We also have a staff meeting every week and communication is good. I like the idea of a virtual meeting. We had to keep putting ours off due to folks not being available.
Our charts and meetings have improved over the years and continue to improve. But I think some areas are a little weak. Any advice would be appreciated.


Here are some of what is covered in our typical meetings (#1 - 8 I think is good) (#9 - 11 NEEDS HELP):
1. Promise performance (trended with goals).
2. Claims (trended by pounds and top 10 claim reasons. Also includes % of claims by number of lots shipped).
3. X-lots (remakes) (trended many different ways- reasons why, by pounds, by number of items, over time (trend is going down), etc).
4. Corrective actions (response time is trended & sources are reviewed (customer complaints, internal audits, external audits, issued to suppliers, etc)).
5. Preventive actions (numbers are broken into categories- ex. improved productivity, increased customer satisfaction, etc).
6. Supplier audits (details are given as necessary).
7. Customer Satisfaction- (trended data is given).
8. Supplier Performance- (details are given from Supplier Review meeting).

**PLEASE HELP**
9. Document & Data Control (the total documents changed- numbers are given, reasons why are given (due to audit- internal, external, corrective action, preventive action, master training, etc. Minor/major change, New/Obsolete/Improving process, etc)- This needs help!!
10. External Audits- (Who they were, if corrective actions were issued- how many they were and if they were responded to on time). Please help.
11. Internal Audits- (list schedule, show goal for on time performance (trended), list cars & observations). I was thinking about breaking the cars & observations into a paredo chart- other suggestions?

Thank you.

I think the dimension of 'maturity' is missing in these posts. If you have a maturity with management regarding the purpose of reviewing the system, then by all means do it 'remotely'.

My experiences have been that, in the early stages of implementation, it's beneficial to round up the management team, have them sit around a conference table and 'talk' to their use of the quality system as a tool to achieve objectives!

Indeed, by doing such, I have had a CEO say it was the most productive meeting they'd ever had. It became apparent that some of the management team couldn't get prepared with their figures, trends etc and were unable to give a good account of their process. This is despite only having to hand off their numbers to someone else who formatted the graphs and charts!

Needless to say, those (managers) who didn't get it (and they were given more than enough time) eventually couldn't stand the heat, so got out of the kitchen (by themselves).

By holding a management review in this manner, where the MR doesn't do all the work, brought about a maturity that was necessary to get the organization to the next level of implementation. Any pressure was purely peer pressure and the CEO was delighted with the value the review brought, outside of the need for complying with 'ISO'.

Oh really, really good points, Andy! You're quite right, the maturity level is important. And I agree that until the organisation develops some level of maturity, remote meetings aren't likely to be feasible.

And your final point about the CEO being delighted about the value the review brought (aside from compliance requirement) is what, in my view, it's all supposed to be about. Complying is important, yes, but if more people would only focus on why that requirement is there and its purpose (beyond mere compliance) we might see more value being added. Which is what's supposed to be happening.

Koala,

Re. #9 do you need this? What value does it add? You could just present it as a report, for eg, and discuss only if necessary.

Are you not already dealing with CAs (if any)& PAs in #4 and #5? Seems to be overlap & duplication here & in 10 & 11? I'd focus on overall results & findings in audits.

And put customer satisfaction higher up the scale!

My overall suggestion is that possibly you're focussing too heavily on being able to 'satisfy the auditor' - why not stand back & ask yourself, what does our company want to review? And what would we call it (you don't have to use the headings from 9001)? And in what order of importance? etc.

What do you discuss at staff meetings? How do those relate?

JaneB,
You made some very valuable points. I think there is overlap/duplication- just discussed in different ways. I will look at deleting this duplicate information.
Staff meeting discussions do relate. I will take a heavier look and see what we can do.
Thank you.
Koala.

Maybe also consider suppliers as the topic - including performance, any new needed/under consideration, rather than just restricted to supplier audits?

You see, you start off on good stuff that sounds specific to your company(1-3) but then increasingly it starts to sound like a 'Standard-speak checklist'...

I'd always try & avoid overlap/discussing things 'in different ways'. It often makes for confusion, where people don't know what's supposed to be discussed under what heading.