Can anyone tell me if a "Long View" is required for ISO 2000, (or for the 94 standard, if it is only there)? Our auditor wants to see an extra Management Review a year, (can be combined with monthly review but with seperate agenda), to look ahead in regard to the QMS system. From reading and re-reading both standards I can't see where this is required. Top Management from the corporate all the way to each facility is constantly doing this. The idea to look ahead is fine but is it required on top of the normal activities?

Our Plant Manager has been saying..."It's not the big companies that eat the small, it's the fast that eat the slow!"

Of course, you must look forward to stay in business. By addressing the areas outlined in the y2k ISO 9001 Mgmt Review section - you should be doing this anyway by adjusting your goals as you show continual improvement (or am I confusing what your question is?).

At our facility we have mgmt rev mtg's; the plant mgr attends a corp mgmt review meeting (and keeps copies of the minutes - to then discuss progressive idea's/actions at next mgmt rev mtg). Top Mgmt is what drives a company not facility/plant level so from what I understand of your post...you should be covered. Maybe all that needs to be done is communication from the Corp mtg to your local mgmt rev mtg?

Sorry... Kind of missed the boat a bit on my question...We do have monthly management reviews of the entire QMS. The auditor is after another individual review just to look outward. We do this at the monthly's so why do it twice is the question?

Sounds like the auditor is trying to get into your un-auditable business plan which already reviews long and short term directions that just happen to be partially driven by management review records.

MHO...

Oh what the hell, it's been awhile:

This auditor sounds like an anal-retentive paper pusher that has nothing better to do. Let's all just have 1 Management Review meeting a year and act on it.

Call his/her ass on it and demand to know where there is a discrepancy to your system and where a 1/year "Major" meeting is required. Tell him/her the other auditors you are looking at have a different view! Ask for documentation and proof and put him/her on the hotseat for a little winter sweat. Auditors are a dime a dozen, as well as registrars.

Marc, Help remove wedged soapbox, I fell and can't get up!:mad: :frust:

Thanks Al...That really answers my question. I will save the verbage you presented but will call him on what is in the standard....Thanks for the information.

Speaking of Auditors and Registers being a dime a dozen...Q9000-2000, para 2.8.2 and Q9001-2000 para 8.2.2 discuss audits. My next question is in regard to the Third-Party Audits. Since the auditors don't have to be accreditated but have to be external and the guidelines for auditors are discussed in ISO 10011 do you see a change in the auditor ranks from the 94 standard to the 2000?

Just curious as we just got 94 certified and are already working toward 2000. We currently use an auditor that works for the Registrar with a 6 month survelience plan and am wondering with the new standard if he will still be needed or can anyone, (external), audit as long as they meet the 10011 criteria?

Hope this makes since and I really enjoy learning from the forum.

Thanks.

I'm working with a company that feel very strongly that the management reviews their system often - almost weekly. But they make decisions and go do what they decide. No need to write anything down, they just go do their assignments.
The ISO management review, therefore, is perceived as a quarterly exercise and the minutes because the standard says so and so they can write down that the system is "suitable and effective."

I happened to mention that the only reason they do quarterly meeting now is because they decided to do quarterly, and the standard doesn't say how often. The CEO therefore announced that we are no longer having quarterly management reviews to write down what we already do.

Other than the requirement that "minutes of management review must be maintained" I can't seem to convince him that there are other good reasons to document the management review. Consequently management review will now be a annual exercise only done because of the standard - "wasteful work" in the management's opinion.:ca:

Ugh - I don't know if I'm looking for an answer or just venting. It's just frustrating when every time I turn around they want to know how they can be certified without doing everything in the standard. If I hear "How can we get around this one" one more time.:frust: :frust: :frust:

As a thought - would documenting "results of management review" by keeping a copy of the agenda, and documenting any actions as C/A's work?

Originally posted by Laura M

...As a thought - would documenting "results of management review" by keeping a copy of the agenda, and documenting any actions as C/A's work?

I don't see why not other than I would expect management review to lead more toward preventive action and continuous improvement activities.

Sounds like your in a tough place with this job. Nothing like management buy-in.:(

I agree - and don't want a PA form as mentioned in other threads. Unfortuantely their last Mgmt rep bulldozed everything through and didn't integrate into everyone's job.

I think if I use an agenda and "take notes" on the agenda during the meeting, the "wasteful work" comments of typing minutes will go away. That may work for CI items and use the CA for other actions. The CA system is functioning pretty well their, so that would make sure follow-up occurs.

I don't know how tough a place I'm in. The client is paying a few bills right now, but there's nothing making me stay. There are a few things that if they happen again will be "the last straw" but for now, it's more of a challenge to me. I need to convince them that it needs to be integrated. The stubborn ones with the biggest challenge reap more personal satisfaction!

L

You decide how often and to what extent on the 94. The 00 tells you some of the min. things you need to look at.

Laura,

I work for a company that is very similar..


I'm working with a company that feel very strongly that the management reviews their system often - almost weekly. But they make decisions and go do what they decide. No need to write anything down, they just go do their assignments.

So I toss all these items into a "Management Action Items" matrix and utilize this as my documentation of managemnt review. My auditor is not real fond of it...in fact he has specifically asked to see "minutes" of the meetings, to which I produce the Action Item Matrix. After some disucssion, he agreed we met the requirements.

CarolX

Glad to hear that worked. This may get me some Points with the boss...willingness to be innovative. I keep thinking that if I "let him win a few." then I'll get to win a few of my own that I can't budge on.

I always have clients use a form so that the agenda is clear, there is evidence and everything is covered. This old form (http://16949.com/pdf_files/Mgmt_rev.pdf) has been in the 'old pdf_files' directory for some years.

I know that the minutes of the management review meeting should cover certain items of the new standard. Does anyone have a list of these items?

I truely don't mean to be a smart@$$ (this time :D ).
The basic guidelines for Mgt Reviews are found in 5.6.1 and 8.5.1 of the y2k version.

Whatever else you discuss is self-identified and should be specific to your company (and to your goals/objectives). So, while I could share our list...it might not do you any good.

If you don't have a copy of the spec or are just wanting samples of what others are reviewing to consider adding to yours, please clarify and I'll try to provide a better response.

Eileen

Originally posted by E Wall
If you don't have a copy of the spec or are just wanting samples of what others are reviewing to consider adding to yours, please clarify and I'll try to provide a better response.
Eileen

Eileen,

Just in case it's the latter, here's some from 1994 version. The new standard may want you discuss Customer Satisfaction intiatives. But what follows was easier because it's a cut and paste thing.


The Agenda
The originator will establish the agenda for the review meetings. The agenda may include, but not be limited to:

— Pending product nonconforming reports or Preventive and Corrective Action reports and those compiled since the last meeting.
— Proposed changes to the quality manual and/or controlled quality system documentation.
— Review and evaluate the effectiveness of handling customer complaints/feedback.
— The results of any Internal Quality Audits conducted since the last meeting.
— A summary and evaluation of Quality Assurance activities within each department.
— A summary and evaluation of the Quality Management System as a whole.
— Any recommended changes to the structure of the Quality Management System.
— Evaluate effectiveness of corrective / preventative action system including “timely” closeout of corrective actions/follow-up Audit data.
— Continuous improvement in both manufacturing and non-manufacturing processes.
— Resource needs

5.3 Specific Review
Executive Management may schedule a Management Review Meeting for a specific quality management issue if conditions in the company, industry or regulations so warrant.

5.4 Records
Records of all Management Review Meetings may include, but not be limited to the
following:

— Meeting attendance list,
— Old business status,
— Minutes of the meetings and Action Items,
— Decisions made,
— Names responsible for completing actions,
— Action time-frames,
— Update on past actions/decisions,
— Documentation stating the results of the review of the Quality Management System and the status of company goals and objectives.

I messed up the other link. For some Management Review thoughts, see This Thread (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=629) and this Second Thread (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=630).

Dear Sir

the essence of management review is that the senior management is aware of the happenings inside and if any problem is encountered they decide and find the solution. It is not the duration of the meeting which is importangt. The decisions taken are important. The working of the qualkity system and other practices will be discussed and also the quality policy of the organisation. The management reviews assume significance because the participants include CEO, MD and at times the chairman too. The transparency is read by all and the conclusion is reached as to the next course of action

venkat

Another interesting thread. Having been on both sides of the fence at different times I have the following comments:

The auditor is either a pain in the butt in asking to see a periodic review (other than the weekly meeting) or they don't have confidence that the weekly meeting is covering the spirit and intent of ISO (94 or 00, same thing). You CAN force the issue and say "show me where it says ...." but first I'd suggest you look at the effectiveness of the weekly review. If it isn't taking a holistic view of the system then the auditor may be trying to lead you to improve it. I would also say I have yet to find an Organisation that can review the efficiency and effectiveness of a Quality Mangement System at a weekly meeting. To have the proverbial helicopter view you need to look at trends and not isolated instances ...... that points me to a once or twice a year meeting. There is nothing to stop you gathering data at the weekly meetings to discuss at the "Review" often a chief input to this meeting is a report from the QM.

I spent around 8 months at a company as a Quality Manager trying to get the senior managers to understand what a review was intended to do and the role of the top guys in getting the system to work for them, I made some progress but I'm now consulting which tells you that I wasn't happy with the end result.

As an auditor I have seen some Management Reviews that are so obviously a waste of time and I always feel obliged to try and lead an unfortunate Quality Manager to improve the process.

All the contributors are correct, the auditor doesn't decide the review format. The auditor does have a priveleged position in that they see loads of systems on a regular basis and they can often see when your systems aren't effective.

Again, I can't speak for individual cases without the detail but if there is a good working relationship between the QM and the Auditor they can work together to improve the Review. If that sounds a bit too like heaven, I apologize.

Tell your auditor to blow it out his a#@!

Ask him to show you in the Standard where it is "thou shalt have a meeting for management reviews".

I'll answer that.. NOWHERE!!

Management Review is an activity and could be interpreted in many different ways. You don't need to get a cast of thousands to sit in a room at once to say "allright, we are now having a management review!".

I am sure that if you look hard enough you will find that 'management review' is taking place all the time. Just have a closer look and think outside the nine dots!
:D

Greg,

You got it sussed!

Here we do a Management Review 4 x a year and submit it to the top bods as part of their regular top bod meeting! (You can tell it's Friday pm, can't you?) The actions that come out of this are documented, implemented, followed up etc...blah di blah!

Sounds to me like the auditor is just being one of those pernickety old dinosaurs! E.g His way = besy way!

He must be self-appointed god of all things ISO!!

Lau.:bigwave:

Originally posted by Al Dyer

Marc, Help remove wedged soapbox, I fell and can't get up!:mad: :frust:That's the Zoloft, Al... :thedeal:

When I work with a company, I tell their internal auditors that all nonconformances must have three things.
1. They must be understandable.
2. They must be actionable.
3. They must be indisputable.
One way to accomplish this is to actually quote the requirement (from the standard, procedure, etc.) I know we are only hearing your side of things, but even if the auditor was right, and you somehow have the story twisted (which I doubt), then the auditor still missed the three points. Unless….does your procedure require this “forward looking”? If so, then we all owe the auditor an apology. If not, then you probably need to change auditors. It absolutely sickens me when auditors add requirements that aren’t there (unless it is me, of course).

Thanks for your replies and no, our instruction does not discuss "Forward Looking" so I think we are safe on the standard.

Thanks again,

Scott

My 3 points are designed to provide the auditee with sufficient information to accomplish effective corrective actions. The standard requires we report and record audit results. It does not tell us how to report and record (for good reason). But in many cases, nonconformances are so poorly written, the auditee either doesn’t know what to do, or the nonconformances are easily challenged. By following the 3 points, nonconformances can be addressed with a lot less aggravation and in a lot less time.

In the thread scenario, if (and I’m changing the scenario slightly) the procedure called for a special review to look forward, and it wasn’t being done, the auditor would first quote the procedure (“Where is the shall?”). Then is clear and concise language, the auditor would list the proof. In this case, the auditor would not say the review was not being done, only that evidence of the review could not be produced. The auditee now has only two arguments; either the procedure doesn’t say what was quoted, or the auditor is lying. There is no middle ground. There is very little “wiggle room”. The auditee can understand it, the auditee can take action on it, and the auditee cannot argue it.

Is this required? Absolutely not! Is it effective? It is more effective than what most organizations use. Hope that clears things up.

My thoughts on audit findings...

They should be specific to the requirements of the standard that the non-compliance is cited against, and reference specific objective evidence of examples of the non-complaince.

I may be going back to the same old question.....just how many times a mgt review is consider sufficient? I found most company have it once a year. My question is ...is it sufficient when the version 2000 requires follow-up action from previous mgt review and internal audit. If one schedule internal audit 4X a year does that not meant that we need to have 4X of mgt review? Another question is when should a mgt review be help away from the external/surveillnce audit day?

I use an agenda template to be sure I cover all requirements then add meeting specific topics/dates.....space them out so there is room for notes...have a quick list of attendees with a check box, the required attendees are in bold type...a place on each item for a check box ok or action needed. Also a question that says Results "is the quality system/policy adequate yada yada objectives met, etc" yes/no.. ,,and a date for next meeting spot.............then I keep a running log for action items if assigned so you can follow up each meeting till closed.

Leaves no room for questions......and it takes seconds to fill in, and actually if used correctly covers Complaints, CI/PA and other issues. IT IS CLEAN. I attach any reports presentations and, number them to match agenda item numbers and I am done...file it till the next audit. The management action log is always active for any management meeting, small hallway discussion or complete staff meeting. Most find after they get used to it, that it adds value and really shows what MR is all about.

This form will be visible for 2 days, maybe

Ditto

once again Al to the rescue