Hi everyone,
We have our Daily Operation's Meeting. In this meeting, our GM discussed what happened during yesterday's operation. If there were problems encountered, action items that would affect quality of the product, it shall be discussed on that meeting.

Concern:
1. Can our daily operation's meeting considered as Management Review, since all department heads are well represented during the meeting?
2. Or we could consider this part of Management Review, e.g. other activities?
3. If our Daily Operation's Meeting would be okay, do we still need to conduct a Management Review? :confused:

Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thank you for the continuous support.

Best regards,
Raffy

An old known is that most companies (all?) have some elements / aspects of management review requirements fulfilled in 1 or more meetings. Businesses do not typically operate in a vacuum. The question is where is each required aspect discussed. If you can tie those together that's all you need.

There is no requirement that everything (every aspect, such as internal audit results, suitability of the quality system, etc.) be discussed in one big meeting.

Hi Marc,

"The question is where is each required aspect discussed." Are you referring to a certain meeting wherein we could discuss the summary of our Operation's Meeting? The summary of the Operation's Meeting was been discussed during our Management Review, which happen annually.

"If you can tie those together that's all you need"
>>> But with these, I think this clearly answer my question. :agree:

Thank you for the continuous support.

Best regards,
Raffy

Presumably in a procedure or manual you have a list of what items will be examined at management review.
Use this as a checklist, but writing along each item the meeting at which this item is reviewed.
Subsequently, list all those meetings that make up the total management review.

There is no requirement that everything (every aspect, such as internal audit results, suitability of the quality system, etc.) be discussed in one big meeting.

As a point of interest, I find nothing in the standard that tells us we have to have any meeting as such at all... We have to regularly use the required info to review the system and take appropriate action, but not necessarily in meetings.

We hold MR meetings too as I suppose everyone does, but there could be other ways. Is anyone out there doing this in a different way?

/Claes

Claes Gefvenberg says it quite well - there is no requirement for a meeting per se. But - how else do most companies address the issue? I haven't seen it done in a different way because, I think, most of the evaluations require interaction between people. I also would like to hear of anyone fulfilling managent review differently.

> Are you referring to a certain meeting wherein we could
> discuss the summary of our Operation's Meeting?

Nope. Not the operations meeting its self. That meeting might fulfill one or more 'review' requirement.

> Use this as a checklist, but writing along each item the
> meeting at which this item is reviewed.

Yes. Exactly. There is an old example in the pdf_files directory (Mgmt_rev.pdf).

From my perspective I'd buy off on elements that are reviewed at different times. Saving eveything up for one big meeting isn't a good business practice either.

I agree that Mgt. Review can be addressed in multiple meetings. The key is to include all of the inputs and produce the outputs that are required. Just having the department mgrs "well represented" doesn't constitute a mgt. review mtg.

I don't see within the description of Raffy's daily operational meetings the additional elements of trend analysis or anything else that is of a cumulative nature. It appears that only the previous day's activities are addressed, with no business planning beyond the current day.

Can this really be accepted as an adequate substitute? (this is a real question, not a sarcastic statement:) ) Does it meet the "letter of the law" as well as the intent? I was under the impression that these mgt. review meetings were to decide bigger issues that would change policies or procedures and make decisions regarding capital assets, etc.

Plus, aren't the top mgt group reps supposed to be there? Not sure how Raffy's company has defined their top mgt group, but it's possible that the CEO or VP's aren't in these daily meetings.

I agree Randy,

Saving a big pile of work for one meeting stinks. That usually means that the issues fade out of focus between meetings, and prompt action becomes a rarity.

/Claes

Just my opinion but there is a need for some type of direct evidence of management review. Even though meetings are not required how to the posters document the evidence of management reviews, resulting actions, and effectiveness?

Sign-in sheets
Agendas
Minutes
Continuous Improvement projects

Yes to all that stuff Al. It's what I recommend to clients. Covering items at each mgmt meeting keeps the system alive and everyone focused a little better.

This is how I have handled Management review.

The company I work for abhores meetings. So I knew it would be difficult to meet with my boss (VP) and the owner on a regular basis. I have a weekly and monthly status report I give to the VP. I started this years before we considered ISO certification. To fufill the "documented review" requirement, I created a sign-off sheet, with check boxes for any actions to be taken. I submit these reports to the VP, he reviews and checks off any action to be taken, signs and dates them and returns them to me for filing in the permanent records.

Our auditor kinda turned his nose at this method (he was looking for the proverbial "meeting minutes"), but he had no grounds for a finding.

Works for me.
:bigwave:

CarolX

I'm working with a company that uses a meeting format. They have a fixed agenda based on the input things in 5.6.2. They also have other items that can be placed on the agenda as necessary. They hold these meeting every six months, or when certain conditions exist (like gaining/losing a customer, adding a new product line), anything that would make a major impact on the QMS.

As far as operational meetings, the question would be whether the things listed in 5.6.2 are even covered. Most operational meeting I've attended dealt with day-to-day stuff, not the organizational direction stuff that MR requires.

My two cents

Originally posted by CarolX

The company I work for abhores meetings. So I knew it would be difficult to meet with my boss (VP) and the owner on a regular basis. I have a weekly and monthly status report I give to the VP. I started this years before we considered ISO certification. To fufill the "documented review" requirement, I created a sign-off sheet, with check boxes for any actions to be taken. I submit these reports to the VP, he reviews and checks off any action to be taken, signs and dates them and returns them to me for filing in the permanent records.Interesting. Never seen it done like this before.

Meetings are either:

Phantom investments:D

or

Phantom losses:(

I sat at a meeting as an MR as the President told the auditor about management review. After the diatribe the auditor said only 4 words:

"Show me the money" (proof)

UH, UH, UH, UH,...................... said the V.P.

Originally posted by CarolX

This is how I have handled Management review.

The company I work for abhores meetings. So I knew it would be difficult to meet with my boss (VP) and the owner on a regular basis. I have a weekly and monthly status report I give to the VP. I started this years before we considered ISO certification. To fufill the "documented review" requirement, I created a sign-off sheet, with check boxes for any actions to be taken. I submit these reports to the VP, he reviews and checks off any action to be taken, signs and dates them and returns them to me for filing in the permanent records.There we are... Someone *is* doing things differently. You know, that sounds interesting. I have a feeling you save a lot of time doing it that way, and I really don't think the auditor could do much more than wrinkle his nose as long as things get done.

Thank's for sharing that idea. I don't really think that our present review setup works very well, so I'll think about something similar.

/Claes

My feeling is that this sort of review may not be as effective as a proper meeting, which is a two way process where ideas are discussed and actions agreed.

Top management not wanting to participate in such a meeting makes me wonder on the 'Top Management Commitment' at the organisation.

I would say Carol's method is compliant, just potentially not as effective as a proper meeting. But I do know that most top managers really dont want to be involved.

.Top management not wanting to participate in such a meeting makes me wonder on the 'Top Management Commitment' at the organisation.

I would say Carol's method is compliant, just potentially not as effective as a proper meeting. But I do know that most top managers really dont want to be involved. Yeah, I wonder how many of the participants in a normal management review really take active part in the meeting? I suspect that a lot of dead weight can be found there... as in most meetings, I'm afraid. That's why I'm so keen on a new approach. A good Management review is a very powerful tool, but I think it's all to common that the potential is wasted.

Done right I think this way could be very efficient, but every organisation must find out what's works best for them.

/Claes

Hi everyone! This management review subject is one I am currently trying to fix in my organization.

Our current management review process is based on reviewing the ISO required topics over the course of one year. We anticipate conducting management reviews on a quarterly basis.

Here is the problem. We cover many of the management review topics/subjects in our weekly staff meetings. Everything from audit results to corrective/preventive action status and other stuff. Such staff meetings that don't have minutes or action items tracked to closure.

So here is an idea. Why not use management reviews to focus on the strategic health and direction of the organization? Kind of conducting a management retreat. The quality sytsem would be reviewed at a 30,000 foot level and not at the mundane 5 foot level. Surely management can make the time (investment) to one or two meetings a year to do that! Through proper planning of required and needed presentation data, the meeting should go relatively smoothly, and who knows it may end up being productive.

By the way, this is by first posting. I am trying figure out how this messaging system works. Keep up the great discussions!

My experience with two different Registrars is if you state in your Quality Manual that you hold Management Review Meetings, they strongly suggest that they are separate from all other meetings. This way you stay focused on the topics you state that you will monitor.

I have had clients do it like carol...its not my favorite, but it works. they actually do one copy with a cover/note/sign off sheet and it has a distribution order, everyone reviews the same package. (Each responsible person submits their report as part of the package) It is circulated back to the MR who assigns action items. Then a conference call is scheduled if follow up is needed...or brought up during another weekly scheduled meeting. In reality most of the stuff is discussed real time, but a complete review is documented this way....summarized.

They have a running action log that they bring to any meeting, even standup meetings...eliminates the formal CA for this stuff, so it is used more. Also replaces minutes at those meetings.

Hi everyone,
Today we discussed it together with the top management, and He agree that instead of having two different review (Daily Operations' Meeting) and a Management Review. We will incorporate the minutes of the previous management review into our Daily Operation's meeting, then monitor all action item then tracked to completion. :cool:

Raffy

Here is a thought I've had for some time to try and accomplish the Management Review requirements of the standard. Marc ... this is my alternate solution you asked about on the 6th. Please weigh in and give me your comments. This is just an idea at this time.

I gather all of the required information (i.e. audit results, trend analysis, corrective/preventive action, etc. etc.) and post this information on a secure company web page. All of the "top management" personnel have access to this data. The data is updated whenever it is appropriate to update. "Top Managers" review the data in a continuous fashion across a 3 month period. I also set up a discussion board like this cove board. The managers weigh in with comments just like we are doing here. The system (MS Share Point) keeps all the records of all postings and the back and forth discussions. The Management Rep. (acting as the moderator ... just like Marc) reviews all data and comments on a quarterly basis and prepares a final list of issues to resolve or take action on. The list is posted and the top management members weigh in and "vote" (for lack of a better word at this time) on the agreed to actions. The Management Rep coordinates this info and prepares the final report and posts it to the site. The cycle starts again. Live meetings can be called at anytime to resolve issues that require a face to face "hash out". These meetings can be as small as needed.

Big meeting is avoided.
The QMS is reviewed and actions are determined.
Appropriate records are kept.
Top Management is invloved.

Comments? Remember this is only an idea I've had ... all input to make this process workable is welcome.

I'd buy it as an auditor. To me the bottom line is the guiding verbiage.5.6 Management Review

5.6.1 General

Top management shall review the organization's quality management system, at planned intervals, to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness. This review shall include assessing opportunities for improvement and the need for changes to the quality management system, including the quality policy and quality objectives.

Records from management reviews shall be maintained (see 4.2.4).

5.6.2 Review Input

The input to management review shall include information on

a) results of audits,
b) customer feedback,
c) process performance and product conformity,
d) status of preventive and corrective actions,
e) follow-up actions from previous management reviews,
f) changes that could affect the quality management system, and
g) recommendations for improvement.

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.Nowhere is the word meeting used. It is our paradigm that a meeting is held. The bottom line is the key word is review. No method is specified and as far as I remember. I cannot recall ever seeing the word meeting used in 9000 or 9004, either, in conjunction with management review.

Actually this thread has really helped me change my paradigm and I now see a better way to approach management review with my clients.

The intranet solution is mighty appealing for those companies which are wired. Yeah, I like the concept. :thedeal:

To me the bottom line is the guiding verbiage.Nowhere is the word meeting used. It is our paradigm that a meeting is held. The bottom line is the key word is review. No method is specified and as far as I remember. I cannot recall ever seeing the word meeting used in 9000 or 9004, either, in conjunction with management review.

Actually this thread has really helped me change my paradigm and I now see a better way to approach management review with my clients.That's what this is all about, exchancge of ideas.

Martin,My feeling is that this sort of review may not be as effective as a proper meeting, which is a two way process where ideas are discussed and actions agreed. One advantage to this method is it keeps the review on line and on track, we don't spend anytime with other "fluff".

Regards,
CarolX

I for one am going to look into this method. Having a lot of our data up on our Intranet now will help. Does anyone have any ideas on how to set up a "cheap" message board on an Intranet?

As far as I know that what we have during the Operation's Meeting is a Management Review because we discuss and review the problem we encounter, action items are consistently followed up to track closure.
Members (Top Mngt, Dept Mngrs) of the Daily Operation's Meeting is also the same person who attends our Management Review.

In view of this we could consolidate our Daily Operation's Meeting into a one.

As Marc says on the previous threads" If you can tie those together that's all you need." :agree:

As long as you can really tie them together. Management review includes top management with goals and measurables that include business plan conditions.

MHO

Here is a thought I've had for some time to try and accomplish the Management Review requirements of the standard. Marc ... this is my alternate solution you asked about on the 6th. Please weigh in and give me your comments. This is just an idea at this time.

I gather all of the required information (i.e. audit results, trend analysis, corrective/preventive action, etc. etc.) and post this information on a secure company web page. All of the "top management" personnel have access to this data. The data is updated whenever it is appropriate to update. "Top Managers" review the data in a continuous fashion across a 3 month period. I also set up a discussion board like this cove board. The managers weigh in with comments just like we are doing here. The system (MS Share Point) keeps all the records of all postings and the back and forth discussions. The Management Rep. (acting as the moderator ... just like Marc) reviews all data and comments on a quarterly basis and prepares a final list of issues to resolve or take action on. The list is posted and the top management members weigh in and "vote" (for lack of a better word at this time) on the agreed to actions. The Management Rep coordinates this info and prepares the final report and posts it to the site. The cycle starts again. Live meetings can be called at anytime to resolve issues that require a face to face "hash out". These meetings can be as small as needed.

Big meeting is avoided.
The QMS is reviewed and actions are determined.
Appropriate records are kept.
Top Management is invloved.

Comments? Remember this is only an idea I've had ... all input to make this process workable is welcome.

I would love to know more about making this work- Do you transfer everything to web docuemnts

yes, I transfer all documents to the web site. I either post the documents as a PDF or XML web page. I even post the Excel charts I created. I create a PowerPoint presentation to pull all of the info together via hyperlinks into a simple slide show each manager can run through as many times as they like. In this manner I can control the sequence of events of each MR. After each MR I even post the PPT file on the web site so a manager can go back to a previous MR meeting and look up data that was current several months ago.

From my perspective I'd buy off on elements that are reviewed at different times. Saving eveything up for one big meeting isn't a good business practice either.

In the thread titled "Can flowcharts replace procedures", Garry posted his Business Planning and Management Review process map. I really liked it in that it shows how KPI's at different levels are reviewed at different frequencies.

Once you've identified your processes and decided what and how to measure, then you can decide the frequency of each KPI. There are some KPI's that we have determined we will react to negative trends over time and there are some that we will react to each out of control occurance. This is how we determine the review frequency - the urgency of our reaction time.

Because our lower level KPI's generally contribute to one or more higher level objective, our annual Management Review will be more of a "wrap up" in order to revise policies and objectives if necessary for the following year.