Any good management review/ management review procedure examples or ideas?

I really believe that Management Review is a daily, ongoing activity conducted by all levels of management in any company. To say that Top Management is going to sit down with everyone specifically to meet an 9000 requirement does nothing for us.

Every meeting, phone call, memo, etc. is a review of what is going on in the organization. We used to have a monthly Corrective Action Board just for this purpose but have dropped it as our top 3 managers meet every Friday, (at a minimum), to discuss the program so why duplicate effort. Especially when the CAB's were eating up 12-20 man hours with nothing to show for it but everyone shaking their heads. No one needs someone else to read a metrics slide to them.

We have asked that the managers send out an email or memo stating major topics discussed and items reviewed for records purposes as stated in the standard.

What do you think, is this going to get us in deep stuff with the registar?

I have just recently been working on changing our management review to an ongoing process by way of our Intranet. I believe that if it's done right, with buyin & regular participation by all of our top management, it can be a whole lot more productive than a quarterly big meeting! Just waiting on my systems admin. to get the software up and running for me.

:bonk:

No! One A4 sheet is enough for that redundant but mandatory piece of paper!

What does this choice mean? I'd love to vote, but this option seems to reflect your thoughts about an A4, whatever that is.
Please explain it to me so even I can understand.:rolleyes:

:ko: :smokin:

energy, A4 is a paper size used just about everywhere but here.

As far as MR goes, If conducted properly, it can save an organization. If not, it can destroy an organization. The requirement for MR is so that management is continuously engaged in the process and the QMS. If MRs are being performed solely to meet the standard, the organization is quite pitiful!
I did not vote, because I really did not like any of the choices.

I am moving in the same direction as Russ. In the not too distant past the Man. Review was a sit down meeting where the top management listened to the presentation given by the Man. Rep and maybe a few decisions were made. A report was prepared to meet the requirement and act as an action item list and the members went back to their "regular jobs".

The new method is to use the Intranet. I have set up an electronic discusion board (using MS Share Point - Russ) where issues can be posted by anybody ... not just the overworked Man. Rep. This allows for a constant "virtual meeting" to be conducted over time (we break up data into quarterly sessions). In addition, any separate meeting minutes from any face to face type meetings are deposited to the site. All of the text is automatically captured in a central location by the software. This makes it easy to respond to the requirements of clause 5.6. A quarterly wrap up document is circulated and reviewed by all top management members and final approved by the CEO. Action items are posted, monitored and resolved. So far this new method is working very well.

MrPhish-
I can sure use any details you would care to provide about the day to day workings of your virtual review process. I really want to make this work!

db said:

If conducted properly, it can save an organization. If not, it can destroy an organization. The requirement for MR is so that management is continuously engaged in the process and the QMS. If MRs are being performed solely to meet the standard, the organization is quite pitiful!
I did not vote, because I really did not like any of the choices.
I agree, but what I often find is a company is already addressing the necessary issues in one or more meetings anyway. Of course, responding from my implementation consultant's eyes.

BTW -- If anyone would like an additional option in a posted poll, let me know specifically what you want and I'll add it.

Yes we have information about the quality management system floating around the business on an hour by hour basis. The purpose of the Management Review is, I believe, to take a step back from the day to day business and say "Is the system broke and do we have to fix it". Therefore it should be a periodic meeting / review of data with an agenda and actions resulting.

The frequency of the meeting depends on how quickly the market / business environment is changing. For most traditional organizations annually should be suitable. In times of great change the organization can always have an Extraordinary Meeting.

My opinion is that if conducted in the right spirit as a critique of the system effectiveness it is a very powerful tool. If it is a tick in the box to keep a certificate then yopu get what you deserve!

Paul Simpson said:

Yes we have information about the quality management system floating around the business on an hour by hour basis. The purpose of the Management Review is, I believe, to take a step back from the day to day business and say "Is the system broke and do we have to fix it". Therefore it should be a periodic meeting / review of data with an agenda and actions resulting.

The frequency of the meeting depends on how quickly the market / business environment is changing. For most traditional organizations annually should be suitable. In times of great change the organization can always have an Extraordinary Meeting.

My opinion is that if conducted in the right spirit as a critique of the system effectiveness it is a very powerful tool. If it is a tick in the box to keep a certificate then yopu get what you deserve!

IMHO Paul, you are RIGHT on the money. I believe that MR should be used for management to foster the "long term perspective" with respect to the QMS and the overall quality culture of the organization. Without this, management tends to be stuck in the day-to-day and looses sight of the grand scheme of things.

Cheers!!!

I agree with Paul too ...

1. The purpose of the MR is to evaluate the “health” of the QMS. Our “floating information” system works just fine for us.
2. MRs are conducted on a periodic basis (quarterly instead of yearly). It’s just that we continuously and electronically review, discuss, refine our data/information prior to holding our MR. We look at this time spent with our “floating information” as studying for an exam so we are better prepared to respond.
3. MRs are also called on an ad hoc basis because some problems can’t wait for traditional solutions.
4. My top managers exhibit a great spirit about the purpose of the MRs.
5. If you’re only looking for a check in the box … that’s your solution and you’re welcome to it.
6. IMHO creativity and new ideas are OK … as long as goals (and everybody should have some) are met.

Well my initial aim for going on our intranet for management review is to replace the big meetings with an ongoing process. I believe that it would be more effective provided it's set up right. Heck even if I don't eliminate the big meetings, it should invigorate the process, and that's what I'm looking for!

Can I just say anyone who can harness the technology (or any other means) to involve personnel in the management system has my admiration, so stick with it!

The distinction I would make is the daily information gets the people in the organization involved and improves the system on a day to day basis.

The review says "How did we do last year, was it good enough?" and then asks the question "What is on the horizon in the short, medium and long term and what do we as a management team need to do to affect the way it happens." As such the MR cycle should be tied in to the organization's planning and budget cycle.

One example might be that an organization looks at past performance and identifies that there is an area of problem with people involvement, as a result the MR team put in place a budget for hardware, software, training to involve people using an interactive Intranet based management system. Great idea, let's do it!

Quote 1 from Paul:
Is the system broke and do we have to fix it
Quote 2 from Paul:
How did we do last year, was it good enough?

Paul, I think you have hit the bullseye here. You are asking the two fundamental questions of review. The first quote you are looking at the system to see if it works. The second quote you are looking to see if the system can be better. Corrective and Preventive action rolled into one thought (even though they were different quotes and different posts).

:agree: :thedeal: :smokin:

I nearly selected the third choice, "Yes, if done properly ..." but I wanted to relate the gradual evolution of our MR from choice #3 to somewhere between #1 and #3.

In the past, our MR's were treated as just a "check in the box", first for ISO and then QSTE. But as the Corrective Actions from MR mounted (and many gathered dust for quite some time) this mentality became obvious, and just as obvious was, that if we wanted to KEEP our certification (yes, I know certification shouldn't be the drving force of our QMS) documented corrective action(s) would ACTUALLY have to be taken!

This brings us to where we are now. Comprehensive, structrued CA plans have been developed for missed quality objectives and "systemic" issues identified in MR. The CA's are being tracked for adequacy and performance. The vote's not in yet but the latest returns are promising.

I must point out that our quality objectives are dervied from or directly support the strategic and business plans. It just took awhile (and fear of loosing certification) for Sr. Mgt. to accept that the operative word in Quality Management System is NOT "quality" but management. (Imagin that!)

Hey, like the man said, "Quality isn't about being perfect, it's about getting better!"

Does anyone have any thoughts or examples of effectiveness measures that can be used for Management Review?

I've seen MR measures such as % of MR meetings held vs scheduled, or % of agenda covered. But these just measure if the MR is taking place, not how efective it is.

Plant performance measures, which get reviewed in the MR mtgs might be one idea, but I recognize that improvement could be driven in these measures with or without a MR.

My initial ideas include; documenting the process improvements that directly come from action plans generated in the MR, or other positive benefits that result from the MR.:confused:

Shannon said:

My initial ideas include; documenting the process improvements that directly come from action plans generated in the MR, or other positive benefits that result from the MR.:confused:

Since we identified Management Review as a "process", I struggled with the same question. We needed to establish the Criteria for Success and the Methods of Measure. For better or worse, I came up with a few items:

Criteria for success:
1. All members of Top Management Group participate in the management review
2. Responsible Managers contribute topics for discussion
3. Actions are approved to improve the effectiveness of the QMS

Methods of Measure:
1. Attendance lists and review signatures will be reviewed and recorded
2. Agenda items reviewed and recorded
3. Number of action items reviewed and recorded

There is nothing that says a certain percentage is good and less than that is cr@p, but I suppose that would be our next step: defining what is unacceptable.

I know, pretty lame. So I'm as interested as you are in seeing what everyone else can come up with!

Lucinda,

I don’t think your point is that lame. The metrics you describe all tend to support that the MR is being conducted and that changes are a by-product of said meeting. I saw a thread that quoted a well known ISO 9000 registrar “official” talking about how the possible metrics for MR might be as simple as having a system in place that functions. The inference (as I interpreted it) was that it wasn’t about the measurement of the metrics showing a positive rise every surveillance audit (i.e. proof of continual improvement), but rather the system was properly designed, executed and maintained. The effective operation of the system was the objective evidence!

i.e. 1) the MR took in all the required data, 2) the data was analyzed by top managers, 3) trends, issues, changes to the QMS were identified, 4) corrective action was taken (and judged to be effective), and 5) the cycle started over. As always it comes down to YOUR auditor having the same vision to see this solution as meeting the standard … that all powerful … interpretation. Just my take.