As far as I understand under QS 9000, Management Review cannot be conducted without President and Management Rep.

Is it same condition for TS 16949. All it says Top Management. What about if President does not attends but other VP's attend Management Review. What if Management Rep is unavaliable but all othe rTop Maanagement is available for Management Review.

Any comments?

Thank you.

Man. Review doesn't have to be a meeting.
Man. Rep. Reports.
Senior Management review.
Actions are documented / whatever. (proof of review - distro list even)

The degree of simplicity is in your imagination. Change your mindset -or your company's.

Thank You Mr. Mullins

Your defination of MRM gave me a new insight. But I would like to ask that once again that in a day to day basis we review the Business objectives, Process parameters, Vendors issues, Quality Rejections etc. Does this also would be complience to MRM ?.

There are four basic steps in the process of management review for top management;

- Review the results,
- Take action on the results,
- Record the results,
-Follow-up on the actions taken.

If your daily review meets these requirements then, IMO it could be considered a management review.

As Dave said, there really doesn,t have to be a meeting. Use your imagination to create the desired output.

Quality-1, welcome to the Cove!!! :bigwave:



What about if President does not attends but other VP's attend Management Review?

One reason for the change is to allow for more flexibility. If the VP's have the R&A (Responsibility and Authority) to make changes as a result of the review, then I think you are okay. If they must report to the Prez following the meeting, then THAT is when the real MR occurs.

The key here is that you want the folks that lead the organization to have the information they need to make good decisions. If that occurs during a meeting, that's okay. If that occurs over time, as opposed to a single event, (and it works) then that would be okay as well. I would just make sure what ever way you choose to fulfill the requirements, you document the method so you and others know what you're doing and why.

Good question...keep 'em coming.

Thank you to all for taking your time in responding to my question. Have a wonderful day!

Manoj Mathur said:

Thank You Mr. Mullins

Your defination of MRM gave me a new insight. But I would like to ask that once again that in a day to day basis we review the Business objectives, Process parameters, Vendors issues, Quality Rejections etc. Does this also would be complience to MRM ?.


Short answer - yes.
Even if there are no minutes of the review.
Attendees or the distribution list simply confirm the review and associated activities.

I work in a company where the MD is Japanese and never there, and the 3 senior managers leak straw when they walk.

I produce a very nice MR (always complimented by the assessors).

This is then given to the managers to read, agree & sign.

If they quibble about corrective actions, I;

a) print out my notice.
b) Get them to change their minds.

Hi all,
The auditors may not agree to the day to day review as MR. I had a similar concept but failed to convince the auditor. A major NC with me now.

Hi all,
The auditors may not agree to the day to day review as MR. I had a similar concept but failed to convince the auditor. A major NC with me now.

Hi sajunair - please, do tell. With some more details, maybe the exact wording used in your Major NC, many of the covers could help you out.

I'm a bit curious about that myself, sajunair - I tend to encourage organizations (and their auditors) to favor the day-by-day sort of management review as opposed to the once-yearly "event" type of management review. Management review should be part and parcel of how top management runs the business, not something tacked on top of everthing else TM does.
Don Wood

I'm a bit curious about that myself, sajunair - I tend to encourage organizations (and their auditors) to favor the day-by-day sort of management review as opposed to the once-yearly "event" type of management review. Management review should be part and parcel of how top management runs the business, not something tacked on top of everthing else TM does.
Don Wood

Our auditors reviewed our process for a formal management review. Other then that they were more interested in what we done on a day-to-day basis. What they didn't want was for us to wait for a year to discuss a problem that happened 364 days ago.

The big problem I've seen with day-to-day management review is the lack of depth. The review might cover just one small aspect of the QMS/EMS, and there is nothing to ensure that the entire system will be reviewed. This is also accompanied with a lack of records, and a plan to ensure the entire QMS/EMS is covered. My recommendation is that organizations take at least one review each year where the entire QMS or EMS is reviewed in detail. That way you can be sure that you don't overlook something, and you look at your QMS as an entire process, not just looking at it piecemeal.

I agree with Mr. Other Dave (with a B). Our company's system is this:

Daily review of the QMS is part of the MR's responsibilities.

Quarterly managment meetings consider audit results, corrective and preventive actions, company performance measures, yadda yadda... where document (procedures) changes are made as appropriate.

ANNUAL QMS REVIEWS are performed to look at the BIG PICTURE. Have our policies changed or has our vision/mission changed due to some major changes in the company (new markets for example)? Do we see repeated problems throughout the year, or cyclical trends only seen over extended time that may require changes in the QMS.

I think the intent of the Management Review is being lost. The purpose of the Management Review is the evaluation of the effectiveness of the QMS as it is designed, documented, implemented, and maintained in support of the company's stated Quality Policy and stated objectives. There is a difference between an operational meeting and a management review. Too often, when the management review is a part of some other type meeting, the evaluation of the effetiveness of the QMS gets lost. There are lots of executive managers that don't have a clue as to the QMS, let alone their responsibilities with regard to the QMS. Therefore, I have designed this process around the idea that the QM will report to the executive management on the QM's perception of the effectiveness of the QMS following the input and output requirements of 9001. In the procedure for the management review, I say that the executive is responsible, but that the action may be delegated. But... the executive has to sign the management review protocol.

SSwanson
I agrree that the operational review varies with the management review. But ultimately the purpouse of management review is for assessing the effectiveness of QMS. the effectiveness shall show up in the accounts book or various lists prepared by the QM which may shows some trend to something, having no value for the management.

I think that whether there is a meeting or not is not the point:

The standard requires 5.1 Management commitment by top management
demonstrated by d) managment review.
If the MD and MR are not present or give input how do you show commmitment.

I agree with SSwanson. Management review Meeting is guided by 5.6.1. For maturity one should subscribe to ISO 9004:2000. include all mandatory issues. The vision provider, the CEO/ COO officers and MR's presence should include whose Quality Systems related CA's and PA's are solicited ( not operational problems). The frequency as per Quality Manual. MR's absence or CEO's absence doesn't deter the holding of MRM as per the prescribed frequency, though we have facilities to be in touch online, preferably interaction online.
thank you