I'm curious, how often does your organization perform its management review of the quality system? We perform ours monthly, which I argue is too frequent because we don't scrutinize the data well enough and there's a tendency to focus on short-term fluctuations of the graphs.

Hi, and welcome


How deep do these reviews go? Are they strategic, tactical..?

Please, more information.

Craig

We have it every 4:th week... But: We don't do a complete MR every time. We follow a schedule where all the dep. mgrs. have their "moment of glory" about twice a year.

/Claes

Hi Jim,

Move towards review by process? Yes, at least if I get things my way.

/Claes

I haven't been to the UK for a couple of years now, but sure I'll let you know when I do.

Yes, Smacker, that's pretty much what we do, as well.

Our 3rd party auditor, when asked about the subject, said that the meetings should be far enough apart so that trends could be spotted. He hinted that monthly meetings might be too close together for this.

The focus should be more strategic, rather than tactical. That is where upper management comes into play.

Craig

I responded to the poll by saying once a year. That is our "formal" mgmt. review. But every month a report goes out to all of our exec. committe on product performance, returns, mfg. errors, inspection results, and etc. But here is a problem that I have. A couple months ago I questioned the fact about having our CFO as our mgmt. rep. I have been trying for the last three (3) months to get her and the other together for a "forma" mgmt. review but she is now getting caught up on her work from December. She could not do the meeting in December as scheduled due to financial close of the year. What I am wondering is can we change the formal date of the review to a date that is more flexible to the CFO without altering the effect of the QMS?

Brad,

I would say absolutely. You want the review to mean something, and if she can't do it in December due to other commitments, make it a time of year when she can give you her full attention.

JMHO

CarolX

We do a monthly Business Management System (above and beyond the requirements of ISO 9001:2000) where immediate concerns are addressed and Action Items issued.

There is a standard agenda to follow with some items being placed on a quarterly review only to allow us to present recent trends.

Once a year, just before our annual planning cycle begins, we do a complete BMS review including a summary of all data from the past year along with comparisons to previous years (where possible) to highlight areas of concern or continual improvement.

The monthly reviews take anywhere from 1 - 2.5 hours usually depending on the number of outstanding items. The annual review takes approximately 3 - 4 hours.

By all means change the schedule Brad.
We ended up breaking our meetings up to 1 hr meetings weekly. Each month we have 1 meeting for Quarterly Reviews of Internal control Issues, Management Reviews and Capitol Budgeting. This worked for us for a few reasons one of which you have mentioned with the CFO. When we tried to get the President, CFO, VPs, etc. together for an annual meeting there always seemed to be something happening (vacations, customer meetings, etc.). We noticed that when a meeting was scheduled weekly it work into everyones schedule better plus you get into a habit of attending. An additional benefit was that a short meeting weekly was more flexible an easier to maintain. This method works for our organization, I'm not saying it will work for everyone.
:smokin:

We hold 4 per year, quarterly. However, one of those we specifically review the QMS set-up, the standard and the quality policy.

I must say that, valuable as it is, the format of the meetings involving 6 of us, tends to be an information sharing occasion; sometimes there is good discussion and debate with actions. Whilst I feel sure I'm not alone here, I often feel frustrated that more is not made of this opportunity...
Company is 20.

Time to review the Management Review! Any thoughts?

Peter W

If a company is truely committed, there is not a set date for reviews, it happens as part of daily business practice.

Does it really mean something if 6 men in business suits sit around a teak table and review something that they have no idea about?

Management review is something that should happen on a continuous basis and recorded.

Our plan states that we will hold reviews no less than once a quarter. In reality we hold them as often as necessary to maintain control, review improvement projects, etc... With our recent conversion to 2000 we were meeting much more frequently and varying the audience in attendance. Just put quarterly in the plan to make a minimum commitment.

Does it really mean something if 6 men in business suits sit around a teak table and review something that they have no idea about?
My question would be then "Where is the management committment?" Where is the Management Rep? And so on.
I don't believe that Management Review has to be performed by the owner/president/CEO or whatever, but they do need to know what's going on! Even if it is the "Executive Brief".

Management review is something that should happen on a continuous basis and recorded
I agree with this whole heartedly. Here we lack in the recording category. Team meetings, status meetings, staff meetings, etc. all have to do with management review & health of the business.

We have set dates (once a week with a different portioned reviewed at each meeting) that the Upper Management is presented with what is basically a "State of the System" presentation. :agree:

Just a note about something we have discussed before:

Nothing in the standard requires the Management review to be performed in a meeting per se. There may be other ways to review the system. (Yes we do it in meetings too just like most of us, but there may be better ways) Any ideas?

/Claes

I have several clients that are very small. Meetings are out. If you only have one management person, and 6 workers, who do you invite. In these cases, I still recommend a MR checklist to ensure the review covers everything. Normally the review is scheduled a week or so following their surveillance audit.

Our company consists of 14 people' 5 are management.

If I am correct the standard does not say anything about having a meeting. Only that you musts review.
We have had meetings for one whole year and the concept of multi-diciplinar is not really happening. I feel as though I am wasting the time of those who are not directly related to the topic.

This is what I am considering. We have an Agenda/Calander that lists the topics and how often they are to be reviewed (annual, quarterly, weekly depending on what is appropriate) it also defines who is responsible (warehouse manager. accounting manager, QA Supervisor).

At the time specified on the calender the responsible person prepares a data report and suggested action proposal and meets with upper managemnt (VP and GM) to determine what will be acted upon.

I would really like some feedback. I think it is a little unconventional, but could it meet the requirements and an audit? What about the multi-diciplinary concept?
:rolleyes:

SMcD said:

If I am correct the standard does not say anything about having a meeting. Only that you musts review.

I agree.

SMcD said:
This is what I am considering. We have an Agenda/Calander that lists the topics and how often they are to be reviewed (annual, quarterly, weekly depending on what is appropriate) it also defines who is responsible (warehouse manager. accounting manager, QA Supervisor).
---X---
I would really like some feedback. I think it is a little unconventional, but could it meet the requirements and an audit? What about the multi-diciplinary concept?
:rolleyes:

I would have no problems with your setup. As far as I can se it would cover the standards intent and serve you well. In fact, we have used a similar approach for years.

/Claes

What about the multi-diciplinary concept?
We meet this requirement by using ad hoc members. No where does it state that you have to have a meeting nor does it say that you have to have the multi-diciplinary concept in every meeting. If say the QA Sup talks to the Warehouse Manager, theres the multi-dicipline approach! Now say the issue being reviewed was transport through the shop. You may have your MP&L guy talk to all departments because that is who he interacts with. It is very easy to show you are using the "M-D Concept".
We use a similar set up as what you are suggesting, however we do hold weekly meetings. Attached is the MR Flow.

Randy Stewart said:

Attached is the MR Flow.

Randy,

I get black sillouettes. Here's the message from Acrobat Reader. "There was an error processing a page. A font contains a bad CMAP/Encoding." Is this on my end? Has anybody else opened this with no problems? :) :smokin:

It sounds like you need to download the newer version of Reader there. :agree:

tschones said:

I'm curious, how often does your organization perform its management review of the quality system? We perform ours monthly, which I argue is too frequent because we don't scrutinize the data well enough and there's a tendency to focus on short-term fluctuations of the graphs.

I don't think frequency is the real problem. The problem might be following short term (monthly) fluctuations in graphs use for management review.

Think about posting graphs but not acting on them until there is a definate trend, positive or negative. Only then can a management team really know what the overall picture of the company is.

Maybe think about management review charts along the line of individuals charts, sure there is going to be large short term fluctuation but when that fluctuation is determined and corrective action is put in place to the charts can be converted to more conventional charts and really used as a tool by mamagement to help control the business processes.:bigwave:

energy said:

Randy,

I get black sillouettes. Here's the message from Acrobat Reader. "There was an error processing a page. A font contains a bad CMAP/Encoding." Is this on my end? Has anybody else opened this with no problems? :) :smokin:

No problems here Energy,

Is your Acrobat reader up to it? My version i 5.0.1.

/Claes

Our company does this once a month in the form of a BOS meeting. This is a Business Operating Sytsem that tracks your metrics from our suppliers (PPM's, delivery, ratings etc.) This can be a great way to bring things to light and it will be the first place an auditor will start so we have alot of historical data.:)

I still believe in the Ford QOS methodology wherby people and departments have their "department" measurables" which are fed up the line to review against "company" measurables which determine if the overall structure of the business is meeting the business plan of the company.

Does anybody have a simple flow of measurables used in Ford QOS, I know I am using the wrong terminology.

Al...

I like that methodogy too, Al. That's the way I prefer to interpret ISO 9001's "Top management shall ensure that quality objectives... are established at relevant functions and levels within the organization."

We do MR on quarterly base by covering more issues than ISO requirements.
Special template document, with chapters and responsible it is defined, and all responsible complete required information.
Final document is analyzed by management team and completed with actions (if), and part of info is presented to our region.

vio

I agree with Al,

"I still believe in the Ford QOS methodology wherby people and departments have their "department" measurables" which are fed up the line to review against "company" measurables"

Our company has some 100 locations thru North America. Top level quality objectives are approved by the senior management team.

Each operating division is then required to respond with specific, measurable goals that relate up to the corporate QO's. From these goals we can derive our product and process "Metrics" to show progress.

Our quarterly management review is simply to review our metrics results vs goal. If their is a gap, we introduce action items at the management review to improve.

:bigwave:

We are also moving/working toward the Ford QOS methodology.

Currently, top management meets monthly to review previous month's results to ensure we are on track toward meeting objectives (financial, safety & environment, productivity, development projects, reject rates, and customer complaint).

In addition, top management meets bi-annually to review the quality mangement system's effectiveness, internal audits, trends in reject rates, customer complaints, quality improvement teams etc.

Hello All,

We hold MRM bi-annually. I am attaching our agenda that is used for each meeting as a check list.
Feedback welcomed.
Paula :bigwave:

I still believe in the Ford QOS methodology wherby people and departments have their "department" measurables" which are fed up the line to review against "company" measurables which determine if the overall structure of the business is meeting the business plan of the company.

Does anybody have a simple flow of measurables used in Ford QOS, I know I am using the wrong terminology.

Al...

I don't have mine completed yet, but Garry posted a nice one in the thread - "Can flowcharts replace procedures". I'm not familiar with Ford QOS, but his flowchart sounds like what you are talking about.

Hi All,

I thought I would add my two cents worth. Attached is our Terms of Reference for the Management Review and it will look familiar if you have the standard open at 5.6 because it is almost word for word.

We discuss all production throughputs, CARS, NCs, Customer Issues, Product and plant devlopment, Objectives (KPIs from business plans), Costings etc (We always have as it is good business practise). We have our weekly Department Meetings and Management Meetings and they culminate in the Continuous Improvement Council quarterly.

Greg B

Our big Management Review is annual. We do monitor some chosen indicators by reviewing as a team monthly or quarterly. We may chose to react to a negative trend or to an individual out of control occurance as this often contributes to achieving overall organizational objectives. I try to keep these meetings under an hour and I don't have more than one a week.

No problems here Energy,

Is your Acrobat reader up to it? My version i 5.0.1.

/Claes

Sorry. This one fell between the cracks. I have version 6 and all is well. As soon as I can find it, I'll upload the Management Review procedure agreed upon before the company decided to scrap the ISO effort and me.:vfunny: I also planned on doing it once a year. With weekly production meetings, quarterly "state of the state" meetings, and meetings after meetings for just about anything, to do it more frequently would dilute the actual Mgt Review process. :smokin:

We do monthly operational reviews on our performance indicators including paretoanalysis and actions taken (PDCA).

Management Reviews twice a year in which the "softer" items are discussed within the management team

Marcel

Hi there Marcel. Welcome to the Cove. :bigwave:

/Claes

thanks, I'm still trying to find my way in the cove, how can I monitor the different threads I'm doing input in?

I was now searching for Management Review solutions. I know input and output is being defined, but I'm however looking more for putput-solutions.

This since I feel previous management reviews being weakly performed.

Is there anyone out there that has a good and practical review sample for me? :confused:

...how can I monitor the different threads I'm doing input in?

In your user control panel, go to the options screen. Put a check mark in the box next to "Use email notification by default." Using this option "subscribes" you to the thread and emails you whenever someone replies to the thread. An alternative is to click on the link "Subscribe to this thread" at the bottom of each thread you want to track.
Is there anyone out there that has a good and practical review sample for me? :confused:

I'm attaching a sample record of a management review for a company. The company and names have been XXXX'd out to protect the innocent. Since this is the first review they had done, there was no info from previous reviews, but it should give you an idea of what a typical review may cover. There were also charts and such that I didn't include with the document.

Our Management Reviews follow the following basic structure... The content under each main topic changes from one meeting to the next, but the overall structure does not change much:1) Follow-up of previous management review action items
2) Site Goals - Review of where we are in relation to where we should be... if necessary, discuss any activities which will help us stay on track or get us back on track.
3) Review of Audits - Internal Audit review (including a review of our schedule), External Audit Review (customer audits and registration audits), Supplier Audit review, etc.
4) Customer Satisfaction Issues - this can include a guest speaker from one of our other sister divisions or regional sales managers
5) Status of Corrective / Preventive Actions - Includes a review of CAR's, PAR's, Supplier Corrective Actions, External Audit Actions, Customer Complaints, Effectiveness of Customer Complaint resolutions, etc.
6) Training issues / agenda
7) Changes to the Quality Management System - this is where we try to address the bigger issues regarding changes to our QMS... everything from personnel changes to changes to our Quality Manual / upper tier procedures... etc.
8) Review of Action Items - review and assign action items from the meeting

We define our Management Review cycle as a Quarterly review (minimum), but typically, we will conduct about 8 such meetings throughout the year. We have another layer to our Management Reviews which is conducted by what we call our Leadership Team (this is the Plant Manager and about 7 department heads and they typically meet at least once a month). Our Management Review Team includes the leadership team along with several other representatives throughout our facility (including some of our internal auditors, some managers, quality coordinators, trainers, etc.).

There are many other reviews which take place within our organization, but we try to filter all activities / results to our management review team for a comprehensive review.

Groo3,

Would contingency planning fall under #7 or is it possibly a sub-issue of other management activities?

Al...

Groo3,
Would contingency planning fall under #7 or is it possibly a sub-issue of other management activities?
Al...

Yes. We mostly deal with contingency planning at the Leadership Team level, but these activities may also be part of our Management Review Team meetings. The Leadership Team typically deals with the higher level decisions which include contingency planning, personnel changes (the higher level personnel changes such as changes in the leadership team membership), the interactions with sister divisions, corporate level goals, etc. The Leadership Team may also bring some of these issues before the Management Review Team for further discussion / action.

Raptor you actuall HAVE all these people???

Audit
Coordinator
Training

Coordinator
Preventive
Action
Coordinator

Corrective
Action
Coordinator

Quality
Manager

ISO
Management
Representative
and MRT

Okay I pretty much am ALL those people LOL

G.

Sounds like the old SNL skit from the 70's... 10 Job mOn' - drove a taxi, worked part-time delivering pizza, worked at the funeral home, worked as a postman, flower deliveryman, stockbroker, etc... :vfunny:

Hi All,

I have already included our original terms or reference, a few posts ago, but here is our new procedure. What do you think? We are doing all of our procedures in this new style.

Greg B

...here is our new procedure. What do you think? We are doing all of our procedures in this new style.
I think it looks nice... Clean, simple and to the point. As usual you have produced good stuff, Queenslander...

People (even outside the Q geek group) may actually read it ;) .

/Claes

Twice yearly, but having just complted the management responsiblity audit,
(and gathered a large collection of knives from my back!), the biannual management review does'nt seem to be worth the paper it was written on!!!
:frust:

weekly, monthly and quarterly reviews cover some aspects but a full system review is done annually. However our MD has decided that these reviews should only involve the 4 directors (which contravenes the existing procedure), minutes are taken but only circulated amongst the directors. Am I right in thinking this would be a non-compliance? (We're going for certification in June).

thanks for any feedback

elly

weekly, monthly and quarterly reviews cover some aspects but a full system review is done annually. However our MD has decided that these reviews should only involve the 4 directors (which contravenes the existing procedure), minutes are taken but only circulated amongst the directors. Am I right in thinking this would be a non-compliance? (We're going for certification in June).

If it is, it is only contradictory to your existing procedure (provided the records of the review is available for your registrar). My recommendation is to change to procedure.

You might also look at how this impacts your communication process (5.5.3). You do not have to use Management Review as a means of fulfilling 5.5.3, but a lot of companies do.

thanks for the advice db




:thanks:

As far as know, once per year is enough. Why 4 times per year? too enigmatical!!

As far as know, once per year is enough. Why 4 times per year? too enigmatical!!

Some perform reviews more than once a year for the following reasons:

To provide a clear and public forum of communication of action items and resolutions
So that the appropriate people have a clear (and relatively current) picture of the health of the system and organization
To ensure that people are following through on their responsibilities to the system (this may be more common in organizations with a younger, less mature system)
To provide more frequent opportunities to discuss Improvement options in a group setting - meaning that others are around to validate/question the potential Improvement activities
To provide a group setting in which concerns can be discussed regarding the system (Example - Resources. If Resources are inadequate, why wait a year to discuss this. And another department may have abundant resources it may be willing to share)
To develop a formal mechanism by which aspects of the Management System are discussed in an on-going manner


The point is, buffalo_hua, that many people and organizations have realized that it is better to have a Management System that works for them, instead of them working for the Management System. They pick a frequency and agenda that is meaningful to their organization.

My company used to have Management Review once a month, where we would review the previous month (and nothing else except the Year-To-Date numbers). But meant we were looking at the individual trees, except at the September Review where we would look at the yearly numbers, trends, etc....the forest, if you will.

However, the monthly sessions became more of a nagging session, where I would have to remind people to do things...of no benefit to anyone. I am not paid to babysit Senior Managers. We now have Management Review once a quarter (except for September, which is the annual review).

It is important to develop a system that works for you...with you...and remember to continually evolve and improve it, as your organizaion evolves and improves! :)

I have been in the organization where management reviews were performed every alternate mondays.

My organization perform management reviews four time this every three month.

We are quarterly also

We do a full review annually, covering all the requirements. Monthly we meet to look at immediate problems, short-term trends, and review progress on action items.

Management review is not only a requirement to be complied with, but a visible example of top management's commitment to the development and implementation of QMS and continual improvement of its effectiveness.

Regarding the frequency of management review, ISO 9001 uses the term 'at planned intervals'. The purpose of the management review is to ensure the continuing suitability and adequacy of QMS, and continual improvement of its effectiveness. Various organizations define the frequency as annually, half-yearly, quarterly or monthly. The minutes are documented covering review of all inputs as specified in the standard.

Now from process approach point of view, management review is a process and should be carried out in an effective manner. Like any other process, management review should also be monitored and measured, and for this purpose, a quantified criteria for monitoring and measuring its effectiveness should be established. Suitable method(s) should also be specified and applied for carrying out management review. These methods should demnstrate the ability of management review process to achieve planned results, and to take care of situations when planned results are not achieved, a mechanism should be established for taking appropriate correction and corrective actions.

In view of the above, I believe that specifying a fixed interval for management review will not satisfy the real intent of ISO 9001 standard. Under this fixed interval system, management review assumes a role of only meeting the requirement for audit purposes. Auditor asks for the records from management review. These records are produced and everybody is happy that a requirement has been met. But an opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of management review process and further improving its effectiveness is lost. Stereotype management reviews also result in sending a wrong message down the line, and management review looses any importance employees have been attaching to this important process.

Timing of management review therefore should depend on the status of implementation and importance of the processes/activities to be reviewed. It can not be same for all processes. A particular process may need frequent reviews, whereas another process can be reviewed after one year. The best way is to decide time of next review of each process based on its performance evaluation in current review and any decisions taken in relation to that process. It is also not necessary that all processes/activities are reviewed at one time and on a single day. One cycle of management review should cover all processes/activities and it may take one to three months.

To meet the audit requirement, a statement can be given in the quality manual or any other document that top management reviews the QMS at planned intervals ensuring that each process is reviewed at least once a year.

In addition to reviews by top management, monitoring of process effectiveness should be carried out to look at immediate problems, short-term trends, and review progress on action items. This monitoring can be done at monthly, fortnightly or weekly basis.

We have it every 4:th week... But: We don't do a complete MR every time. We follow a schedule where all the dep. mgrs. have their "moment of glory" about twice a year.

/Claes


Then, essentially, you are reviewing your system and processes twice a year. You jsut take a bite of it each month. Another way to look at it...

Hi hjilling, and welcome to the Cove :bigwave: Wow... We have been well and truly blitzed. You just banged in your first 17(!) posts within two hours. That has got to be a record of some kind.... :applause: Then, essentially, you are reviewing your system and processes twice a year. You jsut take a bite of it each month. Another way to look at it...Yep, that's about it... apart from the fact that I forgot to say that there are a number of things that are on the agenda for every meeting. We are simply trying to direct our efforts to where they are needed.

/Claes

We do it in much the same way.

I hear that we have them once a year. I would like to attend one someday. :magic:

Our Management Rep holds a review once a month. This is tied in with other management business that they do. Twice a year they hold council (for 3 days) away from the corporate offices and review policy and objectives for ISO 9000.

From my experience, I have found that one year is too long a period for management review. It should not more than six months.

As far as possible, I would like to stick to and jell in with management practices already being practiced in any organization (provided it’s in existence and functional). Most organizations would have monthly management meetings and an annual review where strategic plans and directions are formulated.

For monthly management meetings, just add an additional item on QMS matters in the agenda and minutes or report. It takes only about 10-30 minutes for the department heads to report on the progress of their departmental objectives and any other important matters which need management action or attention and the QMR to report on any important issues that might affect performance of the QMS. If they practice staggered internal audits, the results of audits conducted should be reported. Bigger organizations may have quarterly or mid-term reviews.

The annual meeting then becomes a matter of tying up the loose ends (to satisfy ISO/QMS needs) giving them more time to focus on important and strategic issues as a result of requirements or changes in corporate objectives, plan or direction.

Management is both an art and science, therefore practices vary widely from industry, locality, complexity, size, culture etc, etc. That is why ISO documents mandate that you must have a minimum of one review within a 12 month period – more as a follow up to possible changes in your annual corporate plans and objectives.

The bottom line is - Do what is best and suitable for your organization.

When the QMS was still new in the organization, we had Management Reviews conducted quarterly but now when the system is relatively robust, the frequency is reduced to twice a year.

Personally I really dislike the formal annual or twice annual formal reviews. Loads of people sitting around a table concentrating on getting their own agenda across and with one purpose, providing a report to satisfy the ISO auditor.

I prefer the idea of breaking out the specifics of the ISO requirements and identifying how you actually meet them consistently as part of your business process. Whether that be through daily, weekly or monthly meetings, monthly reporting or a reduced formal meeting on an annual basis. ISO will look for demonstration that you are meeting your review committments, but as long as you know what you are reviewing and when and can provide evidence then you should be compliant.

The frequency of MRM meetings has stayed the same (every 3 months) at our small company of over 20 people.

However, about a year ago we exchanged the rather staid departmental report format for the following basic agenda, following 5.6.2 and 5.6.3:

REVIEW INPUT. Information on…
Results of audits
Customer feedback
Process performance and product conformity
Status of preventive and corrective actions
Changes that could affect the quality management system (qms)
Recommendations for improvement
Any other input
REVIEW OUTPUT. Decisions and actions from the MRM...
Improvement of the effectiveness of the qms and its processes
Improvement of product related to customer requirements
Resource needs

We have found this to be more useful since it focuses our attention (i.e., our thinking) along the lines of qms principles and affords us greater opportunity for robust discussion, creativity and management leadership.

Personally I really dislike the formal annual or twice annual formal reviews. Loads of people sitting around a table concentrating on getting their own agenda across and with one purpose, providing a report to satisfy the ISO auditor.Totally agree with the sentiments here. :agree1: However there is a place for the more formal / less frequent review - it all depends on your company culture. One of the benefits is in terms of impact. The big bang approach still works with some MDs, CEOs.

I prefer the idea of breaking out the specifics of the ISO requirements and identifying how you actually meet them consistently as part of your business process. Whether that be through daily, weekly or monthly meetings, monthly reporting or a reduced formal meeting on an annual basis. ISO will look for demonstration that you are meeting your review committments, but as long as you know what you are reviewing and when and can provide evidence then you should be compliant. Again no problem with this aproach if it works for you. Presumably as QM you pull all the records together for the auditor and demonstrate coverage of the clause elements?

I prefer the idea of breaking out the specifics of the ISO requirements and identifying how you actually meet them consistently as part of your business process. Whether that be through daily, weekly or monthly meetings, monthly reporting or a reduced formal meeting on an annual basis. ISO will look for demonstration that you are meeting your review committments, but as long as you know what you are reviewing and when and can provide evidence then you should be compliant.

Absolutely correct, Frank. (Although of course it's your external auditor, rather than 'ISO' who looks for the evidence.) And, as Paul points out, someone - usually the QM whatever their title - needs to understand the picture, & be able to gather the evidence & demonstrate it to the auditor, or take them to the person/people who can.

Our company implement MR twice per year.

During the last surveillance audit we told the auditor that reviews occur at many different levels, daily, monthly, quarterly and annually which is true. He was fine with it.
I mean really are there requirements for what a review of the quality system must look like? I think too many people are locked into a view that someone like a VP or president must review the results of the internal audits in order for meet the requirments of a QMS review. Its never happened at that level in the company I work for and we have been registered since 1998.:D

I am so glad to hear this....I was recently caught up in an aquisition in which the company I worked for was bought by a much larger corporation (previously privately owned) - lucky for me they are going forward with ISO certification as well as RC14001 certification - They currently do something along these lines now. Weekly Reporting - combination of at the table and conference call - set number of attendees with authority for each area - in addition there are quarterly meetings that each of the officers goes into the field and meets with all employees at each of the 153 facilities across the country - I want to use what they are already doing which is reviewing the sytems on an ongoing basis - my auditor seems to be struggling with the concept but I may try to stand my ground on this and see what happens....

I want to use what they are already doing which is reviewing the sytems on an ongoing basis

Extremely wise, IMO. Trying to make a whole company turn around (not to mention the larger one that bought you out) is akin to trying to turn the Titanic, and has about as much chance of success, in my experience.

- my auditor seems to be struggling with the concept but I may try to stand my ground on this and see what happens...

It is possible that the auditor may not be familiar with this kind of approach - he may be out of his depth & far more familiar with, accustomed to and thus fond of the approach that he understands & is used to seeing. That is, IMO, his problem, and that of the certifier he represents! You have to demonstrate that you meet the requirements - the auditor has the responsibility to honestly & carefully assess the evidence against the requirements of the applicable Standard.

And there's plenty of avenues & options to help work through it with him, from polite discussion in the first place, to calling for another opinion, consulting the technical manager, etc etc.

Just to give you an illustration: I had a client go for certification with a company here (Australia). The auditors who performed the audit were, IMO, very rigid in their interpretations, and clearly wanted a very straight down the line system that matched what THEY wanted & were used to. They found the system documentation particularly hard to cope with - it was definitely non-traditional, all online intranet/extranet and set within the context of the Australian organisation's corporate US HQ and regional requirements - throw in all the policies & procedures for Sarbanes-Oxley requirements and stir well!

OK, they certified, but really looked down their nose, & raised a number of requests, including an action forcing the client to create an ISO 9001 'matrix', listing each and every one of the clauses & sub-clauses, and then listing each of their online documents (& we're talking perhaps 150 - 200) - they wanted to see each one of those identify the exact clause/sub-clause it addressed. All this because, and I quote their exact words, 'you have to make your system easy for us to audit'.

Not true, said I - show me the clause where it says that! I'll spare you the details, but ultimately the client switched to another certifier, with a more intelligent (not to mention process-focussed!) approach & better auditors. They just underwent their first surveillance audit... which was an incredibly valuable experience for them - not something they'd found before. The new firm's auditor positively raved about them, their approach and their system. Quite shared my view, that they were a highly intelligent company and, most importantly, that their system was well designed to work for them. (I mentioned the requirements of the other firm ... he blinked visibly and said 'but that's my job'. Quite so.)

We do our management review twice a year.

Mmmmmmm... doughnuts...

management should be reviewing the system every day in some form. Everything that is done, has something to do with the system somewhere, somehow. So, everyday the manager of a dept. should be looking at how things are running, is production meeting schedules? Is product prime? Are the reliability goals being met? Are there any corrective or preventive actions that are getting close to being overdue, or things to update? Are there audits that are scheduled (come on, don't even try to tell me that the managers don't know, you tell them whenever something is close to a due date!)

In other words, it is really not about how often management reviews the system, it is how many ways can we find to document that we ARE really looking at these things.

I have decided that this is the year that I quit being responsible for documenting everything. Managers have a meeting every week and talk about this stuff. The can give me a list of actions to be taken. We have a quality meeting every week. We already have a list of actions to be taken from that. There is a monthly meeting with supervisors and managers, I'll make a list of action items from there. Management review? pfft. I'm gonna call it a sanity check. I have too many things to do to run after managers and hold a management review that can in no way shape or form even begin to compete with the activities that we already perform every day, every week, and every month.

We state we do them quarterly. We actually focus on them semi-annually but our third-party auditor tends to pick us apart for what we cover. In the meetings we cover the big seven as stated in 5.6.2. We tend to leave it at that but then we get slammed because in the 'process performance and product conformity' we typically focus on NCR %, NCR $, overtime, etc...but we hear that its not covering everything we need it to do. Things such as maintenance, purchasing, turnover, accounts receivable/payable. To me it sounds more like business consulting rather than ISO auditing.

Thoughts??

We state we do them quarterly. We actually focus on them semi-annually but our third-party auditor tends to pick us apart for what we cover. In the meetings we cover the big seven as stated in 5.6.2. We tend to leave it at that but then we get slammed because in the 'process performance and product conformity' we typically focus on NCR %, NCR $, overtime, etc...but we hear that its not covering everything we need it to do. Things such as maintenance, purchasing, turnover, accounts receivable/payable. To me it sounds more like business consulting rather than ISO auditing.

Thoughts??


I think I agree with your auditors. Clause 4.1.c requires you to define what criteria you will judge the effectiveness of each process. Clause 4.1.e requires you to measure that.

Management Review expects you will evaluate the performance of your processes based on what you have defined in these two clauses. If you only evaluate the overall metrics, you are only evaluating the overall company performance, not the performance of each process.

I would suggest you are missing the intent of the process approach. That is not business consulting at all. It is explaining the intent of the ISO requirement in the first place.

Management Review expects you will evaluate the performance of your processes based on what you have defined in these two clauses. If you only evaluate the overall metrics, you are only evaluating the overall company performance, not the performance of each process.


Thank you...it's finally been worded in the right way! :D

We perform a Management Review once a year.

I, as the QMR, spend a lot of time going through the processes, audits etc that have taken place over the year and then take a report that has had some simple stat analysis performed on it, into the Management Review. The Management team discuss the points and then I write a detailed report after the event. Our external auditors have been impressed with these reports and they are also used for the analysis of trends etc.

Hello,

We hold four times per year, however one of those we specially review the QMS set up, based on the quality policy and objective. The please see below the case study which will help you that why we are conducting four times per year.

Case Study• Superior Medical, Inc., (SM) established their quality system 5 years ago. This year’s production was double that of 5 years ago. Six months ago SM installed an ethylene oxide sterilization chamber and started distributing sterile devices. Several sterilization lots have failed. SM performs management reviews annually.
• Is an annual management review sufficient?


My comments:

If we conduct the review meeting once in a year, we could not trouble shoot the problem of product failure. With in one year, many lots would reach the customer and may failed and adverse affect the customer.

• As per the case we see that production has been doubled in past 5 years.
• Six months ago sterilization plant has been established.
• Continues problem with new plant and several lots failed.
• Annual meeting would not be sufficient.
• A quarterly or half year meeting is suggested

Hope that above case study explain u..

Regards,
Subbu

Any one please send me some material related Management review of the QMS??????????

In our organization it is carried quaterly where the people come prepared with allthe agenda points to be discussed

Hi Friends,

No matters on the frequency. Practically speaking, The KPI data analysis for the Continuous improvements will give exact result of the QMS every month. The KPI needs to be formulated in such a way that all the QMS elements are linked.

any comments on this ?

Raghu

Hi Everyone,
We hold our "formal reviews" twice a year and they last about 3 to 4 hours. But we track and post our key metrics and objectives monthly. Smaller more informal reviews take place monthly as well.
I agree that weekly is too frequent and once a year is too much time inbetween.

Hi Everyone,
I agree that weekly is too frequent and once a year is too much time in between.
Depends on the situation. Some crises merit daily reviews

In my view - Twice a year looks good, but as a good practice one should not wait for the Management Review meeting to find solution / actions, it depens on the situations.

Sridhar

Depends on the situation. Some crises merit daily reviews

Absolutely! And as long as minutes (records) are maintained, they can count as Management Reviews. Often overlooked in organizations.

Stijloor.

Absolutely! And as long as minutes (records) are maintained, they can count as Management Reviews. Often overlooked in organizations.

Stijloor.

I agree and disagree, here Stijloor.

The requirements state that certain input be reviewed at established intervals. These daily meetings I think are good, however, I kinda disagree to the effect that these meeting (daily) need not be documented, in respect to the Standard. But, I do agree, that they could be beneficial, if the need has been established. Just my opinion.

I agree and disagree, here Stijloor.

The requirements state that certain input be reviewed at established intervals. These daily meetings I think are good, however, I kinda disagree to the effect that these meeting (daily) need not be documented, in respect to the Standard. But, I do agree, that they could be beneficial, if the need has been established. Just my opinion.

Not speaking for Stijloor, but he didn't say that the meeting results need to be documented. He said that if they are, the minutes are evidence of management review.

Not speaking for Stijloor, but he didn't say that the meeting results need to be documented. He said that if they are, the minutes are evidence of management review.

Jim, you are correct.

Stijloor.

Not speaking for Stijloor, but he didn't say that the meeting results need to be documented. He said that if they are, the minutes are evidence of management review.
Quite right.

And the burden of documentation can be pretty light - even just the daily notes from one of the participants.

Quite right.

And the burden of documentation can be pretty light - even just the daily notes from one of the participants.

Absolutely! I've seen notes taken on an electronic white board; followed by a printout that serves as a record and possibly a download on the computer system. Keep it simple and practical.

Stijloor.

Poll closed 1 July 2008.