My company is planning on registeratin at the end of this year to TS16949:2000. As part of the registeation audit, management review records with the required reviews will have to be sent to register. On his visit, he suggested a notebook where the tabs correspond with the item number to be reviewed. Since there is a lot of shalls to be reviewed(complete with anaylsis and action if necessary. There is also, a lot of things to be revierwed that is just for the company. I am thinking about having a seperate notebook for the shalls vs all items. Yet, this doesn't sound kocher to me. I woudl love to hear how other people are handling management review records.
I woudl like to contribute to this forum since it has been of so much help to me. Therfore I am linking a template to the internal audit procedure fotr Ts16949. I hope it helps someone.

we used a matrix that listed the reguirments and the are of the documents that they corresponded to. This was all part of the package submitted for the document review. I'll see if I still have a sample matrix.

Al...

Originally posted by lday38
My company is planning on registeratin at the end of this year to TS16949:2000. As part of the registeation audit, management review records with the required reviews will have to be sent to register. On his visit, he suggested a notebook where the tabs correspond with the item number to be reviewed. Since there is a lot of shalls to be reviewed(complete with anaylsis and action if necessary. There is also, a lot of things to be revierwed that is just for the company. I am thinking about having a seperate notebook for the shalls vs all items. Yet, this doesn't sound kocher to me. I woudl love to hear how other people are handling management review records.
I woudl like to contribute to this forum since it has been of so much help to me. Therfore I am linking a template to the internal audit procedure fotr Ts16949. I hope it helps someone.
It sounds to me like your registrar is asking for an awful lot. Why should the management review records be required to be sent to them? And in a specific format! You are their customer, not the other way around. An onsite review should be adequate. Actually, the IATF "Rules" document states
Each onsite audit, including initial and surveillance audits, shall include a review of... management review results and actions...

In the IATF "rules for achieving IATF recognition" page14
"The organization shal provide the following documentation to the CB for review:
amongst others
Internal audit and management review planning and results (my emphasis) from the previous 12 months.

Howard provides a good place to start. If you don't have a copy of the rules you need to get one.
The difficult part is providing the data in the CB prescribed format.
Our registrar required two completed forms;

- customer profile, 3 pages for each customer addressing selected clauses in TS2.
- COP's list, including inputs/outputs, measures, location, process owner, etc,etc.
This data is reviewed at the registrar's site. Any questions are labeled "comments" and will be reviewed at the practice/registration audit. Those items not addreseed will receive a major/minor NCR.

Even though "We" are the customer, as Howard points out the list is specific. The CB reserves the right to request the data in a formt that is relevent to them

Sorry about that - I stand corrected. :o I reviewed the rules a little too quickly before I posted. I've had some experiences lately in which registrar auditors have been overly demanding in what they expect of companies. The IATF Guidance document also has a "Readiness Evaluation work sheet" on the last page that shows this as information to be submitted to the CB prior to onsite audit.

That being said, I still believe that the records should be in a format that is useful to the organization. Reformatting records only for the benefit of the auditor is counter-productive. However lday38, I think your idea about separating data is OK, if the intent is to protect company private information. If your company (like many companies) reviews the results of the entire business along with the QMS, the auditors have no business looking into some areas.

Thank you. I see both point, you might as well make it as easy as possible to pass the audit. On the other hand you are right, some
stuff you may not wwant ona record. I am thinking of listing the metrics in excel , a columns for the goal ,when CSR is needed, than make this a template for my meeting.

We are an ISO 9001:2000, IS/TS 16949:2002 and ISO 14001:1996 Company. We conduct Management Review for all the Systems (mentioned just above) jointly. I am attaching the points which are being discussed in this Joint M.R. Meeting.

Please ask if you are not clear with any of this point.

Manoj Mathur

Yes, your format is very much what I was thinking. Of course, you must have the backup from these metrics. Do you define your goals and objectives on another form? The evidence of these, I believe also has to be forwarded to the external auditor.
Wow Good Job getting registered to all those standards

Keep in mind, MR is supposed to be a tool for ORGANIZATIONS, not CBs. Neither TS2 nor the rules require a specific format, or specific levels of detail. If your CB "suggests" a specific format, or requires it in their contract with you, and you're silly enough to agree with it, then shame on you.

Look at clause 5.6 carefully. I'm not seeing where it says MR records must show evidence that all TS2 clauses were considered individually. The intent of MR is summarized quite nicely in 5.6.1 - to ensure the continuing suitability, adequacy and EFFECTIVENESS of the QMS. I don't get how maintaining records that top management reviewed every TS2 clause and every CS requirement is supposed to do that.

Even 5.6.1.1 says only that MR records provide, as a minimum, evidence that quality objectives are achieved and customers are satisfied with supplied product. Check out what the "Guidance" document has to say about 5.6.1.1 as well.

Don't let CBs do to you what they did to you with QS, folks!
Don Wood
One of the guys that certifies the CB auditors :)

Iday38,
I guess I mis-interpreted your post. In my previous post I was referring to all of the data required by Annex 1 in the "rules" as being cataloged specifically for the CB.
As for MR only, there is only one record/output; minutes/action items of the meeting outlining the results.
Manojs' agenda form is an excellent example. Complete the blanks in the remarks column and you have your MR record. If the auditor wants to see the details , he can view them on site.

IDAY38,
A comment on your audit procedure. The paragraph pertaining to auditor qualifications does not address customer specific requirements.
CSR's for Ford and GM are specific in their requirements for internal auditors. Ford requires TS2 internal auditor training, while GM requires auditors to be qualified to ISO10011 (now 19011).
During our recent registration audit, the auditor completed an in- depth review of our compliance to 19011; from opening meeting to closing meeting records, auditor qualifications and experience.

Originally posted by Sam
During our recent registration audit, the auditor completed an in- depth review of our compliance to 19011; from opening meeting to closing meeting records, auditor qualifications and experience.

Sam, just a quick question for you based on your recent audit. Since 19011 is a guidance document, how did the registrar justify auditing compliance with it, other than the GM CS auditor qualification requirements? 19011 doesn't mandate opening and closing meetings, or anything else - it gives guidance. :confused:

Howste,
Good question. And I really don't know the answer. The auditor only looked for similarities in our audit program and the guidance in the standard.
How do you become "qualified" to a standard that is used for guidance only. Sounds like an "oxymoron".

Don,
Do you have any feedback on this CSR for GM?

I do understand that there is specific customer requirements for internal auditor qualifications. My company is tier 2, I have been lead to believe that the automtive is not our direct cusomter, therefore only our customer requirments apply. I asked my customer for a document outlining my company's requirments, no information on auditor requirments in that document. I am Rab certified as a ISO9000:2000 internal auditor notT S1649 for which we are obtainign certification. I have asked our register for their acceptance on my certification, I have not heard to date. I will be
using the process apprach to auditing.
Is anyone else in that situation?