Just curious, how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the management review minutes. He is doing this since the procedure for M.R. calls out quarterly meetings. If the meetings don't fit into the quarterly time, he just changes the date on the minutes.

....and yes, I am trying to find my way out the door.

Just curious, how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the management review minutes. He is doing this since the procedure for M.R. calls out quarterly meetings. If the meetings don't fit into the quarterly time, he just changes the date on the minutes.

....and yes, I am trying to find my way out the door.
RCW:

In my experience, if there are 4 meetings a year, reasonably spread out, then a week or 2 give or take won't matter. From a practical standpoint, travel, family emergencies, vacations, etc. make it very difficult to get the main people together. So, I wouldn't think the exact date would matter (although it wouldn't surprise me if some here will disagree). So, that's one option.

Also, would you/the prez consider management review without having a meeting? It is possible to use other means (emails, conference call, whatever).

Just a thought...

Just curious, how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the management review minutes. He is doing this since the procedure for M.R. calls out quarterly meetings. If the meetings don't fit into the quarterly time, he just changes the date on the minutes.

....and yes, I am trying to find my way out the door.

I think that the most significant asopect is that he cares what the procedure says to the extent that he tries to act according to it. :agree1:

In my experience, if there are 4 meetings a year, reasonably spread out, then a week or 2 give or take won't matter. From a practical standpoint, travel, family emergencies, vacations, etc. make it very difficult to get the main people together. So, I wouldn't think the exact date would matter .I agree.

Ok, so he's fiddling with the record dates. That does not bother me so much. Not very clever, of course, and as Craig points out quite unnecessary. It does however make me wonder what else he's changing. What about the contents of the minutes, for instance?

/Claes

It does however make me wonder what else he's changing. What about the contents of the minutes, for instance?

/Claes

I agree too,

It seems to me that the procedure should be altered instead. The procedure should be worded more loosely to accommodate variations in meeting dates.

I agree that altering the date on the minutes is a bad thing. Maybe it should be explained to him that he is falsely altering a “quality record”. I would be concerned about what other records may have been fudged if that precedent has been set. Probably the bigger concern, IMHO.

I agree too,

It seems to me that the procedure should be altered instead. The procedure should be worded more loosely to accommodate variations in meeting dates.

I agree that altering the date on the minutes is a bad thing. Maybe it should be explained to him that he is falsely altering a “quality record”. I would be concerned about what other records may have been fudged if that precedent has been set. Probably the bigger concern, IMHO.

He/she is the president and as such it is his/her company to do with as he/she sees fit, and his/her responsibility. As president he/she may or may not answer to a higher authority and we all serve at his/her pleasure. Having said that, I agree, rewrite the procedure to allow variation in meeting dates. I don't believe it is that important.
:agree1:

I don't believe it is that important.

I believe it says a lot about character, especially for a person in that position. Having discovered the falsified record, any good third party auditor (or regulatory agent, heaven forbid) would most certainly begin to "dig deep".

May be "ok" in some industries but certainly not within the aerospace world I know.

I don't believe it is that important.
I believe it says a lot about character, especially for a person in that position. Having discovered the falsified record, any good third party auditor (or regulatory agent, heaven forbid) would most certainly begin to "dig deep".

May be "ok" in some industries but certainly not within the aerospace world I know.I worked in the aerospace industry for years as a QAE and as a supervisor of inspection! We learned to be flexible. That's all I am saying! I can remember being tasked with writing a Quality Procedure, my instructions were "keep it loose, Jimmy". If you are not careful you can tie yourself in knots with no way out and that doesn't feed the bulldog! Those instructions have worked very well for me over the years! :thanx:

Yeah, no argument with regard to procedural flexibility from me that's for sure. I am somewhat of a master at "weasel wording" myself. LOL!

However, when I hear that the company's leader has basically falsified a record (yeah, I know it's relatively minor), my auditor instincts cause me to question the integrity of the QMS.

Maybe it's just me? Anybody else have the same concern?

Good discussion!

Is it really falsifying or making adjustments to accomodate the procedure and the requirements?
I agree with changing the procedure to fit your business targets and objectives. The top manager obviously is paying attention, and attempts to comply. Wish some of that involvement was evident here.

Yeah, no argument with regard to procedural flexibility from me that's for sure. I am somewhat of a master at "weasel wording" myself. LOL!

However, when I hear that the company's leader has basically falsified a record (yeah, I know it's relatively minor), my auditor instincts cause me to question the integrity of the QMS.

Maybe it's just me? Anybody else have the same concern?

Good discussion!

Yeah, Mr. Badger, I do agree. What might be a good idea is to point out to Mr. Prez that he must think the reviews are important (he IS doing them, right?) but "fudging" the dates is casting the whole system in a negative light. So, lets review how we do the reviews, and possibly change the timing requirement.

Heck, we could change the requirement to twice a year, and do it 4 times, because we think they are so important.

Yeah, Mr. Badger, I do agree.

LOL! My dad's name was Mr. Badger!

What might be a good idea is to point out to Mr. Prez that he must think the reviews are important (he IS doing them, right?) but "fudging" the dates is casting the whole system in a negative light.

I agree, well said.

Heck, we could change the requirement to twice a year, and do it 4 times, because we think they are so important.

Our MR SOP states "at least annually".

Is it really falsifying or making adjustments to accomodate the procedure and the requirements?

We should all try this as an experiment on April 15th next year. ;)

Great comments! More food for thought follows....

I agree with writing procedures loosely and not backing yourself into a corner. What works for a week or a month might not be viable in a year.

Actually when I orginally wrote the procedure it was "reviews held at least annually". That way you had to have them once a year and could hold them more often if necessary. I went through several customer audits (not registrar audits) who got very fussy on that one. They wanted to see a more specific interval. So since the customer is always right (so they say) it was changed.

I think he is an unethical ******* (word "scumbag" removed).

Who are you people that would try to defend such a practice? We are supposed to be Quality Professionals for Chrissakes!

What depths have we sunk to? :bonk:

Altering records definitely says something about a persons character.

If someone that reported to me did it I would fire them. If someone I worked for did it, passing the audit would be the farthest thing from my mind.

Run away! Run away!

Carl-

I went through several customer audits (not registrar audits) who got very fussy on that one. They wanted to see a more specific interval. So since the customer is always right (so they say) it was changed.

There's part of your problem, right there!

#1) customer audits. Are you ISO registered - and do they accept that? Why are they auditing anyway - and do they have a SPECIFIC requirement for SPECIFIC intervals, or is it an auditor's preference? Go over his head if it is.

#2) In agreement with Carl, records should NEVER be falsified! And if the top dog does it, what business ethic is he teaching the masses??? Better to mess up and explain the error than to plant seeds of doubt about everything else that is done.

Why not use the instance as an OFI. You couldn't maintain a hard and fast quarterly (or whatever interval) meeting - and it did not affect MR effectiveness - so you changed the procedure to suit your circumstances. The key is to explain to the auditor the risks vs. benefits of your system. If you (and the auditor) can find no valid risk to you present process, why enforce a tighter requirement?

I think he is an unethical scumbag.

Who are you people that would try to defend such a practice? We are supposed to be Quality Professionals for Chrissakes!

What depths have we sunk to? :bonk:

Altering records definitely says something about a persons character.

If someone that reported to me did it I would fire them. If someone I worked for did it, passing the audit would be the farthest thing from my mind.

Run away! Run away!

Carl-

Carl, I respect your opinion and offer no offense but the way I read it the gentlemen is involved and committed and it was us quality professionals that painted him into this corner! I agree that maybe he should not alter the dates, like I posted earlier, I don't think it is that important.
But to call him an unethical scumbag! Really Carl! :nopity:

I agree with Carl. It is unethical to change the record, period. If he is not able to meet the frequency address that at the next review and extend the time period if necessary. Why not watch the reviews like any other system, monitor it for conformance "as is" and do true CI on it to make it work instead of trying to make it look compliant to a system requirement that is not being followed. As for the customer asking you to be more scheduled and rigid, I would take their concern evaluate it and answer them as to what works best for your system. You have regular comunication in your company I am sure (because it is a requirement), and this is most likely what the customer wants to know is happening. JMO.
Make your system work for you. It is good that the "prez" understand "NC is bad" but fix the issue don't act like it does not exist. The standard requires it at least annually, I would leave it at that.
Mark

Jim,

I completely disagree,

Nobody "painted him into a corner"

He was just as aware as everyone else. He simply chose the unethical way of dealing with it.


Carl-

Just curious, how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the management review minutes. He is doing this since the procedure for M.R. calls out quarterly meetings. If the meetings don't fit into the quarterly time, he just changes the date on the minutes.

....and yes, I am trying to find my way out the door.
==========================================================

Makes me question whether or not the Pres was trained on the fine points of the QMS (QM, SP, Management Review etc.) and whether or not results from the MR meeting are used for anything other than a note in the QMS record.

"What a tangled web we weave...." falsifying records is called fraud where I come from.

I didn't catch in the posts what the root cause for the late meetings turned out to be. Is it a resource issue, planning issue, hair on fire method of management issue???

I would prefer to see the dates unchanged and initiate a Corrective action (assigned to the Pres) and fix the problem than to falsify records.

Jim,

I completely disagree,

Nobody "painted him into a corner"

He was just as aware as everyone else. He simply chose the unethical way of dealing with it.


Carl-

Well OK perhaps I read it wrong! :agree:
But how can we "quality professionals" call others names? Look at our own record of continually failing in our quality attempts over the years from zero defects to six-sigma. Our reputation precedes us and IMHO makes our jobs much more difficult then they need to be.
"What is it this month, Jimmy?" Zero what? Quality who?
What a Sham! What a shame! and we can call others names! :soap: :mad:
My apologies forgive the rant.

I am sure that this Mr. Prez. (scumbag) is not the only person that has falsified documents. Anybody else here ever change the dates on a record. Hid something so the auditor would not see it. Are we all so perfect? I don`t agree with it either, but then I am not in his situation. Maybe he`s got a good reason. How about if he just backdated the records instead of changing them. Would this be different?

Just playing devils advocate.

I am with ya Jim.

Maybe I was a bit harsh, but we (Quality practitioners) continue to dig a hole we cannot escape from.

We are our own worst enemy.

Mike,

Most, if not all of us have probably hid, or fudged something in our careers, but diliberately changing the date on a document is pretty serious in my book. Personally, I cannot recall ever falsifying any numbers/documents, but if I did, IT WAS WRONG.

Why didn't the Prez just let it go and adhere to the procedure next time?

Trust is a funny thing, to get some, you have to give some and once broken, it is very difficult to regain.

I left a job of 3 years once because the VP and Director of Engineering falsified records and I found out. The ISO coordinator left the same day.

Carl-

This is just like how my grandma always cheated at solitaire. What's the point? You are the only one who will ever know, but are you really a great solitaire master then?

Does it really make a difference if this President "backdates" a record based on an arbitrary cycle documented in his own quality procedures? Probably not a big deal - doesn't affect anyone's breathing. However, the disregard for these procedures and the QMS in general is concerning. How can you operate in a system where people do not even conform to their own rules?

Most, if not all of us have probably hid, or fudged something in our careers, but diliberately changing the date on a document is pretty serious in my book. Personally, I cannot recall ever falsifying any numbers/documents, but if I did, IT WAS WRONG.
Why isn't hiding or "fudging" something just as serious as changing a date? All are deceptive acts. Just ask Martha Stewart.

v. fudged, fudg·ing, fudg·es
v. tr.
To fake or falsify: fudge casualty figures.
To evade (an issue, for example); dodge.

v. intr.
To act in an indecisive manner: always fudged on the important questions.

To go beyond the proper limits of something: fudged on the building code requirements.
To act dishonestly; cheat.

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=00-database-info&db=ahd4): The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

:topic: Ladies and Gentlemen, take a hard look at the world! It is not Black and White! Some say different shades of gray! I believe there is a song on the charts, as we speak, that says something about
"its not what you wear or not the shape of it that matters, its the way you shake it that turns me on! So shake it baby, shake it"
Ever since Eve caused Adam to eat the forbiden fruit we have fudged! :biglaugh:

Well

Lets just say that a 'colleague' of mine was asked to make up the minutes of a management review that never happened !!

I expressed my utter disgust, but he went ahead and did it - worse still he included my name as being present at the meeting. I refused to be involved in the scam, and insisted that my name was taken off the minutes, and preferably the document was re-worded as a report, rather than a set of minutes.

The document was duly changed, but it should never have come to it.

Anyways, as I was compiling the data in a Power Point presentation for the meeting I threw in what I knew would be particularly sensitive and shocking data. I circulated this data to all first line managers, thinking that if they were not having the meeting they would still see the presentation, and be provoked.

The plan worked a treat, and all **** broke loose following the circulation of the presentation.

After that the meeting did happen !

Although I was told to remove the offending data.

The world IS black and white, we just complicate it by using shades of grey to support our wrongdoings.

I believe we all know right from wrong here.

Let's put this in proper perspective.

Some have suggested it isn't that big of a deal to "fudge" the dates on the management review, so let me ask this question:

If the President in question was the head of the drug manufacturing company that made the Cancer treatment medicine for your child, which shade of grey would he fall into?

The right answer is, it shouldn't matter, it is just as wrong either way.

Carl-

The world IS black and white, we just complicate it by using shades of grey to support our wrongdoings.

I believe we all know right from wrong here.

Let's put this in proper perspective.

Some have suggested it isn't that big of a deal to "fudge" the dates on the management review, so let me ask this question:

If the President in question was the head of the drug manufacturing company that made the Cancer treatment medicine for your child, which shade of grey would he fall into?

The right answer is, it shouldn't matter, it is just as wrong either way.

Carl- And someone might argue that he didn't change the expiration date of the drug.

I am really surprised. A lie is a lie no matter the reason behind it, and we all know that the ultimate standard says thou shalt not lie. So to change a date without legitamate reason is a lie. it is moral. it is black and white. to fudge some numbers(what is a few tenths among friends) is a lie. To hide a document or process falls into deception which is akin to lying. It is wrong. The quality systems we put together and operate in are there to keep us honest and give us the system to fix things when they are not working. It is obvious that the way the "prez" dealt with this was wrong. Do not hide it fix it. Deal with it legitamatly. Otherwise what is the use of doing the system. The system is a standard that you say you are working to. Are you working to it or are you doing it to be "compliant" but not deriving any true value aside from keeping whatever customers for now. The second way is the hard way. It seems to me it would be hard to keep to sets of books(harder that is then keeping one set of honest books). It seems hard to keep a deception going through tough scrutiny. I believe that if something as "trivial as the meeting minutes are being chage that there are likely other changes that are more sinister happening also. If I were an auditor and thought something like this were going on I would dig and dig deep.
JMO
Mark

Oh yeah by the way, I know that most companies have these issues. I am dealing with it here too. I am trying to write a compliant and registerable system that i can puppeteer because management commitment is low. they view it as something we have to do not something that can be value added. (I feel there is no value in registration but there is in compliance. but they do not know this.) and if we are all honest we know we have crossed the ethical line on occation. This does not make it right it just makes it so.
sorry for the soap box but morals are not relative. It makes me mad when someone justifies an obvious breach of ethics as everyone does it or it is just a shade of gray. A lie is a nonconformance used to hide another nonconformance. Fix the issue do not deny it is there.
ok I am done. I feel better.
Mark

This reminds me of having to fill in years worth of calibration records with different coloured pens.

I think you have to be realistic about how tight you schedule these meetings.

I had an interesting experience.

This company had a quality manager who would write out the minutes to the MR Meeting prior to the meeting so it would look as though all the right things were being said. He got the boot but it was sad to think that a QM would have to resort to such tactics.

This company had a quality manager who would write out the minutes to the MR Meeting prior to the meeting so it would look as though all the right things were being said. He got the boot but it was sad to think that a QM would have to resort to such tactics.
He did not have to he chose to.

Of course it was wrong and it was a lie! What I find overwhealming is how righteous we can become and how we take a specific instance and blow up the world with our generalizations. Lets get real! It is our smugness and our righteousness that has led, IMHO, to the condition we are finding ourselves in.
We can't seem to convince Top management that our programs work so we keep marching out more programs or we change the names to make more money and then we sit back and claim to be Mr. Clean! I am sorry but the business world is laughing there *** off!
He changed the date on a report he didn't mess with any ones pills or conspire to bring down the towers!
We as Quality Professionals need to come together and determine why we do what we do with the flavor of the month and put a stop to it. When that happens I will concede the debate but not until then. :nopity:

Of course it was wrong and it was a lie! What I find overwhealming is how righteous we can become and how we take a specific instance and blow up the world with our generalizations. Lets get real! It is our smugness and our righteousness that has led, IMHO, to the condition we are finding ourselves in.
We can't seem to convince Top management that our programs work so we keep marching out more programs or we change the names to make more money and then we sit back and claim to be Mr. Clean! I am sorry but the business world is laughing there *** off!
He changed the date on a report he didn't mess with any ones pills or conspire to bring down the towers!
We as Quality Professionals need to come together and determine why we do what we do with the flavor of the month and put a stop to it. When that happens I will concede the debate but not until then. :nopity:

If he is willing to change the dates/falisify on something as trivial as the Mgmt review, then as has been said before what else is he willing to do. Sign off that failed product is good, maybe falisify some of the records with your name on them,the list goes on. I for one can say that I have and never would falsify any documents under any circumstances, I don't care if you believe me or not, that is not my nature.
We don't all follow the flavor of the month, some of are frustrated with our upper Mgmt. however, we don't jump from program to program, we stick with what we have, it is then our job to educate them on the benefits of implementing the system we have in place.

Just an FYI is this company is regulated by the FDA, this person could be looking at jail time.
:thanx:

Time for a little summary perhaps?

The magnitude of our reactions may vary, but I think we all agree that the minutes should display the correct dates: When the meetings actually took place. The Prez in the example given is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason. The only positive aspect mentioned is that he seems to consider the issue important, but then again, probably for the wrong reason.

We also seem to agree that the written procedure for MR should allow some slack in the meeting schedule (If ordinary meetings is indeed the chosen method for conducting MR).

Several of us express concern about the messege this behaviour is sending to the rest of the organization, and the shadow of doubt it casts over other records and the QMS as a whole. That, imo, is the real danger.

The discussion is now leaning towards the moral issue: Many (all?) of us fib now and then. I think that is beside the point. Two wrongs does not make one right.

All in all, great discussion.:agree1:

/Claes

Claes,

You forgot one thing in your summary,

I agree not to use the term "scumbag".

Seriously, this has little to do with whether any of us have cheated on their taxes, stole a candybar when they were 12, or changed numbers to meet a Cpk. It has to do with whether or not any of those acts are deemed acceptable.

In my mind, they are all wrong and should be discouraged, not defended.

Blaming the Quality profession because we allow "the flavor of the day" and saying that it did not effect "pills" or "bring down the towers" is ludicrous in my opinion.

Let's talk about the current UNETHICAL quality trends:

Six Sigma. Motorola reported 1.4 BILLION in savings due to Six sigma efforts, Allied Signal also reported 1.4 BILLION, GE reprted 6.6 BILLION, c'mon, they threw these numbers around BEFORE the bandwagon started even rolling! I defy ANYONE to tell me that they received a Black Belt, did 2 projects and reported ACTUAL REAL numbers that were large enough to substantiate the correct return on investment of $150,000 - $250,000, ooops, sorry, nobody could and everyone knew it, so they changed the rules, now you hear ROI of 10:1, which I also defy anyone to show me hard numbers on.

How about ISO? How ethical is the Registrar auditing system? The auditors themselves may not be unethical (although I will debate that too if you would like) but how ethical is the RAB when they continue to allow the "interpretation" to continue year, after year. They have FULL KNOWLEDGE that the system is a scam, yet do nothing to correct it.

Mr. Clean? No, I'm not. But I am not going to defend anything I did that I know is wrong either.

OK, I'm off my soapbox.

Go for it.


Carl-

Claes,

You forgot one thing in your summary, I agree not to use the term "scumbag".
LMAO :lol: Ok, I stand corrected.

Yes, ethics is a hot topic that keeps getting hotter. I looked for some previous discussions:

Corporate ethics revisited - Comments about the concept of corporate ethics (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=8443&highlight=ethical)
Ethics: Ethical Audit Question (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4049&highlight=ethical)
Ethics: Ethical Question - Knowingly Violating a Regulatory Requirement (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6984)
Ethics: A Discussion of Company Ethics (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7205&highlight=ethical)
Buying Customer Scrap because of poor internal procedures (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4669&highlight=ethical)

/Claes

Claes,

You forgot one thing in your summary,

I agree not to use the term "scumbag".

Seriously, this has little to do with whether any of us have cheated on their taxes, stole a candybar when they were 12, or changed numbers to meet a Cpk. It has to do with whether or not any of those acts are deemed acceptable.

In my mind, they are all wrong and should be discouraged, not defended.

Blaming the Quality profession because we allow "the flavor of the day" and saying that it did not effect "pills" or "bring down the towers" is ludicrous in my opinion.

Let's talk about the current UNETHICAL quality trends:

Six Sigma. Motorola reported 1.4 BILLION in savings due to Six sigma efforts, Allied Signal also reported 1.4 BILLION, GE reprted 6.6 BILLION, c'mon, they threw these numbers around BEFORE the bandwagon started even rolling! I defy ANYONE to tell me that they received a Black Belt, did 2 projects and reported ACTUAL REAL numbers that were large enough to substantiate the correct return on investment of $150,000 - $250,000, ooops, sorry, nobody could and everyone knew it, so they changed the rules, now you hear ROI of 10:1, which I also defy anyone to show me hard numbers on.

How about ISO? How ethical is the Registrar auditing system? The auditors themselves may not be unethical (although I will debate that too if you would like) but how ethical is the RAB when they continue to allow the "interpretation" to continue year, after year. They have FULL KNOWLEDGE that the system is a scam, yet do nothing to correct it.

Mr. Clean? No, I'm not. But I am not going to defend anything I did that I know is wrong either.

OK, I'm off my soapbox.

Go for it.


Carl-

Well Carl I must admit you at least maintain your sense of humor!
Let me express my concerns in a slightly different way. I view the the quality function as a messenger service. Quality doesn't run the company, we provide a service to the company. Amongst other things we advise the company when products/parts are out of spec. Usually the company concurs and the products are repaired or scrapped, etc. On occassion the company may not agree with QC that a problem exist, or that the problem does exist but the parts must be used anyway.
Where I have worked this situation is generally covered by selecting up front a referee for these situations. In my experience these decisions our usually vested to the president or exec. VP.
The president makes his decision based on his risk analysis. It is his decision, not QC's. Should the president decide that the company will use these parts or ship those products, that have been rejected by QC, then that is his decision and his alone. the company will sink or swim by his decision. Thats why he is paid the big buck. QC did their job!
These sort of situations have happened to me on several occassions. I won some and I lost some. I never felt that I had to quit my job becasue of it.
If the president makes a decision to do whatever, it is his decision. He may very well go to jail for it or he may be a hero.
Good debate!

Jim,

I agree with everything you said with one caveat.

I could really care less about His/Her title. It is my company also. I work hard hours, give it full attention and practice as ethically as possible.

I would be the first to blow the whistle on the VP for doing anything that could be damaging to the company, or my profession and there is NO WAY I would have my name associated with the Management review document in question.

Carl-

I'm going to stay out of the what's wrong/what's right debate but I do have a recommendation.

Our company created a list of management review items. I think there are 11 or 12 total and we agree to review THE LIST at least annually.

What actually happens is that we meet quarterly and review 3-4 items at once. This gives us freedom to visit a topic more than once if needed and also the ability to choose the frequency of management review meetings. It doesn't matter if we meet 4 times, 6 times, or 12 times as long as we review that list in a calendar year.

At first I thought our wording smacked of "weasel words" when I read it but after reading this thread I can appreciate the method behind the apparent madness.

Excellent discussions here, as always. :applause:

==========================================================

I didn't catch in the posts what the root cause for the late meetings turned out to be. Is it a resource issue, planning issue, hair on fire method of management issue???



Answer: resource issue. Difficulting in getting people together due to a major increase in workload.

And yes you can verbally slap me around for running a weak quality system that would stand up to a workload increase. :truce:

Jim,

I agree with everything you said with one caveat.

I could really care less about His/Her title. It is my company also. I work hard hours, give it full attention and practice as ethically as possible.

I would be the first to blow the whistle on the VP for doing anything that could be damaging to the company, or my profession and there is NO WAY I would have my name associated with the Management review document in question.

Carl-
Well then, Carl, I guess we have both spoken our minds. Good luck to you! Hopefully we can find even more issues here at the cove to debate. If nothing else we were given an oppourtunity to outgas a little bit and I feel a lot better having done so.
My apologies to RCW for confiscating the thread. :thanx:

Answer: resource issue. Difficulting in getting people together due to a major increase in workload.

And yes you can verbally slap me around for running a weak quality system that would stand up to a workload increase. :truce:
Why would we slap YOU around it is not a QMS issue if resources are low it is a Resource issue that your Top Management needs to address. You know the guy changing the date. It is his responsibility to make sure resources are available.
Mark

it is not a QMS issue if resources are low

6.1a?

:agree1:

6.1a?

:agree1:
5.1e is the section I was thinking about. And I noticed I did not communicate what I wanted with that last post. While the QMS requires management of resorces it is on Management to make sure that they are provided, not usually the Quality Manager. (very small companies might have the QM in charge of resources and some may deligate the task to the QM but this should be defined).
:o
Mark

(very small companies might have the QM in charge of resources and some may deligate the task to the QM but this should be defined).

Sure would be interesting to see how this arrangement would work out. Sounds like a quality person's dream come true, at first glance. Maybe not though?

Funny thing, because of "resource issues" here at my company (LOL!) I have not been able to follow many of the threads as closely as I have in the past. However, this one really caught my interest, as most discussions of ethics related issues do. Lots of great points made on both sides of the issue.

:thanx:

I took a little heat for my hard line stance on this issue, so I thought I would follow up with this interesting tidbit from CNN this morning:

"A former NASA quality inspector tasked with checking maintenance work on parts for the space shuttle Discovery will be arraigned Friday on Federal charges that he failed to conduct 83 "critical" inspections"

83 counts of fraud, each carrying up to a 5 year sentence
AND
83 counts of false material statements carrying up to 10 years each

I think I am going to CONTINUE to state the actual dates of my Management reviews even though I don't work for NASA.

Carl-

I took a little heat for my hard line stance on this issue, so I thought I would follow up with this interesting tidbit from CNN this morningWe both reacted to the same news, Carl.... See What if the inspector isn't inspecting? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=9797)

/Claes

I don't want to create any more friction with this topic but I have one statement. It dosen't matter if the MRM was late. The yardstick to measure the MRM by is if it was effective.

Did the MRM accomplish anything?

THe standards are moving toward performance based criteria. Missing the date by a few days or weeks is not important.

In my oppinion an auditor that writes a minor for missing the schdeule date is not worth the money you are paying them.

:bonk:

This subject goes way beyond the standard itself, however I do think it applies. If you change the date, you no longer have control over the document and are not complying with 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.

In any case, I could care less if the auditor writes a finding or not.

If you alter the date on one document, you are just as likely to alter the date, or other information on another so:

a. I wouldn't trust you inside or outside of work

b. Would not let you work for me because you put the company at risk and in a "Liable" position that risks everyones livelihood

c. Would view you as unethical because you knowingly falsified a document

d. Would be laughing at your trial

Carl-

I agree....

I did not mean to imply that I would accept a date change.

Changing a document date is illegal. Just ask anyone dealing with Sarbans Oxley.

From a Quality standpoint the fact that a meeting is not EXACTLY on schdule is not imprortant, as long as the meeting is held. The content and the ACTIONS resulting from the meeting are what should be judged.

:applause:

I see what you are saying and completely agree.

Schedule date October 7. 2004

Actual meeting held October 22, 2004

No problem as long as the date on the documents is October 22.

Carl-

We have senior management meetings quarterly, and they are titled, for example "SEPTEMBER 2004 MANAGEMENT MEETING". If this meeting is actually held October 4th, I still leave the title the same (for clarity's sake) but put in parentheses just below the title "(meeting actually held on 10/4/04)".

Is that safe?

I wouldn't have a problem with it. But that is just my opinion.

I have held 2nd quarter reviews well (7 weeks) into the third quarter due to personnel and scheduling issues, The content stopped at June 30th, however the e-mails and minutes reflected the actual dates in August.

I really don't mean to be holier-than-thou about this, I think as long as you are not purposly practicing deception, it is no big deal.

Carl-

I believe that all too often a "cover your buns" mentality forms due to a vicious cycle - created by ISO!

The registrar, knowing the tendency of their clients to "clean things up" for them, will often "nit-pick" many non-essential details of the business (including i dotting and t crossing on meeting minutes, e.g. requiring sign-in sheets where there is NO ISO requirement for such).

The management rep or internal auditor, knowing the registrar's pattern, follows the same anal retentive path.

Departments, stressed to the max, fudge whatever they have to to make all evidence appear "clean". After all, THEY don't want to be the reason for the non-conformities on the report. In essence, they end up going through their day, not following well thought out, productive procedures, but trying to please auditors the next go around.

Companies should run their businesses based on what works for them. It should be risk based. Don't put tight controls on processes that are largely benign. Control what historically and potentially could affect the company's profit and future.

And auditors: lighten up! Be cognizant only of inconsistencies in the business that would truly cause harm to the business. A date for a meeting that is off-schedule by a day or two is generally free of devastating side effects.

Our company created a list of management review items. I think there are 11 or 12 total and we agree to review THE LIST at least annually.

What actually happens is that we meet quarterly and review 3-4 items at once. This gives us freedom to visit a topic more than once if needed and also the ability to choose the frequency of management review meetings. It doesn't matter if we meet 4 times, 6 times, or 12 times as long as we review that list in a calendar year.
That's very similar to what we do. We have management review items, and we've determined an interval for each. Some examples: we review nonconforming product and customer complaints monthly; job processing efficiency and estimating effectiveness quarterly; internal auditing effectiveness annually. This doesn't mean that we don't congregate in between when something triggers it - and it also doesn't mean that we have to have a warranty review meeting every 30 days on the nose.

As a matter of fact, I have internal audit records that clearly show an audit was scheduled for August, yet was conducted in September. The reason was documented in the Opening Meeting Minutes - we had two customer audits in August - there was just no way we could squeeze in an internal audit that month. We did it three weeks late, so what. I've got the customer audit results for evidence if it's questioned by the registrar auditor; I've also got records that show a history of audits being conducted as scheduled. It would be silly to try to cover up the late audit by changing my schedule or pre-dating the audit records.

Here is what I did when we were not able to conduct a Mgmt Review. Our QMS stated 2 times per year minimum. The root cause was “people were too busy” such as business trips, vacations etc. I sat down with the President of the company and explained that since we were not going to have one, we needed to document what happened. I was challenged to think outside the box. I sent an email to staff stating that “The xx/xx/xx Mgmt Review was not conducted because of scheduling conflicts. Attached are the Key Measures we would have reviewed. The President and I have reviewed them and would like your comments”. Any concerns were incorporated in to the next Mgmt Review. Our auditor didn’t have a problem, and I looked at this a one time occurrence so either did I. Remember it’s our job to help solve the problems too!

Excellent! Works for me.

When I first read this post I my first instinct was to change the procedure, and then I was thinking, that maybe they are not taking credit for all the management review that actually takes place. Instead of having one big honking meeting (Dilbert) take credit and document the others that are actually taking place. It's like slicing up the pie in smaller pieces so you dont have to eat the whole thing at once. Even though eating a whole pie is fun, it leaves you feeling stuffed.

Take a look at the attachment and let me know what you think.

As a follow up to my earlier post I was just wondering ...... Would you play golf with this guy? I can see it now, both hacking up the fairway you record a 7 for yourself and he replies "I got a 4".

Just curious, how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the management review minutes. He is doing this since the procedure for M.R. calls out quarterly meetings. If the meetings don't fit into the quarterly time, he just changes the date on the minutes.

....and yes, I am trying to find my way out the door.

Maybe that president ought to remember the words of another President: "You can fool some of the people ..." Who does he think he is fooling and what can this laughable stupidity hope to achieve?

I hope it is not a revolving door?

read all the replies but i still have not seen the answer......."how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the MR minutes?" and i would like to add how many of us did that as well.

I remember when i prepared PPAP and included spc charts...i created an excel program that generated "random" spc charts where there was no "out of control" condition.....of course, I made sure my boss signed the paper work!!!!....so i beg the question....was it wrong for me created the excel program which is used to falsfy the records?....(btw, it was impossible to meet cp/cpk of 1.33 with existing processes)

also, it makes me wonder what did GM do with suppliers' spc charts?...of course this happened in late 1980's when the PPAP was introduced and am pretty sure things are MUCH MUCH BETTER NOW...........YAH, RIGHT!!!!

read all the replies but i still have not seen the answer......."how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the MR minutes?" and i would like to add how many of us did that as well.



Like many others dealing with this thread, I cannot tell you "how many" because I have not seen the figures. Nor can I answer "how many of us did that as well" because I have not seen the results of a survey on this point.

Perhaps JSW05 will understand and agree with my response to your post? :D

read all the replies but i still have not seen the answer......."how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the MR minutes?" and i would like to add how many of us did that as well.
I think that when you paint yourself into a corner with a rigid schedule, the inevitable consequence will be a missed date and an "amendment." Without regard for ethical considerations, I don't see it as a big issue. Having said that, however, if the CEO is in the habit of shirking responsibility and then lying about it later on, that's a much bigger problem which has nothing to do with management review.
I remember when i prepared PPAP and included spc charts...i created an excel program that generated "random" spc charts where there was no "out of control" condition.....of course, I made sure my boss signed the paper work!!!!....so i beg the question....was it wrong for me created the excel program which is used to falsfy the records?....(btw, it was impossible to meet cp/cpk of 1.33 with existing processes)
Is it wrong to promise your customer that you'll do something and then not do it, and then claim that you did? Is that your question? Really? In the case of the changing of the MR date, who was hurt? If the review actually did take place, but a week or two after the scheduled date, so what? Of course there's an ethics question involved vis a vis prevaricating, but I say no harm, no foul.
Also, I'd be willing to bet that there were rule violations in evidence on some of those charts, even if there were no points outside the control limits. If not, I would love to see the algorithm used to create random charts with no rule violations.

also, it makes me wonder what did GM do with suppliers' spc charts?
They looked to see if there were charts behind the correct tabs in the PPAP binder, and if there were, that was the end of it. Unless, of course, there was some feature or dimension they were concerned about, in which case they might scrutinize the charts.

Perhaps JSW05 will understand and agree with my response to your post? http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/biggrin-a1.gif
Show me the data!!!

read all the replies but i still have not seen the answer......."how many of you out there have had the president of your company alter the actual date of the MR minutes?" and i would like to add how many of us did that as well.
With all of the auditors, registrar employees, customers and suppliers one might run into here at the cove, it wouldn't behoove any of us that use our real names to air dirty laundry.

I've run into both situations a few times over the years. As Senior Quality Engineer, I will not knowingly put my name to a falsified document, no matter HOW minor the falsification is.

In the case of the MR date, I would do two things; advise the President of the potential ramifications of his acts, and offer to assist him in rewriting the procedure to reflect 'what we do' rather than 'what someone else said we would do'.

In the case of the falsified data, I would refuse to use it. I would review it with my boss (and his boss if I felt it was necessary), inform them of my concerns, and give them the option of taking action, or choosing to submit the information over THEIR signature.

Yes, it puts me at some risk, but I decided a long time ago that the only thing I started out with was my ethics, and I won't compromise them for anyone.

you would be surprised how many management (yes, even those in quality) give MFG operators the "you should not back date and falsify record" talk and yet the management themselves do the opposite :mg:

my advise, don't do it yourself ever. try to teach people the good habits. if management continues to do as they please, then you should consider working elsewhere.

you would be surprised how many management (yes, even those in quality) give MFG operators the "you should not back date and falsify record" talk and yet the management themselves do the opposite :mg:



New update to this thread....now I am being asked by another department to backdate a quality record for a customer. This is both the department manager's and the customer's request.

Earlier in this thread, it was mentioned about being fined by the FDA for falsifying a record. While it sure makes sense, can anybody site a specific FDA document where this is stated? I would like some black-and-white to waive in a few people's faces.

just google "FDA fine falsifying records" and you'll get a bunch of examples.