How is the Management Review structure of your company set up?

I do hope that I'm not duplicating another thread in its entirety here.

I am, however, curious to know how other businesses conduct their management reviews nowadays. I located this particular thread as part of my inspiration, but it is several years old and things do change over time. Now that it is 2013 and some of the most widely used ISO standards are expected to go through serious re-modifications, I'm willing to inquire as to the specific methodologies certain companies are utlizing today to obtain a pulse of their company's health through this vital process.

While this thread may run similar to the one I have linked, I have approached the poll choices from a different angle - not so much focused on the frequency of the reviews or what organizational/site structure used, but more so on the way the reviews are conducted throughout time. It does not matter if you subscribe to one management system, or you employ integration of multiple systems - hopefully this poll will accommodate that.

Please share your current management review practices in this thread if you so wish. I will be looking forward to your responses as this is a topic that I am currently revisiting.

Brian

I voted Other. I structured our MR procedure such that the topics were covered within the existing monthly staff meetings. During one staff meeting a year, we would address topics such as is the existing QMS adequate, etc.

I voted 'both'. Of the quality systems that I've written (ISO and AS), all but one had standalone management review meetings where all items required by the standard were covered in a defined agenda (that basically followed 5.6).

The one that was different was a small company that had an operations team already meeting about once a week. They had me set up the MR procedure to spread the review items across a series of those meetings. I think the idea was to avoid introducing yet another meeting.

In my opinion that arrangement is less effective because you can't really evaluate the interacting parts of the system. CARs and audits play together, specific quality issues may lead to NCRs, etc. but if you discuss only a part of the system each week it's hard to get a good picture of the overall health of your system. My 2 cents.

One thing we have tried with varying success is to have different department managers chair the meetings. Some took it very seriously and did an outstanding job. Others, not so much. I always take the minutes and give each manager an outline for inputs. Toward the end of the meeting I usually pull it together and assign actions to each manager.

Just bumpin' this thread up for the weekend folk....appreciate your responses so far. Keep 'em coming....

Brian

We have cascading set-up. Our works do there own MR facilitated by QA personnel. They can flag topics for the central organisation and these are part of the central MR also facilitated by QA personnel.
Works do this every quarter, and central this is done on twice a year.
So topics are addressed to the people that can influence them.
Performance review is done separately, but provides input to the management review, that is focussed on evaluating if our processes are stil fit for purpose.
Currently we still have seperate MR for quality, health & safety and environment.