Definition of Action Item - Action Items In Management Review

[riley,michael]

Hey everyone,
The external auditors tell us that we have to track our action items as evidence of continouous improvement and management review.These action items must be dated and show completeion in a timely manner.What is happening is that everyone is calling everything an action item. I fear that after a month or two focus will be lost and action items will not be updated and there will be 100 action items open when the external auditors come in.
My definition of an action item in reference to TS 16949 and management review is : :an issue that is systemic to the Quality System (such as records not being kept or not having a proper training process) or an issue that could affect customer requirements such as delivery compliance.
I do not believe that action items are day to day issues such as units having mechanical problems or production flow is disrupted due to a issue at a unit up stream. Day to day operational issues are just that day to day normal things. I feel we have to be careful of what we call action items.
So my question(s) are What is the definition of an Action Item and has anyone else has this problem.
Thanks Mike

[Jennifer Kirley]

The action item will be, for each item's person assigned to it, from an area within normal control. That means production for the production manager, etc.

Items should be based on mission, policies and objectives. They should be developed by reviewing and considering, among other things, internal and external audit reports, appeals and complaints, continuous improvement requests, and matters arising from peer evaluation processes etc..

Spreadsheets can be used to track the items, owners, schedules and milestones; and to thus indicate attention and progress. Minutes from management review meetings can show the more detailed progress.

In the early process of defining action items it may help to chart the various problems and try to establish if there are relationships between them. Management members may then discover some of their action items can be combined as steps in a larger project.

All in all management needs to learn to ask the 5-whys to boil down causes of the problems so action items aren't symptoms, but the actual problems.

Does this make sense?

[RCBeyette]

Originally Posted by riley,michael

The external auditors tell us that we have to track our action items as evidence of continouous improvement and management review.These action items must be dated and show completeion in a timely manner.

Not only does it demonstrate Continual Improvement and that Management Review is being done, but it demonstrates Management Commitment. It shows that there is an interaction at the Review and it's not just one person talking. It shows that there is a conscious decision - and hopefully willingness - to adjust, revise and improve the system.

Originally Posted by riley,michael

What is happening is that everyone is calling everything an action item. I fear that after a month or two focus will be lost and action items will not be updated and there will be 100 action items open when the external auditors come in.

Define "everything", please.

If there are 100 action items to be done, my concern is that there are ongoing and systematic lapses in your system...that people may not be fulfilling their responsibilities. If there are 100 action items, that should be a trigger for an agenda topic at your next Management Review to discuss why there are so many items.

Originally Posted by riley,michael

My definition of an action item in reference to TS 16949 and management review is : :an issue that is systemic to the Quality System (such as records not being kept or not having a proper training process) or an issue that could affect customer requirements such as delivery compliance.
I do not believe that action items are day to day issues such as units having mechanical problems or production flow is disrupted due to a issue at a unit up stream. Day to day operational issues are just that day to day normal things. I feel we have to be careful of what we call action items.
So my question(s) are What is the definition of an Action Item and has anyone else has this problem.

I agree that the day-to-day issues do not need to be action items generated from your Management Review, but things like results from Internal Audits not being addressed, Opportunities for Improvement that have been generated, and so on are areas where action items can be generated. As are aspects that are key to your Business System and company philosophies that are monitored and actions that need to be taken (everything from updating monthly results to addressing an outside-of-the-control-limits result).

Basically, use the agenda and Management Review requirements as the sources for your action items.

[Sambasi]

The discussions in Management Review Meeting are based on the agenda and action points coming out during discussions are somewhat broad. The responsible persons have to work out their own action plan individualy to complete them.These are not day to day kind of issues(unless a kind of fire fighting in the same area often which affects operations or system maintenance) but aim at improvements.

The format for recording "Minutes of management review meeting" may include columns for (i)S.No. (ii)Points Discussed/Action Points (iii)Responsible (iv)Target Date(v)Date of completion(vi)Remarks . The MR,whille reviewing the minutes(monthly or quarterly) may update the date of completion and record the reasons, if any for deley, against each action points.

[Helmut Jilling]

Originally Posted by riley,michael

...What is happening is that everyone is calling everything an action item. I fear that after a month or two focus will be lost and action items will not be updated and there will be 100 action items open when the external auditors come in....

So my question(s) are What is the definition of an Action Item and has anyone else has this problem.
Thanks Mike

As in everything, a little balance may be called for. It is useful to consider why this requirement is in the standard. Then, it provides guidance as to how to proceed. It might be useful to consider these action items to be more like Continual Improvement projects. Little items should just be done. It is not worth the time and effort to track everything.

For example, a reminder that the coffee supplies are low and need to be reordered certainly does not need to be tracked as an action item.

[AndyN]

Originally Posted by riley,michael

Hey everyone,
The external auditors tell us that we have to track our action items as evidence of continouous improvement and management review.These action items must be dated and show completeion in a timely manner.What is happening is that everyone is calling everything an action item. I fear that after a month or two focus will be lost and action items will not be updated and there will be 100 action items open when the external auditors come in.
My definition of an action item in reference to TS 16949 and management review is : :an issue that is systemic to the Quality System (such as records not being kept or not having a proper training process) or an issue that could affect customer requirements such as delivery compliance.
I do not believe that action items are day to day issues such as units having mechanical problems or production flow is disrupted due to a issue at a unit up stream. Day to day operational issues are just that day to day normal things. I feel we have to be careful of what we call action items.
So my question(s) are What is the definition of an Action Item and has anyone else has this problem.
Thanks Mike

Is exactly the way to go, Mike!

As with most things in life, there should be some priority to doing things. A principle idea from an effective management review is to identify and then make assignments for a few items which need correction or improvement. That way you won't overwhelm the whole system and it's people with 'busy work' Just as you said.....

I know, you just needed validation!

Andy

[Wes Bucey]

From my point of view:
Management Review (in terms of ISO conformance) is typically the review of an internal audit, so it probably would not have items like low coffee supplies or lightbulb replacement on the agenda (which typically have someone assigned to do those things on a regular basis) UNLESS the function of replacing lightbulbs was not being accomplished. If the lightbulbs aren't being replaced, the ACTION ITEM would be to "train" or "remind" someone to perform the function. (Think of this as the difference between a "corrective action" and a "correction" where a correction on a machine might be to replace a broken tool bit and the corrective action would be to add a step to the process to check for broken tool bits on a regular basis.)

During the Management Review, managers look at each item on the agenda and decide one of the following:

1. Leave as is, no action required
2. Determine Corrective Action to fix a nonconformance, assign someone to be responsible and grant authority to perform the task and set a review date to determine if the nonconformance is permanently eliminated by the Corrective Action.
3. Set up a study to determine if a process currently conforming can be improved or made more efficient, assign one or more folks with responsibility and authority to conduct the study and try experiments and a target date to report

[Jim Wynne]

Originally Posted by Wes Bucey

During the Management Review, managers look at each item on the agenda and decide one of the following:

1. Leave as is, no action required
2. Determine Corrective Action to fix a nonconformance, assign someone to be responsible and grant authority to perform the task and set a review date to determine if the nonconformance is permanently eliminated by the Corrective Action.
3. Set up a study to determine if a process currently conforming can be improved or made more efficient, assign one or more folks with responsibility and authority to conduct the study and try experiments and a target date to report

You provide a good generic example of a management review process; it's the way that most, I think, would agree that things should happen.

I have to wonder, though, if something important isn't being missed. Why should people have to wait for a management review meeting in order to get permission to fix a problem? I think the whole Deming 85/15 thing needs to be rethought; many problems don't get solved at the point of attack because the people best qualified to fix them can't get permission to do it.