Management Review requirements - ISO 9001 Clause 5.6 and URAC requirements

[uneev]

How do you interpret this standard?

We are ISO 9001:2000 certified and also accredited from URAC. I have been reviewing the standard for each certification to look for some common grounds, so we are not duplicating our efforts.

The ISO std. 5.6 states that the top management shall review the co’s quality mgt. system to ensure its effectiveness. The std. also lists various items that should be discussed in the management review. Something similar is also required by URAC.

I am suggesting that instead of having similar meetings with the same people – hence duplicating. We have just one executive head (VP’s & up) meeting where I would be the quality rep. to discuss all quality items – whether ISO, URAC etc… All the executive heads will meet with their direct reports to bring back all quality items relating to their respective departments. We plan on meeting quarterly.
My quality coordinator thinks that this is not a good idea and that we should meet monthly and that should include everyone from the directors to the president. He thinks that this is what is meant by ‘Top Management’ according to ISO.

I know the standard is open to interpretation but am I wrong in assuming that the executive heads should be able to get their updates to the one meeting and that we don’t need to have every manager/director included in there?

[Colpart]

The fewer times we have to invite senior people to a meeting which has the word 'quality' in the title the better for me. As soon as we label a meeting with the word quality, the intended participants go missing! (not always I know).

The majority of things being discussed at a management review are business topics so why not include them in your normal business meetings? We spend a lot of time trying to convince people that quality is about doing the job right and satisfying customers, not something that the quality manager does. So why tell top management that they have to attend a separate meeting called quality management review.

My preferred option these days is to integrate the management review topics into general business meetings (typically each month), that way they get covered in a timely manner and the participants don't even 'see the join' i.e. they have done management review without realising it! Once or twice a year I then review the outcomes from these meetings and produce a summary report and action plan if required.

[Paul Simpson]

Originally Posted by Colpart

The fewer times we have to invite senior people to a meeting which has the word 'quality' in the title the better for me. As soon as we label a meeting with the word quality, the intended participants go missing! (not always I know).

As quality professionals and 3rd party auditors we must be responsible for putting the fear of god into these senior managers. Are we all that boring or do we talk a different language?


Certainly we shouldn't accept this portrayal and become the victioms, here. We need to constantly argue our corner and "sell" quality and the work we do to anyone who will listen.

There is a serious point here - throughout the cove (and any other threads you care to take a look at) you will see quality professionals running down other disciplines within the same profession. Is it any wonder the rest of our world looks at us sideways some times.

Is it time to reclaim the "Q" word and make it so that senior managers look forward to meetings that discuss conformance with requirements, continual improvement, customer satisfaction etc., etc.?

Originally Posted by Colpart

The majority of things being discussed at a management review are business topics so why not include them in your normal business meetings? We spend a lot of time trying to convince people that quality is about doing the job right and satisfying customers, not something that the quality manager does. So why tell top management that they have to attend a separate meeting called quality management review.

Agreed. This topic has been covered alsewhere - basically it is down to the organization to decide how (and how often) they review agenda items. You don't have to cover them all in one meeting, you don't even have to cover them at the same frequency.

Let's integrate ... if it suits.

Originally Posted by Colpart

My preferred option these days is to integrate the management review topics into general business meetings (typically each month), that way they get covered in a timely manner and the participants don't even 'see the join' i.e. they have done management review without realising it! Once or twice a year I then review the outcomes from these meetings and produce a summary report and action plan if required.

Fine. Some organizations still prefer the "big bang" approach where they can sit down and look at the whole of the system in one go.

Again: If it works .... it works!

[Colpart]

Originally Posted by Paul Simpson

Is it time to reclaim the "Q" word and make it so that senior managers look forward to meetings that discuss conformance with requirements, continual improvement, customer satisfaction etc., etc.?

My point is that conformance with requirements, improvement, etc. are all about running the business - I don't see them as 'quality' issues. They just happen to fall into that category when there is a problem!

[Paul Simpson]

Originally Posted by Colpart

My point is that conformance with requirements, improvement, etc. are all about running the business - I don't see them as 'quality' issues. They just happen to fall into that category when there is a problem!

Colin, I wasn't disagreeing with your post.

My idea to reclaim the "Q" word is merely (as you said) that quality is about all those good "business" things I listed, not just issue status on documents, chasing people to do audits and carry out follow up actions (and all those other "administrative" tasks that, while necessary, are not the most useful part of what we do).

The problem as I see it is that when you say the word "quality" to people the immediate association is "bureaucracy" (or worse) and we all play a part in changing that image to something more dynamic and business critical.

Reclaim the "Q" word!

[Colpart]

Originally Posted by Paul Simpson

The problem as I see it is that when you say the word "quality" to people the immediate association is "bureaucracy" (or worse) and we all play a part in changing that image to something more dynamic and business critical.

I certainly agree with you on that. During a recent audit I asked an operator about the job he was performing. He explained the practical aspect very well but then killed it by adding "then I do the quality". When asked, he replied, "you know, I fill the forms in".

[fdomako]

- If you are looking purely for short term increase in cash flow you probably should eliminate non-essential operating cost by reducing employee involvement at all levels especially those who are actually making the money.
- If you are looking for long term performance you may consider keeping exec management time to minimum by reviewing data from smaller groups who are closer to the problems. Upper management could meet once a year to review data from smaller groups and ensure progress is in line with the companies’ strategic goals.

My recommendation for small companies up to 300 employees is for all managers meet as follows:
- 1 or 2 times per year if all is going well and process show evidence of continual improvement.
- 3 times per year if continual improvements aren't resulting in the expected profits
- 4 times per year if it is clear that something is not working
- 12 times per year if there are systemic problems which require an aggressive management focus

After all...is it not true that quality business systems exist is to increase profits?

[harry]

This is for non US users like myself who would like to know something about URAC:

What does "URAC" stand for?

Originally, URAC was incorporated under the name "Utilization Review Accreditation Commission." However, that name was shortened to just the acronym "URAC" in 1996 when URAC began accrediting other types of organizations such as health plans and preferred provider organizations.

In addition, URAC sometimes uses a second corporate name or "DBA" which is the "American Accreditation HealthCare Commission, Inc." This corporate name is sometimes used on URAC certificates and other written communications to help explain what URAC does.