Management Review - Top Management not being involved - Shoulder to cry on

[qualityboi]

The QS Manager, our registrar and management in our company in general continually dance around and support Top Management not being involved in Management review/commitment. Instead this is being explained as it done at all levels in the organization. The President and CEO never have even looked at an internal audit or reviewed any internal / external audit metrics. The registrar is just happy to meet with the QS manager and his boss the VP of Manufacturing and call it good (we have 7 VPs in our organization very siloed to their own departments). Now we are going through some gap audits for the TS 16949 and there are people applying section 5.1 and on to mid-level managers and departments. I was schooled by BSI and that was not the intent of 5.1. I am so tired of the Emperor's new clothes...

[Stijloor]

In Reply to Parent Post by qualityboi

The QS Manager, our registrar and management in our company in general continually dance around and support Top Management not being involved in Management review/commitment. Instead this is being explained as it done at all levels in the organization. The President and CEO never have even looked at an internal audit or reviewed any internal / external audit metrics. The registrar is just happy to meet with the QS manager and his boss the VP of Manufacturing and call it good (we have 7 VPs in our organization very siloed to their own departments). Now we are going through some gap audits for the TS 16949 and there are people applying section 5.1 and on to mid-level managers and departments. I was schooled by BSI and that was not the intent of 5.1. I am so tired of the Emperor's new clothes...

qualityboi,

Your emperor is bare-ass naked, and somebody needs to tell 'm.

You just hope it's not a customer that will point this out!

Stijloor.

[JHagani]

This is the kind of top management who just wants to see the the accreditation on the wall.

I had to deal with one like yours before. And trust me, I couldn't find a shoulder to cry on either.

There is no way I work with such management in my life again.

[Jennifer Kirley]

In Reply to Parent Post by Stijloor

qualityboi,

Your emperor is bare-ass naked, and somebody needs to tell 'm.

You just hope it's not a customer that will point this out!

Stijloor.

I fear that is what will be required to drive home the point that Management Review means management will be the ones reviewing. And yes Virginia, audit results must be reviewed too...good grief.

[Caster]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jennifer Kirley

I fear that is what will be required to drive home the point that Management Review means management will be the ones reviewing. And yes Virginia, audit results must be reviewed too...good grief.

Our sister plant failed a TS audit for this.

The auditor asked the plant manager about Mgt Review and he said "quality takes care of the sh*T, I've got real work to do".

Audit promptly ends with a major system failure.

Yes Virginia, the sometimes is a Santa Claus

[Marc]

In Reply to Parent Post by qualityboi

....Top Management not being involved in Management review/commitment. Instead this is being explained as it done at all levels in the organization.

I've seen this argument 'Passed / Accepted' in large organizations many times. And several times the argument was valid. As an example, I saw this in what was the Motorola Semi-Conductor group. And they were right. There was plenty of evidence / data showing all the numerous lower level meetings (and other) from plants around the world were generated, and how the 'summaries', including data, floated (bubbled?) up to the 'top' level meetings.

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by qualityboi

The QS Manager, our registrar and management in our company in general continually dance around and support Top Management not being involved in Management review/commitment. Instead this is being explained as it done at all levels in the organization. The President and CEO never have even looked at an internal audit or reviewed any internal / external audit metrics. The registrar is just happy to meet with the QS manager and his boss the VP of Manufacturing and call it good (we have 7 VPs in our organization very siloed to their own departments). Now we are going through some gap audits for the TS 16949 and there are people applying section 5.1 and on to mid-level managers and departments. I was schooled by BSI and that was not the intent of 5.1. I am so tired of the Emperor's new clothes...

Jim, when I connect this post with your other one Experience with multiple sites operating under one ISO certificate? and you mentioned that your organization is certified under the Advanced Surveillance & Reassessment Procedure (ASRP), I become even more baffled. From the IAF Guidance document on the ASRP, protocol, I extract:

In addition to auditing a statistically significant number of samples of the organization’s management system processes to confirm the adequacy and effectiveness of the internal audit process, the certification/registration body itself shall continue to carry out the
following activities at each on-site surveillance and reassessment visit, as a minimum (with other activities defined by the ASRP; see clause 1.4 below):

�� interview top management and the management representative;

�� evaluate management review inputs and outputs, including a verification of the organization’s ability to meet the agreed performance targets;

�� review the internal audit process, including the procedures and records of internal audits, and the competence of internal auditors;

�� review corrective and preventive actions plans, and verify their effective implementation.

Since you are also supposed to have a VERY ROBUST internal audit process, to be eligible for the ASRP protocol, how come your internal auditors are not keeping top management honest? It seems to me that, not only your external auditor is lacking cojones, but so is your internal audit team.

PS. There are only four ANAB-accredited CB's under the ISO 9001 ASRP (Advanced Surveillance & Reassessment Procedure) protocol.

[qualityboi]

In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna

Jim, when I connect this post with your other one Experience with multiple sites operating under one ISO certificate? and you mentioned that your organization is certified under the Advanced Surveillance & Reassessment Procedure (ASRP), I become even more baffled. From the IAF Guidance document on the ASRP, protocol, I extract:
Since you are also supposed to have a VERY ROBUST internal audit process, to be eligible for the ASRP protocol, how come your internal auditors are not keeping top management honest? It seems to me that, not only your external auditor is lacking cojones, but so is your internal audit team.

PS. There are only four ANAB-accredited CB's under the ISO 9001 ASRP (Advanced Surveillance & Reassessment Procedure) protocol.
[/left]

Awesome detective work, but it is unrealistic to expect internal auditors to keep top managment honest when they are holding your cojones! There was a lot more to my post but I deleted in fear that you might blow a whistle...