Feedback on Proposed plan for Management Review

[Nikki Wessner]

In the past, we have tried bi-annual management reviews (marathon 4 hour meetings that are almost impossible to schedule and perceived as time suckers ) and we've tried stringing together existing meetings, but have found we aren't consistent enough in holding these meetings or capturing minutes.
This year we went back to bi-annual meetings, tacked onto existing quarterly meetings which already had most attendees that were needed. Our last one was in April...and after repeated emails to the Management rep and my own boss...I've seen no movement to have another. I'm the lead internal auditor.

I'd like to send the below proposed plan to our management rep...but would like some feedback first. I appreciate everyone's time!! Thanks!

********
I've been reading up on how other companies manage the Management Review process. It seems no matter how we try to organize this process, it is difficult to implement. We are not alone in this challenge.

The main challenges I see across the board (as well as here) are:
1. Frequency of meeting
2. Length of meeting time
3. Lack of follow-thru on identified action items
4. Feeling of "no-value", just filling an ISO Requirement

I know this in part to how many other meetings we are all attending. It is also in part to the "grueling" nature of MR and the time it takes to conduct.

In an effort to minimize the actual meeting face time, to maximize the use of everyone's working time, I'd like to propose the following change.

1. Have set scheduled times for Mgmt Review for 2009 - perhaps three a year (March, July, October)
2. Prepare MR Document binder prior to meeting, to be distributed at least 1 week prior to meeting
3. Binder to include: Summary of measurements, results/status from previously defined action items, executive summary of current environment (challenges and/or improvements), and bulleted list of new discussion points (if any).
4. Each department manager would be responsible for providing their "piece" of the binder to myself at least 1 week prior to their due date (2 weeks prior to Management Review). (other inputs such as summary of internal audit results and CAR/PAR process can be provided by myself)
5. Actual Management Review meeting should be conducted in no more than 60 minutes. Each manager should take 5 minutes presenting. If we have all reviewed the binder prior to the meeting, this should be possible. Also - not each area needs in depth discussion. If there are no obvious negative trends, no resource issues and no corrective/preventative actions...then the written document is enough review. We will only discuss items which are require action. This does not need to be a lengthy discussion either. The problem should be identified, and someone should be assigned for follow-up. Results can be discussed or presented in the next "MR Binder".

[John Broomfield]

In Reply to Parent Post by Nikki Wessner

I've been reading up on how other companies manage the Management Review process. It seems no matter how we try to organize this process, it is difficult to implement. We are not alone in this challenge.

The main challenges I see across the board (as well as here) are:
1. Frequency of meeting
2. Length of meeting time
3. Lack of follow-thru on identified action items
4. Feeling of "no-value", just filling an ISO Requirement

I know this in part to how many other meetings we are all attending. It is also in part to the "grueling" nature of MR and the time it takes to conduct.

In an effort to minimize the actual meeting face time, to maximize the use of everyone's working time, I'd like to propose the following change.

1. Have set scheduled times for Mgmt Review for 2009 - perhaps three a year (March, July, October)
2. Prepare MR Document binder prior to meeting, to be distributed at least 1 week prior to meeting
3. Binder to include: Summary of measurements, results/status from previously defined action items, executive summary of current environment (challenges and/or improvements), and bulleted list of new discussion points (if any).
4. Each department manager would be responsible for providing their "piece" of the binder to myself at least 1 week prior to their due date (2 weeks prior to Management Review). (other inputs such as summary of internal audit results and CAR/PAR process can be provided by myself)
5. Actual Management Review meeting should be conducted in no more than 60 minutes. Each manager should take 5 minutes presenting. If we have all reviewed the binder prior to the meeting, this should be possible. Also - not each area needs in depth discussion. If there are no obvious negative trends, no resource issues and no corrective/preventative actions...then the written document is enough review. We will only discuss items which are require action. This does not need to be a lengthy discussion either. The problem should be identified, and someone should be assigned for follow-up. Results can be discussed or presented in the next "MR Binder".

MR is difficult to get right, may I suggest:

1. Your Management System Performance Report (distributed 1 to 2 weeks before the meeting) concludes with the decisions required from Top Management for their system to be adequate, suitable and effective.
2. Provide options for each of these decisions with the pros and cons of each option.
3. Use the PA or CA process to implement the actions following these decisions and any other actions arising from the review.
4. Draft a "State of the System" report for the employees to be reviewed and completed by TM in the meeting.

This report is short and has three sections:
a. What the system does well
b. What the system does less than well
c. What top management is doing about 4b above.

That should streamline your management reviews and further inform the employees on what the system has done for them lately (see the back end of clause 5.5.3).

No need to mention ISO or to mention certification. Focus on what the system helps your organization to achieve beyond conformity to the standard.

[Nikki Wessner]

I appreciate this feedback and advice John! Very easy to understand and hopefully implement. I think the real key is buy in from the department level managers. If we can streamline the process up front, we can make this a much more valuable and better received meeting/review for Executive management.

[John Broomfield]

In Reply to Parent Post by Nikki Wessner

I appreciate this feedback and advice John! Very easy to understand and hopefully implement. I think the real key is buy in from the department level managers. If we can streamline the process up front, we can make this a much more valuable and better received meeting/review for Executive management.

Remember that departments may be the enemy of processes! Do you have a departmental management system or a process management system?

[Craig H.]

The key is to make the review be top down. How do the metrics fit into the goals of the organization? If there is a disconnect there, if the meeting is being held "for ISO", then the system will not be value added. It will be seen as a waste of time. Its the kiss of death.

Your ideas for getting the data collected and "out there" beforehand are good ones. Four hour meetings are worse than torture. That said, it might be a good idea to leave time for discussion. You have the opportunity of having people from all over the company together at one time.

[Patricia Ravanello]

Management Reviews that are annual or semi-annual are basically a waste of time...Reviewing and reacting to performance metrics 6 months after they happen is an exercise in futility, and defies logic. The ISO standard shouldn't have to dictate how often to review performance, it's implicit in the process of monitoring, measurement and analysis.

When you set up your performance metrics for each process, the metric champion should determine the frequency with which it is to be reviewed... Hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.

Some metrics warrant frequent monitoring and review (production output), and some less frequent (electricity consumption). The frequency is determined by the metric owner, and should be based on the impact of the metric performance on other processes, efficiencies, profits, ...and other relevant criteria.

Most companies have and review Performance Metrics on many levels and with varying frequencies, but they just haven't layed it all out.

Metrics can be classified according to a Hierarchy, to assist you in determining the frequency of review, by what Management Members, and to whom the performance is communicated.

The attached page provides a model of how Management Reviews might be organized. The next step would be to create a matrix, identifying all the metrics in the whole company, their respective champions, and the levels at which they are reviewed (some metrics may be reviewed at multiple levels).

Once you've done this, you can organize your reviews around manageable (and tolerable) agendas of appropriate metrics, making the meetings more meaningful, focused and productive (see second attachment of a sample of how metrics are dispersed among various Management Review levels).

Now you have an agenda for each meeting, and you're empowering employees by giving them feedback on performance, as appropriate.

These attachments are "Reports" from a Metrics DASHBOARD which I created using Microsoft Access. With a little bit of training and elbow-grease, you can create something similar to manage your metrics, and Management Reviews.

Hope this helps.

Patricia Ravanello

[John Broomfield]

In Reply to Parent Post by Patricia Ravanello

Management Reviews that are annual or semi-annual are basically a waste of time...Reviewing and reacting to performance metrics 6 months after they happen is an exercise in futility, and defies logic. The ISO standard shouldn't have to dictate how often to review performance, it's implicit in the process of monitoring, measurement and analysis.

When you set up your performance metrics for each process, the metric champion should determine the frequency with which it is to be reviewed... Hourly, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually, etc.

Some metrics warrant frequent monitoring and review (production output), and some less frequent (electricity consumption). The frequency is determined by the metric owner, and should be based on the impact of the metric performance on other processes, efficiencies, profits, ...and other relevant criteria.

Most companies have and review Performance Metrics on many levels and with varying frequencies, but they just haven't layed it all out.

Metrics can be classified according to a Hierarchy, to assist you in determining the frequency of review, by what Management Members, and to whom the performance is communicated.

The attached page provides a model of how Management Reviews might be organized. The next step would be to create a matrix, identifying all the metrics in the whole company, their respective champions, and the levels at which they are reviewed (some metrics may be reviewed at multiple levels).

Once you've done this, you can organize your reviews around manageable (and tolerable) agendas of appropriate metrics, making the meetings more meaningful, focused and productive (see second attachment of a sample of how metrics are dispersed among various Management Review levels).

Now you have an agenda for each meeting, and you're empowering employees by giving them feedback on performance, as appropriate.

These attachments are "Reports" from a Metrics DASHBOARD which I created using Microsoft Access. With a little bit of training and elbow-grease, you can create something similar to manage your metrics, and Management Reviews.

Hope this helps.

Patricia Ravanello

Excellent attachements.

Taking preventive action after studying the information resulting from data analysis is not management review (agreed, that would be way too late!).

Management reviews may however address the list of reports and problems these reports help us to prevent. From this they can eliminate the unnecessary reports.

Management reviews may also question why managers and supervisors are not demanding even better information (reports) from their management system for more proactive decision making.

Management review should not replace preventive action. Management reviews should focus on how well the system is helping employees and suppliers to do good work.

[Nikki Wessner]

Thank you everyone. You have given me a lot to think about. We do have a Quality meeting every 6 weeks. In this meeting are all managers who "own" a piece of the Quality System. However, these managers do not have the final say on resource allocation. We are only authorized for changes at the process level to meet product and quality objectives. At the meeting we discuss audit findings, CAR/PARs, process issues, product issues, ideas for improvement and trends. However, there is no "Top Management" represented.

We also have metrics which are distributed automatically (varying schedules...daily, weekly, monthly, etc) via a Web Reporting tool. These are reviewed regularly by department and process managers. I know this because whenever they do NOT get the reports (if the system goes down) I hear about it! However, there is no record of the review per se.

At this point, I feel that we are not taking credit for what we already do. I'm also of the opinion that there is no purpose to a formal, recorded review via a meeting involving the Presidents (yes, plural) of the company, when in actuality we discuss and act upon everything in our Quality Meetings. If we were to submit an executive summary of the meeting to the Presidents with record of the input and output of our current Quality Meeting, then we would be in compliance. At subsequent meetings we can discuss and record what actions were taken by the Presidents based on recommendations for resource allocation.

Again...thank you everyone! Great support and ideas!!