Management Review in ISO 9001:2000

[Scott]

Can anyone tell me if a "Long View" is required for ISO 2000, (or for the 94 standard, if it is only there)? Our auditor wants to see an extra Management Review a year, (can be combined with monthly review but with seperate agenda), to look ahead in regard to the QMS system. From reading and re-reading both standards I can't see where this is required. Top Management from the corporate all the way to each facility is constantly doing this. The idea to look ahead is fine but is it required on top of the normal activities?

[E Wall]

Our Plant Manager has been saying..."It's not the big companies that eat the small, it's the fast that eat the slow!"

Of course, you must look forward to stay in business. By addressing the areas outlined in the y2k ISO 9001 Mgmt Review section - you should be doing this anyway by adjusting your goals as you show continual improvement (or am I confusing what your question is?).

At our facility we have mgmt rev mtg's; the plant mgr attends a corp mgmt review meeting (and keeps copies of the minutes - to then discuss progressive idea's/actions at next mgmt rev mtg). Top Mgmt is what drives a company not facility/plant level so from what I understand of your post...you should be covered. Maybe all that needs to be done is communication from the Corp mtg to your local mgmt rev mtg?

[Scott]

Sorry... Kind of missed the boat a bit on my question...We do have monthly management reviews of the entire QMS. The auditor is after another individual review just to look outward. We do this at the monthly's so why do it twice is the question?

Sounds like the auditor is trying to get into your un-auditable business plan which already reviews long and short term directions that just happen to be partially driven by management review records.

MHO...

Oh what the hell, it's been awhile:

This auditor sounds like an anal-retentive paper pusher that has nothing better to do. Let's all just have 1 Management Review meeting a year and act on it.

Call his/her ass on it and demand to know where there is a discrepancy to your system and where a 1/year "Major" meeting is required. Tell him/her the other auditors you are looking at have a different view! Ask for documentation and proof and put him/her on the hotseat for a little winter sweat. Auditors are a dime a dozen, as well as registrars.

Marc, Help remove wedged soapbox, I fell and can't get up!

[Scott]

Thanks Al...That really answers my question. I will save the verbage you presented but will call him on what is in the standard....Thanks for the information.

Speaking of Auditors and Registers being a dime a dozen...Q9000-2000, para 2.8.2 and Q9001-2000 para 8.2.2 discuss audits. My next question is in regard to the Third-Party Audits. Since the auditors don't have to be accreditated but have to be external and the guidelines for auditors are discussed in ISO 10011 do you see a change in the auditor ranks from the 94 standard to the 2000?

Just curious as we just got 94 certified and are already working toward 2000. We currently use an auditor that works for the Registrar with a 6 month survelience plan and am wondering with the new standard if he will still be needed or can anyone, (external), audit as long as they meet the 10011 criteria?

Hope this makes since and I really enjoy learning from the forum.

Thanks.

[Laura M]

I'm working with a company that feel very strongly that the management reviews their system often - almost weekly. But they make decisions and go do what they decide. No need to write anything down, they just go do their assignments.
The ISO management review, therefore, is perceived as a quarterly exercise and the minutes because the standard says so and so they can write down that the system is "suitable and effective."

I happened to mention that the only reason they do quarterly meeting now is because they decided to do quarterly, and the standard doesn't say how often. The CEO therefore announced that we are no longer having quarterly management reviews to write down what we already do.

Other than the requirement that "minutes of management review must be maintained" I can't seem to convince him that there are other good reasons to document the management review. Consequently management review will now be a annual exercise only done because of the standard - "wasteful work" in the management's opinion.

Ugh - I don't know if I'm looking for an answer or just venting. It's just frustrating when every time I turn around they want to know how they can be certified without doing everything in the standard. If I hear "How can we get around this one" one more time.

As a thought - would documenting "results of management review" by keeping a copy of the agenda, and documenting any actions as C/A's work?

Originally posted by Laura M

...As a thought - would documenting "results of management review" by keeping a copy of the agenda, and documenting any actions as C/A's work?

I don't see why not other than I would expect management review to lead more toward preventive action and continuous improvement activities.

Sounds like your in a tough place with this job. Nothing like management buy-in.

[Laura M]

I agree - and don't want a PA form as mentioned in other threads. Unfortuantely their last Mgmt rep bulldozed everything through and didn't integrate into everyone's job.

I think if I use an agenda and "take notes" on the agenda during the meeting, the "wasteful work" comments of typing minutes will go away. That may work for CI items and use the CA for other actions. The CA system is functioning pretty well their, so that would make sure follow-up occurs.

I don't know how tough a place I'm in. The client is paying a few bills right now, but there's nothing making me stay. There are a few things that if they happen again will be "the last straw" but for now, it's more of a challenge to me. I need to convince them that it needs to be integrated. The stubborn ones with the biggest challenge reap more personal satisfaction!

L