Management Representative is NOT a member of Management

[kp2001]

I'm hoping to get some help here from the professionals........

In our most recent external periodic audit we had a n/c written up against section 5.5.2. The individual we identified as the MR is NOT a member of management.

We have submitted to CAs that have been rejected.

The real root cause is that we made a conscious decision to ignore this portion of the standard. We didn't feel it was important enough when compared with our issues with document control, tool calibration etc etc.

I'm trying to avoid submitting this as root cause because I don't know what the corrective action would be to directly address the RC and prevent recurrence.

I need some help, advice, opinions or whatever I can get. Thank you.

 

[hogheavenfarm]

Re: Management Representative

I dont believe the MR has to be a member of management, but it certainly helps, as they need access to the executive part of management. This looks strange when one of the welders wants to sit down and chat in the CEO's office....
Usually the QA person is tagged with this hat also, but many variations are possible. The key is that the MR needs access to top management, or the job cannot be effective.

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Management Representative

I'm hoping to get some help here from the professionals........

In our most recent external periodic audit we had a n/c written up against section 5.5.2. The individual we identified as the MR is NOT a member of management.

We have submitted to CAs that have been rejected.

The real root cause is that we made a conscious decision to ignore this portion of the standard. We didn't feel it was important enough when compared with our issues with document control, tool calibration etc etc.

I'm trying to avoid submitting this as root cause because I don't know what the corrective action would be to directly address the RC and prevent recurrence.

I need some help, advice, opinions or whatever I can get. Thank you.

Root cause: Top Management failed to recognize that the Management Representative must be a member of the organization's management.

Go with this, and that's it. Sometimes we have to owe up to our sins...

Stijloor.

 

[AndyN]

Re: Management Representative

The real root cause is that we made a conscious decision to ignore this portion of the standard. We didn't feel it was important enough when compared with our issues with document control, tool calibration etc etc.

Oh dear....

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Management Representative

Oh dear....

And I am wondering why this wasn't picked up during the initial certification/registration audit... :mg:

Stijloor.

 

[Sorin]

Re: Management Representative

Root cause: Top Management failed to recognize that the Management Representative must be a member of the organization's management.

Go with this, and that's it. Sometimes we have to owe up to our sins...

Stijloor.

What he said.

As corrective action: training

Or maybe the root cause was missing adequate training for the interpretation of standard requirements.

 

[Sorin]

Re: Management Representative

Oh dear....

You do not even want to know how many think they can get away with their own interpretation of standards

 

[Stijloor]

Re: Management Representative

What he said.

As corrective action: training

Or maybe the root cause was missing adequate training for the interpretation of standard requirements.

Nope, look at post #1, fourth paragraph..

Stijloor.

 

[Bogie]

The real root cause is that we made a conscious decision to ignore this portion of the standard. We didn't feel it was important enough when compared with our issues with document control, tool calibration etc etc.

If your mission was to find out if your auditor was paying attention, I guess you got your answer.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The real root cause is that we made a conscious decision to ignore this portion of the standard. We didn't feel it was important enough when compared with our issues with document control, tool calibration etc etc.

While you must be commended for the honesty in saying that, can you imagine if each organization around the world would take this approach? If they disagreed with the relevance and/or importance of a specific requirement of the standard, they could disregard it. The end result? A standard that is "selectively paid attention to", or a standard that isn't.

If followers of a standard decide to apply the buffet approach to the requirements, picking and choosing only the parts of the standard that make sense for them, the whole concept of standardization would vanish.