Can one Management Representative operate between two sister firms

[AndyN]

I fail to see how anyone would know if the incumbent MR was a consultant! It's not as if they wear a badge or anything is it? How is an auditor supposed to 'detect' consultants holding this position? I can vouch for the fact that I was the MR for a client, successfully registered etc and I was never introduced as 'our consultant' and no-one ever questioned who I was...

It's going to be a practical improbability for many small organizations to provide a person who can devote time to 'learning' the job of the MR. Hence it is perfectly acceptable to have someone, a non-executive member of management (no budgetary signing authority etc) be no problem...

 

[samsung]

Re: Can one Management Representative operate two sister firms

Samsung, Can you tell Somewhere I read one organization can have more than one MR. It is possible. Where it is permissing. Regards, Maheswari

I don't know where it's written but one thing I know, it's nowhere written that you can't have more than one MR.

We have 3 MRs in our organization; 2 of them jointly look after QMS & EMS and our CEO himself takes care of OHS as MR and occupier.

 

[samsung]

I fail to see how anyone would know if the incumbent MR was a consultant! It's not as if they wear a badge or anything is it? How is an auditor supposed to 'detect' consultants holding this position? I can vouch for the fact that I was the MR for a client, successfully registered etc and I was never introduced as 'our consultant' and no-one ever questioned who I was...

It's going to be a practical improbability for many small organizations to provide a person who can devote time to 'learning' the job of the MR. Hence it is perfectly acceptable to have someone, a non-executive member of management (no budgetary signing authority etc) be no problem...

I think before 2008 version, it might have been possible under the prevailing scenario but, as you know well, the text of 5.5.2 was rephrased in 2008 version with the addition of one more word 'organization's' before the 'management' in order to emphasize the need for having an MR with executive authority in addition to the responsibilities he's required to have for driving the organizations MS.

2000 - "member of management"
2008 - "member of the organization's management"

There is some difference between the two statements.

Thanks.

 

[vanputten]

"ISO 9001 standard doesn't mention this but it's official interpretation clarifies that one can't appoint a consultant or part time person as MR (pl. refer attachment in Post#30, also available here (point #4)"

Samsung: You are not reading the interpretations correctly. I think you are wrong.

First Interpretation: In our organization we have a management representative appointed by top management, who works for the company in a managerial capacity. He is not a permanent member of staff, but works full-time on a contract basis. Is it allowable under the standard, for such a person to act as the organization’s management representative? Answer: Yes.

Second Interpretation: Can a person who is independent of the organization’s management (e.g. a consultant) undertake the role of management representative. Answer: No

Concentrate on "appointed by top management" and "managerial capacity" in the first interpretation. Concentrate on the word "independent" in the second interpretation and its importance in the question. In my opinion, the reason the answer is "No" for the second interpretation is the person is qualified as "independent."

Full time and part time doesn't matter in my opinion.

I think you conclusion is incorrect. It would be interesting is someone were to re-write that interpretation question and change the word "independent" to "dependent."

For what its worth: 1) I am going to take Jane B.'s statement one step further. Who cares in general? What do I get out of trying to defend anything on this thread. I should be getting paid as a consultant for this, part time and independent. So I agree with Jane B. but to a more general sense. Who cares? 2) I was and I am still on the US Interpretations Committee within TC176. The US position on interpretations is that they only lead to the need for further interpretation as is clearly evident in this thread.

 

[samsung]

"ISO 9001 standard doesn't mention this but it's official interpretation clarifies that one can't appoint a consultant or part time person as MR (pl. refer attachment in Post#30, also available here (point #4)"

Samsung: You are not reading the interpretations correctly. I think you are wrong.

How can you claim that you are reading it correctly?

First Interpretation: In our organization we have a management representative appointed by top management, who works for the company in a managerial capacity. He is not a permanent member of staff, but works full-time on a contract basis. Is it allowable under the standard, for such a person to act as the organization’s management representative? Answer: Yes.

Second Interpretation: Can a person who is independent of the organization’s management (e.g. a consultant) undertake the role of management representative. Answer: No

Concentrate on "appointed by top management" and "managerial capacity" in the first interpretation. Concentrate on the word "independent" in the second interpretation and its importance in the question. In my opinion, the reason the answer is "No" for the second interpretation is the person is qualified as "independent."

OK, let it be independent but they have given an example, i.e. a consultant, to further elaborate it.

Full time and part time doesn't matter in my opinion.

Just think why did the committee take pain to quote them into the example?

Van, there are many other terms in these sentences in addition to what you have asked me to concentrate on. Why not to concentrate on 'our organization, 'works for the company', 'permanent member', 'contract basis' etc. etc. Why don't you consider them worth your kind attention? You are looking only at what you think necessary to justify yourself.

I think you conclusion is incorrect.

My conclusion can be incorrect but now it's your turn to prove that your conclusion is absolutely correct.

It would be interesting is someone were to re-write that interpretation question and change the word "independent" to "dependent."

Let's try it and see.

For what its worth: 1) I am going to take Jane B.'s statement one step further. Who cares in general? What do I get out of trying to defend anything on this thread. I should be getting paid as a consultant for this, part time and independent. So I agree with Jane B. but to a more general sense. Who cares? 2) I was and I am still on the US Interpretations Committee within TC176. The US position on interpretations is that they only lead to the need for further interpretation as is clearly evident in this thread.

Can't comment.

 

[vanputten]

Samsung: If you read my posts, in general I say things like "I think" and "In my opinion." I try not to tell in absolutes what organizations can and cannot do. But when a person continues to tell people what they can and cannot do based on opinion, I try to push back a little. In this case I pushed back a lot.

What further example with the term "consultant?" Answer to interpretations are either "Yes" or "No." The questioner provided "(e.g. a consultant)".

Why did what committee take pain to quote what? There are no quotes in either interpretation.

The terms "our organization, 'works for the company', 'permanent member', 'contract basis'" in my opinion are not the key terms.

In our organization we have a management representative appointed by top management (great - meets the standard requirements and supports both of our positions), who works for the company in a managerial capacity (good - meets the requirements and supports our positions). He is not a permanent member of staff (not permanent member? Supports my position but maybe not yours), but works full-time on a contract basis (Contract basis? Supports my position but maybe not yours). Is it allowable under the standard, for such a person to act as the organization’s management representative? Answer: Yes. It is allowed. All of the above supports my position. The answer is "Yes!"

Second Interpretation: Can a person who is independent of the organization’s management (e.g. a consultant) undertake the role of management representative. Answer: No So Samsung - you are saying if we change the example (e.g. consultant) to a different title, then the answer would change to a "Yes?" You are saying that the key concept in that interpretation is the example title given? I say the most important concept in that interpretation question, the thing that has the most bearing, is the term "independent." Put any title in the "(e.g. a _____)" and the answer is still "No." An MR cannot be independent. what matters more is the independence and not the tile.

Finally, I hope volunteering for the US Interpretations committee since about 2003 and being part of the US vote on the interpretations gives me a little insight into each and ever interpretations since then. Maybe I am full of it? I don't know. But I do know I am not going to debate this anymore. What a resource draw.

 

[JaneB]

Dirk, excellent post.

The terms "our organization, 'works for the company', 'permanent member', 'contract basis'" in my opinion are not the key terms.
I agree. They are almost a distraction.

Samsung,
I still disagree with your opinion. And no matter how strongly or dogmatically you express it, you have not been able to bring in any official reference that definitively states what you state so firmly. You're focussing on the title, I'm not. What you say remains just your own opinion and your reading of said reference. With which Dirk, I and others disagree.

When I said 'What does it matter/who cares?' I was referring to things that I consider unimportant. I consider the exact terms of engagement/employment of the MR unimportant.

What matters, as was said some time back so well by Dirk, is do they know the business? Can they and are they getting things done? Are they meeting the obligations of the requirement? To insist ad infinitum that 'this can't be a consultant' or 'this must be an employee' is quite beside the point.

As to whether they are a consultant, a part time, full time employee, casual or blind Freddy's uncle, I don't care. Nor do I see any point in chasing this particular rabbit so far down a hole!

As Andy said, no one wears a badge saying 'I is an employee' or 'I is a consultant'. What matters to me, is the effectiveness of a system, not hairsplitting minutiae, which is what I see at this point.

And yes, this is the end of the debate for me also.

 

[samsung]

Dirk, excellent post.

The terms "our organization, 'works for the company', 'permanent member', 'contract basis'" in my opinion are not the key terms.
I agree. They are almost a distraction.

Samsung,
I still disagree with your opinion. And no matter how strongly or dogmatically you express it, you have not been able to bring in any official reference that definitively states what you state so firmly. You're focussing on the title, I'm not. What you say remains just your own opinion and your reading of said reference. With which Dirk, I and others disagree.

You didn't cite any reference to substantiate your view, rather it was me who cited two official references; one of them was the latest (22 Feb'11) Official ISO interpretation and the second one was the exact text of clause 5.5.2 (2008 version), i.e. "member of the organization's management" and a consultant can never be a member of the organization's management, atleast in the organization I work for or even in the country I belong to. Never, never...if one is a member of the organization (mandatory req. for being an MR), we don't (and cannot) call him a 'consultant' but an employee or board member or director etc.
In any of yours as well as that of Vanputten's posts, I didn't see any reference to the term "organization's management" and nobody either explained how an organization proves an 'outsider' to be a member of their management.

When I said 'What does it matter/who cares?' I was referring to things that I consider unimportant. I consider the exact terms of engagement/employment of the MR unimportant.

Additionally, we consider what the standard requires us to do.

What matters, as was said some time back so well by Dirk, is do they know the business? Can they and are they getting things done? Are they meeting the obligations of the requirement? To insist ad infinitum that 'this can't be a consultant' or 'this must be an employee' is quite beside the point.

As to whether they are a consultant, a part time, full time employee, casual or blind Freddy's uncle, I don't care. Nor do I see any point in chasing this particular rabbit so far down a hole!

The matter of discussion isn't what you or me or anyone else cares but what the organization's should care or atleast take into account while appointing an MR and establishing their MS.

As Andy said, no one wears a badge saying 'I is an employee' or 'I is a consultant'. What matters to me, is the effectiveness of a system, not hairsplitting minutiae, which is what I see at this point.

This is entirely a personal and philosophical thing. This is neither mentioned in the standard, nor in the ruling. The matter was just to know the minimum compliance level which everyone must ensure.

And yes, this is the end of the debate for me also.

For me as well. But after replying to Vanputten's post. And finally I too don't agree and strongly stick to what ISO 9001:2008 clause 5.5.2 as well the official interpretation so explicitly mention.

 

[samsung]

Samsung: If you read my posts, in general I say things like "I think" and "In my opinion." I try not to tell in absolutes what organizations can and cannot do. But when a person continues to tell people what they can and cannot do based on opinion, I try to push back a little. In this case I pushed back a lot.

What further example with the term "consultant?" Answer to interpretations are either "Yes" or "No." The questioner provided "(e.g. a consultant)".

Why did what committee take pain to quote what? There are no quotes in either interpretation.

The terms "our organization, 'works for the company', 'permanent member', 'contract basis'" in my opinion are not the key terms.

In our organization we have a management representative appointed by top management (great - meets the standard requirements and supports both of our positions), who works for the company in a managerial capacity (good - meets the requirements and supports our positions). He is not a permanent member of staff (not permanent member? Supports my position but maybe not yours), but works full-time on a contract basis (Contract basis? Supports my position but maybe not yours). Is it allowable under the standard, for such a person to act as the organization’s management representative? Answer: Yes. It is allowed. All of the above supports my position. The answer is "Yes!"

Second Interpretation: Can a person who is independent of the organization’s management (e.g. a consultant) undertake the role of management representative. Answer: No So Samsung - you are saying if we change the example (e.g. consultant) to a different title, then the answer would change to a "Yes?" You are saying that the key concept in that interpretation is the example title given? I say the most important concept in that interpretation question, the thing that has the most bearing, is the term "independent." Put any title in the "(e.g. a _____)" and the answer is still "No." An MR cannot be independent. what matters more is the independence and not the tile.

Finally, I hope volunteering for the US Interpretations committee since about 2003 and being part of the US vote on the interpretations gives me a little insight into each and ever interpretations since then. Maybe I am full of it? I don't know. But I do know I am not going to debate this anymore. What a resource draw.

Vanputten,

I totally disagree to your explanations which are rather assumptions and contrary to the requirements of 5.5.2.

You are still sticking to only one word, i.e.; independent which you failed to relate to what 5.5.2 requires. You didn't mention it even for once because it doesn't support your view which you are trying to prove is correct.

The example of 'consultant' used by the committee isn't accidental or just for the sake of quoting something. It's well thought and contextual. It further clarifies and justifies the addition of one extra word 'organization's' in clause 5.5.2 of ISO 9001:2008.

You are at liberty to still consider me wrong.

 

[The Specialist]

Just to intervene with a question here...

Do you think that the term 'Consultant' needs to be clarified for the sake of this argument?

What I mean is...

I am a 'consultant'.
However, unlike some other 'consultants', I contract myself to a company for a period of time to carry out a specific role/requirement for the company... During that period, I DO NOT work on behalf of any other company (other than my own).
This may be perceived as being in an 'uncompromised' position.

In this instance, I am therefore’ PERMENANTLY’ engaged with the client.


Does this make the difference in a scenario such-as is being debated here??