CB finding on Management Review Meeting

[lesliedo]

Our CB auditor issued a finding for our management meetings not covering all the required input and outputs of ISO9001:2008 section 5.6.2 and section 5.6.3. When reviewing the cause it was because they were not all listed on the agenda. The reason they were not listed on the agenda was because some of them are covered in our weekly meetings. My reply was too simple I guess. I answered the agenda need to be updated to cover all the input and outputs. The CB auditor came back with wanting more in the root cause. I don't have more to give him. The root cause was they were not on our agenda for the meeting. The effectiveness is that we corrected the agenda, had a new meeting and covered all the inputs and outputs required. What information should I be giving him that is missing in my root cause?

 

[John Broomfield]

Re: CB finding on Management review meeting.

lesliedo,

In your panic you rushed the evidence of your complete management reviews.

You even offered to change your process!

Your auditor was hasty in not considering all the evidence of your management reviews.

And you should not have agreed the so-called nonconformity until the auditor had been given the evidence.

Now, it seems, you are being driven to take action where none is required.

I recommend you defend your management system if you know it is effective. If you don't know it's effective delay the audit.

BTW, the root cause is the auditor not completing the investigation.

John

 

[lesliedo]

Re: CB finding on Management review meeting.

Can't delay the audit. Happened on Oct 1. Can I still question the finding at this point?

 

[John Broomfield]

Re: CB finding on Management review meeting.

lesliedo,

Yes, you have evidence that invalidates the finding.

My point about delaying the audit until you know you have an effective management system is a general rule.

John

 

[dsheaffe]

I have to agree with John. If the requirements of "management review" are covered across a range of meetings, and you believe that your current process is effective, then I would be responding in that fashion to the auditor.

In our case we certainly don't have a single meeting - but across a range of meetings with different people involved we cover all the requirements, and have never had a problem with our CB.

Having said that, do you have written in your system somewhere that you have a "Management Review Meeting" where all the requirements of the standard are covered - because if that is the case, then the auditor would actually be right, and your corrective action might actually be to update the procedure (or whatever) to define in what forums management review are covered.

Just my

David

 

[Golfman25]

Root cause is: They where not in the agenda because you didn't understand that they "had" to be in the agenda. You believed you where compliant because those items where covered elsewhere.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Root cause is: They where not in the agenda because you didn't understand that they "had" to be in the agenda. You believed you where compliant because those items where covered elsewhere.

I agree with this, given the audit visit is completed. It's important for both auditor and auditee to recognize the role and importance of the more frequent, tactical level meetings. After all, it's silly to think we would wait even three months to review operational data and make some decisions to take actions from the data. But nothing requires the agenda to include a, b, c etc. IMO to require that shows a lack of imagination on the auditor's part.

 

[somashekar]

Root cause is: They where not in the agenda because you didn't understand that they "had" to be in the agenda. You believed you where compliant because those items where covered elsewhere.

Superb.
Decisions and actions from the weekly meetings are not taken to the management in your management review record (Your agenda says that)
So management is not provided with information to review the organization's QMS, and then provide any decisions and actions (Not in agenda, so management has not got a chance to review and ensure suitability adequacy and effectiveness, and hence decisions and actions about such is missing obviously)
At least this is what the evidence says.
Now do you see some more light about why the CB auditor came back with wanting more in the root cause .....

 

[Randy]

The "Duh" factor kicks in here, just do what 100's of others do and include your weekly meetings as part of the review process. I see it all the time, just saw it this week, and I moved on to more important stuff like product realization.

Sometimes the root cause is "S4it happens"

 

[Golfman25]

Superb.
Decisions and actions from the weekly meetings are not taken to the management in your management review record (Your agenda says that)
So management is not provided with information to review the organization's QMS, and then provide any decisions and actions (Not in agenda, so management has not got a chance to review and ensure suitability adequacy and effectiveness, and hence decisions and actions about such is missing obviously)
At least this is what the evidence says.
Now do you see some more light about why the CB auditor came back with wanting more in the root cause .....

You're assuming that management isn't involved in the weekly meetings. There is no evidence that management hasn't reviewed the required items, just that it didn't happen in the "management review meeting."

The problem with ISO is that we use "labels" to describe something. So many people have a system which includes a "management review meeting/record" as if it is a static thing. In most companies, especially smaller ones, management review is an ongoing process and occurs daily at all types of "meetings." But that is hard to document, so a "formal management review" is used to create something for the auditor.