Changes in ISO9001:2015 to the requirements for a management representative

[The Cats Clause]

Hi, Just joined the forum (having lurked in the background for some time!)
To introduce myself:
1. Name. Dave
2. Quality Assurance Manager
3. Worked mostly in 1st and 2nd tier automotive but some aftermarket and off highway too.
4. Caterpillar Inc (UK) at the moment
5. Various Quality / Environmental management rols since 1991 (!)
6. Drive a Caterham 7 and love climbing mountains (not at the same time)
7. Pet peeve is NOT designing for manufacture and NOT considering packaging on NPI
8. If Icould change something in the business world, that would be........number 7

I would like to solicit thoughts on the effect of possible changes in 2015 to the requirements for a management representative on the QM profession??

 

[hogheavenfarm]

Re: Changes in 2015 to the requirements for a management representative

Hi Dave,
2015 is pretty straightforward in that there is no requirement for an MR, this position apparently being spread among the top management (in theory), however do not expect the role to evaporate, as in my experience TM likes the MR to act as a shield between them and all that 'quality stuff'.
Like the Quality Manuals, the MR will probably continue regardless of changes in the 2015 version.

 

[normzone]

Re: Changes in 2015 to the requirements for a management representative



The role of management representative is designed such that he's the guy who goes to jail if things get screwed up badly enough.

I tell my management team that when I do my job properly, they all get to come with me such that we can run our own corner of the cell block, so I don't have to get married to the guy with the most cigarettes.

;-)

 

[Paul Simpson]

<snip>

I would like to solicit thoughts on the effect of possible changes in 2015 to the requirements for a management representative on the QM profession??</snip>

Nice introduction, Dave and I like 'The Cats Clause' moniker.

Re the changes in 2015 edition they are just reflecting the fact that the 2000 edition failed!

The idea in 2000 was that TC 176 was introducing a whole load of 'Leadership' stuff and wanted top management to take it seriously. MR was introduced to raise the quality game and top management were required to nominate one of their own Exec Team / Board - call it what you will - and this individual took what the top team wanted and designed a QMS to suit. S/he then reported back to the team on how well the system they asked for was working through Management Review. The logic being that this individual would understand and speak their (business) language.

Now the problem was that many companies didn't take this requirement seriously and instead of appointing 'one of their own' just nominated their current QM and allowed him / her the same amount of time to report to the top team at a management review because they were told they had to (I'm told that at these meetings the CEO / President sometimes even turned up! ). The rest of the time they just did their own thing and allowed the QM to maintain the system and talk his quality language with the auditors. The quality profession and 3rd party certification industry allowed this to happen and hence nothing changed.

So roll forward to 2015 and the MR role is dropped from the standard and the expectation is that the approach will be totally different .... I think not. But then again I tend towards cynicism.

 

[Big Jim]

Nice introduction, Dave and I like 'The Cats Clause' moniker.

Re the changes in 2015 edition they are just reflecting the fact that the 2000 edition failed!

The idea in 2000 was that TC 176 was introducing a whole load of 'Leadership' stuff and wanted top management to take it seriously. MR was introduced to raise the quality game and top management were required to nominate one of their own Exec Team / Board - call it what you will - and this individual took what the top team wanted and designed a QMS to suit. S/he then reported back to the team on how well the system they asked for was working through Management Review. The logic being that this individual would understand and speak their (business) language.

Now the problem was that many companies didn't take this requirement seriously and instead of appointing 'one of their own' just nominated their current QM and allowed him / her the same amount of time to report to the top team at a management review because they were told they had to (I'm told that at these meetings the CEO / President sometimes even turned up! ). The rest of the time they just did their own thing and allowed the QM to maintain the system and talk his quality language with the auditors. The quality profession and 3rd party certification industry allowed this to happen and hence nothing changed.

So roll forward to 2015 and the MR role is dropped from the standard and the expectation is that the approach will be totally different .... I think not. But then again I tend towards cynicism.

Undoubtedly your scenario is true much of the time, but I have noticed more and more organizations where the title of management representative has been retained by top management. There is clearly a trend showing that top management, in general, is paying more attention to their QMS.

Moving the duties from an appointed member of management to top management is a step in the right direction.

Generally, top management is more able and more willing to step up to the role today than they were in 1987.

 

[Kronos147]

6. Drive a Caterham 7

Nice!

I drove a Lotus Super 7 about 30 years ago. It was a blast!

 

[Paul Simpson]

Thanks for your post, Big Jim. I'll be interested if you have any facts / examples to substantiate the statements.

BTW the MR role only came in in 2000. From 1987 onwards there have been requirements for top management but 2000 was the game changer for their engagement - or should have been.

 

[Big Jim]

Thanks for your post, Big Jim. I'll be interested if you have any facts / examples to substantiate the statements.

BTW the MR role only came in in 2000. From 1987 onwards there have been requirements for top management but 2000 was the game changer for their engagement - or should have been.

Hi Paul,

I have not seen any studies on top management retaining the title for management representative, it has just been my observation. I would be curious as to if others have noticed it too.

I must admit that I was not aware that the title of management representative was not a requirement until 2000. The 1994 version was pretty much done when I got involved in 2004. In that time though, I have seen greater interest in top management though. I don't see as many instances where everything is piled on the quality manager. Generally speaking, top management is both more knowledgeable and more involved.

Another related trend that was pointed out to me recently is that today's MRP and ERP systems tend to drive companies to meeting many of the ISO 9001 requirements, and that might be part of where top management's greater involvement comes from.

 

[John Broomfield]

Hi, Just joined the forum (having lurked in the background for some time!)
To introduce myself:
1. Name. Dave
2. Quality Assurance Manager
3. Worked mostly in 1st and 2nd tier automotive but some aftermarket and off highway too.
4. Caterpillar Inc (UK) at the moment
5. Various Quality / Environmental management rols since 1991 (!)
6. Drive a Caterham 7 and love climbing mountains (not at the same time)
7. Pet peeve is NOT designing for manufacture and NOT considering packaging on NPI
8. If Icould change something in the business world, that would be........number 7

I would like to solicit thoughts on the effect of possible changes in 2015 to the requirements for a management representative on the QM profession??

Dave,

The quality profession often fails to engage top management in the development of their organizational management system so it continues to help the employees to create successful customers.

Calling the QMS an ISO System prevails. Often certification or retaining the certificate is the goal. Keeping auditors happy and "passing" audits tells employees what the priorities are.

System standards are meant to specify what already is widely accepted as good practice. It looks as if FDIS 9001 is no different in this regard, although we may question the auditability of "risk-based thinking".

The management system has to be process-based with the business processes delivering quality services and products - instead of a separate QMS. This being the case, those in charge of the organization (a system in itself) are also in charge of its management system.

So, quality professionals should already have evolved to become system professionals with expertise in business process management. To earn the respect of top managers they need to show they understand the way their organization interacts with suppliers and customers to understand and fulfill customer requirements today and in the future. In other words, turning the needs of customers into cash in the bank.

Quality professionals who already are into process-based management systems will determine what additional processes and controls are specified by ISO 9001:2015 and work with top management and process owners to bring their organizational management system into conformity. They may find the processes, such as designing services, already exist or the new processes need to be designed, resourced, trained operated and monitored into being.

Quality professionals presiding over sets of documents instead of process-based management systems will have a lot of work to do. Many may choose to retire.

As I see it,

John

 

[qualityboi]

What are the changes in 2015 to Management Rep? I saw the IRCA roadshow and read the ASQ interpretation and they almost contradict one another. One says the MR is no longer in the requirements but there will still be work of people that occupy that position. ASQ said the role exists with enhancements, it just that the term has been removed. I have not read the DIS but many Quality Professionals infer that the role now exists within Top Management, the title is gone but the duties remain.
My take is that someone will have to educate that person in top management, most likely the Quality Manager. Or they will be hiring quality VPs that already have the knowledge based on experience...see now there could be a promotion in it for you! In any case top management in any enterprise corporation will not be nor will ever be doing the tactical items of facilitation of the actual Management Reviews ie., reporting on metrics/KPI etc and tracking improvement actions. It still will be some poor schmuck doing it, just someone else will get the credit.