Does your Registrar ask folks "Who's the Management Representative"?

[potdar]

I just reviewed ISO9001:2000, paragraph 5.5.1, and I still don't understand why you are trying to stand on this paragraph. The communication can be in the form of the Quality Policy/procedures.

The management can even stand on the chair and shout aloud at the top of their voice. Only, if the communication is effective, wouldn't the relevant people know about the MR and his job? Not because ISO needs them to know, but because they need to know.

If YOU need to know but you dont know, wont you call YOUR system a failure?

 

[Coury Ferguson]

The management can even stand on the chair and shout aloud at the top of their voice. Only, if the communication is effective, wouldn't the relevant people know about the MR and his job? Not because ISO needs them to know, but because they need to know.

If YOU need to know but you dont know, wont you call YOUR system a failure?

Not at all. There is no need to know who the MR is.

 

[potdar]

Not at all. There is no need to know who the MR is.

Do I take it to mean that YOU dont need to know who the MR is. And I believe you are THE MR !!!!

How does your QMS run if the MR doesnt know who the MR is !!

 

[Coury Ferguson]

Do I take it to mean that YOU dont need to know who the MR is. And I Believe you are THE MR !!!!

I have always been the MR with the company's I worked for. But what are you trying to say? You still have not justified your statements using the Standards.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

How does your QMS run if the MR doesnt know who the MR is !!

The QMS is self sufficient. It is validated by the performance of the Internal Audit System. But the internal audit system is based upon requirements of the standards, and the policies and procedures.

I am going to say that it appears that there is unjustifiable justification for statements regarding "everyone" needs to know who the MR is, and that some people are becoming defensive, which this is not right in this forum. Lets base this discussion on facts and requirements.

 

[potdar]

OK all,

My initial statement in this discussion was to the effect that everyone does not need to to who the MR is. But some people do need to know it. And they should know. Nothing wrong if the auditor asks about it.

I shall further add that Not only the MR, in the organisation it is necessary for people to know who does what jobs. For some it may be sufficient to know that the Operations manager does this. For those who deal directly with the person, the person, (or the acting operations manager even) should be known.

A case of the MR not knowing who the MR is was picked when earlier attempts by friends to talk about CEO not knowing the MR failed to penetrate.

BUT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BECOME PERSONAL. AND A BIG SORRY FROM MY SIDE TO ALL.:mybad:

I think I shall conclude my contribution to this thread with this post. :truce:

 

[Jim Wynne]

I am going to say that it appears that there is unjustifiable justification...

I think maybe you need a vacation

Kidding aside, I look at it this way:

• I think we've established that there is no requirement as such, for everyone to know who the MR or CR is.
• That leaves us with the question or not of whether the answer to the question is potentially useful, or, depending on the person asked, significant with regard to the requirements and functioning of the system.

I think that aside from basic leadership responsibilities the prime responsibility of "top management" is effective delegation of responsibility and authority. The standard is explicit in this regard in describing the office of Management Representative:

Top management shall appoint a member of management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes...[emphasis added]

So as I suggested earlier, it depends on who's answering the question. The janitor will probably not be affected by not knowing who the MR is. But if "top management" doesn't know--and I have seen at least one instance where this was the case--then how can we convincingly trace the chain of delegation of responsibility and authority?

Admittedly, this is an extreme case, but I think we need to look at this from the perspective of R&A. There are too many people who are given responsibility but no authority, and the further up the food chain you go, the more likely you are to find those who have authority but take no responsibility--delegation is synonymous with scapegoating. Auditors need to be better detectives, imo, and be able to make reasonable inferences from the evidence at hand.

So if the question is, "Does it make any sense for third-party auditors to ask auditees to identify the MR?", then my answer is, "It depends on who's being asked, and why."

 

[Coury Ferguson]

I think maybe you need a vacation

You are right Jim, I need a vacation. for your recommendation.

I can't wait until Thanksgiving day in the USA. I am planning on taking the family and heading to Southeast Florida for a couple of days.

 

[Coury Ferguson]

OK all,

My initial statement in this discussion was to the effect that everyone does not need to to who the MR is. But some people do need to know it. And they should know. Nothing wrong if the auditor asks about it.

I shall further add that Not only the MR, in the organisation it is necessary for people to know who does what jobs. For some it may be sufficient to know that the Operations manager does this. For those who deal directly with the person, the person, (or the acting operations manager even) should be known.

A case of the MR not knowing who the MR is was picked when earlier attempts by friends to talk about CEO not knowing the MR failed to penetrate.

BUT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BECOME PERSONAL. AND A BIG SORRY FROM MY SIDE TO ALL.:mybad:

I think I shall conclude my contribution to this thread with this post. :truce:

I agree :truce: