Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Audits

[JaneB]

Re: Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Au

Jan - Happy anniversary!

most ppl would say: "We can't actually live the way the standard intends us to".

Then they are wrong. It's not only 'possible' but it can be done, and it is done as many posters attest.

 

[qualitymanager]

Re: Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Au

JaneB - we agree on that! It's a mis-perception in many cases.

Although, some companies I've seen in the 3rd world really do not have the resources (even using innovative approaches) to meet all requirements (e.g., infrastructure). But then it's going to take more than just putting in a QMS to fix their problems.


Jan - Happy anniversary!!

 

[Ken Stage]

Re: Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Au

If you held 2 reviews in 2008, you have met your internal requirement and the standard. Make sure you covered all of the inputs and outputs required by the standard. Don't rush to do a review just to show the auditor - you will likely miss something and have a greater risk of a nonconformity.

I have a full management review twice a year, but hold a quality meeting monthly where we review action items, look at the status of CARs, audits, customer and 3rd party audits that are coming or happened recently. This keeps everyone focused, keeps the boss up to speed on places we are falling behind. Since I started this, I rarely have a late CAR or an overdue audit! They hate having the boss see that they are not cooperating...

 

[Big Jim]

Re: Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Au

Back to the original question. From what you have described, you are conforming. As an auditor, if I felt that you were slacking off and were in danger of not having the two reviews a year you say you will, I might write an observation that if you were not careful you may miss your requirement.

Now, let's say, that you held two management reviews in December in an attempt to meet your requirement of two times a year. As an auditor, I would be looking real hard to become convinced that your management reviews were effective (reference element 4.1c "The organization shall . . . determine criteria and methods needed to ensure that both the operations and control of these processes are effective . . . ").

 

[Terrisandrew]

Re: Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Au

I started working for a client just after they had just been written up by the CB for not holding a management review meeting at the appropriate time. The organizations quality manual said that they would hold management review meetins annually and the QM interpreted this as sometime during the year but not within one year of the previous meeting. The CB had a clause in their contract (not part of the standard) that clearly stated a completed management review be completed between each surveillance / certification audit. In addition, per the contract one had to have completed a full internal audit cycle between audits (not just have them scheduled as the standard implies). I would check with your CB just to be sure and make sure there is nothing hiden - who reads all the fine print of the contract.

As to your point regarding the incomplete management review meetings. I remember from my training on audits a question regarding this. The question stated if management review did not cover all of the required inputs / outputs in one meeting but split the meeting into two sesions (several months apart) is this a nonconformance. The answer (per the training) was that yes this was a nonconformance since the standard clearly defines that a management review meeting must cover certain inputs / outputs. They were not buying the line that one could split the meeting in two. I don't know if I agree with this, but it stuck in my head.

Hope this helps.

 

[Marie Lawton]

Re: Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Au

We scaled back our MR review to annual based on the fact that we have monthly quality meetings with upper management. We also have a yearly Company Performance review as well. You can take credit for both of the other meetings however, MR must cover the required elements. If the required elements are not met twice per year, I recommend modification to annually. We did that here and it is working out well.

The external auditor will want to see evidence of course for the other meetings and this I provide in the form of a binder with the monthly meetings and actions to be taken as well as a separate one for the yearly Company Performance.

 

[AndyN]

Re: Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Au

It seems to me that it's not clear what the purpose of a 'management review' is! Forgetting how many times a year you can fool your CB auditor into agreeing to, what's the purpose of a review of the system?

From my perspective, it's a 'navigational' exercise to ensure the business 'ship' is heading in the correct, planned direction! Just as a pilot or navigator needs to get the map out periodically, gather data on position etc. to see what progress is being made to the plan. Same thing with the management system!

Frankly, it's too late to do it once a year! If you fail to meet your business objectives, then there's no opportunity to change course, make the adjustments to the system to get those results! It's like arriving at the end of a journey only to find you're in the wrong place!!

If you are meeting monthly, it seems to me that such a frequency might be O.K for navigating the system, but obviously not everything needs to be looked at every time. To do one review, annually might be missing the point - even if your CB auditor 'buys' it!

 

[Roland Cooke]

Re: Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Au

I try it like this (with friendly smile):

"Management Review is a strategic process (i.e. not a meeting per se). Please can you explain your strategic process, and how the meeting(s) fit into that process?"


There tends to be a lot of umming and aahing after that, with the client waving the meeting agenda in my face.

 

[JaneB]

Re: Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Au

I remember from my training on audits a question regarding this. The question stated if management review did not cover all of the required inputs / outputs in one meeting but split the meeting into two sesions (several months apart) is this a nonconformance. The answer (per the training) was that yes this was a nonconformance since the standard clearly defines that a management review meeting must cover certain inputs / outputs. They were not buying the line that one could split the meeting in two. I don't know if I agree with this, but it stuck in my head.

If I were you, I'd seriously reconsider who you are/were using to provide your training, and find someone better! And if you're also using them as your certifier, switch!

I totally (and strongly) disagree with this flawed and rigid interpretation of the Standard. And it is an interpretation because it absolutely, absolutely does not say that in the Standard!

Indeed, I challenge your 'trainer' to even find the word 'meeting' in the relevant clause (5.6). Because it isn't there. Lord save me from such black & white, limited thinking and short-sighted 'trainers' who aren't worthy of the title. They are wrong, wrong, wrong.

Management review is a strategic process. It is not (or isn't supposed to be) a single meeting. As for insisting that 'everything' listed in the Standard be covered at the same, single meeting, sheesh!!

(I'd say 'words fail me' but actually they don't, but the words that come to mind most readily are a little unprintable).

 

[qualitymanager]

Re: Frequency of Management Review Meetings pre- and post- Internal & Surveillance Au

I agree with Jane - "Management Review" has to be done, but whether it is a single meeting (more frequently than once per year, or every 6 months), a number of meetings, an email sent to top management with all of the input criteria which they then make decisions and take action on, videoconferences with sub-groups of top management on different occassions or something else which satisfies input/output criteria I'd say go with it!