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

[Murphys Law]

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

Just to throw something into this discussion. One problem I had with management review was getting a time slot for managers to attend. Even if we had a date, it could be cancelled due to customer visits on other issues which came up at short notice.

What I ended up doing was a "virtual review". There is nothing in ISO/TS which says you need a physical meeting. One of the last reviews I had (before I switched groups) was to do a powerpoint executive summary of the key data with conclusions / li nks to supporting data/ associated Correcitive action and a 1 hour review via a netmeeting. I had email confirmations from each of the managers confirming they had read the summary and documented any questions/clarification/actions they had for consolidated output of that review.

Our internal auditor confirmed this met the intent. This was a productivity improvement to us as previous mgt reviews were normally 1/2 a day.

 

[JaneB]

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

This was a productivity improvement to us as previous mgt reviews were normally 1/2 a day.

Now, there's a good way of doing it, and presumably one that accomplished what needed to be done, but without tying up a whole lot of people on a meeting all in the same physical location if they didn't need to do that. IN this increasingly digitised world, and where companies have scattered locations (Australia is a big country, and we don't have the frequency of airflights as USA because much smaller population)

I sometimes think that many of us could achieve quantum leaps in productivity if we banned meetings from occurring unless:

• they're really needed - it really is essential to have people together
• there's a clear agenda, a good chair, and a time limit

Too often, they're just a waste of time, a gabfest, and/or a misguided 'we have to do this because we mistakenly think the Standard insists on it'.

Congratulations for finding another way that works for you in your context.

 

[Cari Spears]

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

*there's a clear agenda, a good chair, and a time limit

The management team at my work is about 13 people. We don't gather every person to every meeting and the people here are pretty good at keeping to the agenda. I am the QA Representative mentioned in this procedure so I organize and chair most of them.

The monthly and quarterly reviews go into a lot more detail and generally last an hour or so; the annual review is a synopsis of the entire year and lasts a couple of hours. I'm fortunate that here the CEO lets me arrange for lunch for the team for the annual meeting.

 

[AndyN]

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

I think the dimension of 'maturity' is missing in these posts. If you have a maturity with management regarding the purpose of reviewing the system, then by all means do it 'remotely'.

My experiences have been that, in the early stages of implementation, it's beneficial to round up the management team, have them sit around a conference table and 'talk' to their use of the quality system as a tool to achieve objectives!

Indeed, by doing such, I have had a CEO say it was the most productive meeting they'd ever had. It became apparent that some of the management team couldn't get prepared with their figures, trends etc and were unable to give a good account of their process. This is despite only having to hand off their numbers to someone else who formatted the graphs and charts!

Needless to say, those (managers) who didn't get it (and they were given more than enough time) eventually couldn't stand the heat, so got out of the kitchen (by themselves).

By holding a management review in this manner, where the MR doesn't do all the work, brought about a maturity that was necessary to get the organization to the next level of implementation. Any pressure was purely peer pressure and the CEO was delighted with the value the review brought, outside of the need for complying with 'ISO'.

 

[Koala]

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

We just held our management review yesterday (to cover July - December 2008). We hold ours once every 6 months. Our Auditor wishes we would hold 1 quarterly, but we are meeting the standard and our stated documentation. We also have a staff meeting every week and communication is good. I like the idea of a virtual meeting. We had to keep putting ours off due to folks not being available.
Our charts and meetings have improved over the years and continue to improve. But I think some areas are a little weak. Any advice would be appreciated.


Here are some of what is covered in our typical meetings (#1 - 8 I think is good) (#9 - 11 NEEDS HELP):
1. Promise performance (trended with goals).
2. Claims (trended by pounds and top 10 claim reasons. Also includes % of claims by number of lots shipped).
3. X-lots (remakes) (trended many different ways- reasons why, by pounds, by number of items, over time (trend is going down), etc).
4. Corrective actions (response time is trended & sources are reviewed (customer complaints, internal audits, external audits, issued to suppliers, etc)).
5. Preventive actions (numbers are broken into categories- ex. improved productivity, increased customer satisfaction, etc).
6. Supplier audits (details are given as necessary).
7. Customer Satisfaction- (trended data is given).
8. Supplier Performance- (details are given from Supplier Review meeting).

**PLEASE HELP**
9. Document & Data Control (the total documents changed- numbers are given, reasons why are given (due to audit- internal, external, corrective action, preventive action, master training, etc. Minor/major change, New/Obsolete/Improving process, etc)- This needs help!!
10. External Audits- (Who they were, if corrective actions were issued- how many they were and if they were responded to on time). Please help.
11. Internal Audits- (list schedule, show goal for on time performance (trended), list cars & observations). I was thinking about breaking the cars & observations into a paredo chart- other suggestions?

Thank you.

 

[JaneB]

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

I think the dimension of 'maturity' is missing in these posts. If you have a maturity with management regarding the purpose of reviewing the system, then by all means do it 'remotely'.

My experiences have been that, in the early stages of implementation, it's beneficial to round up the management team, have them sit around a conference table and 'talk' to their use of the quality system as a tool to achieve objectives!

Indeed, by doing such, I have had a CEO say it was the most productive meeting they'd ever had. It became apparent that some of the management team couldn't get prepared with their figures, trends etc and were unable to give a good account of their process. This is despite only having to hand off their numbers to someone else who formatted the graphs and charts!

Needless to say, those (managers) who didn't get it (and they were given more than enough time) eventually couldn't stand the heat, so got out of the kitchen (by themselves).

By holding a management review in this manner, where the MR doesn't do all the work, brought about a maturity that was necessary to get the organization to the next level of implementation. Any pressure was purely peer pressure and the CEO was delighted with the value the review brought, outside of the need for complying with 'ISO'.

Oh really, really good points, Andy! You're quite right, the maturity level is important. And I agree that until the organisation develops some level of maturity, remote meetings aren't likely to be feasible.

And your final point about the CEO being delighted about the value the review brought (aside from compliance requirement) is what, in my view, it's all supposed to be about. Complying is important, yes, but if more people would only focus on why that requirement is there and its purpose (beyond mere compliance) we might see more value being added. Which is what's supposed to be happening.

 

[JaneB]

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

Koala,

Re. #9 do you need this? What value does it add? You could just present it as a report, for eg, and discuss only if necessary.

Are you not already dealing with CAs (if any)& PAs in #4 and #5? Seems to be overlap & duplication here & in 10 & 11? I'd focus on overall results & findings in audits.

And put customer satisfaction higher up the scale!

My overall suggestion is that possibly you're focussing too heavily on being able to 'satisfy the auditor' - why not stand back & ask yourself, what does our company want to review? And what would we call it (you don't have to use the headings from 9001)? And in what order of importance? etc.

What do you discuss at staff meetings? How do those relate?

 

[Koala]

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

JaneB,
You made some very valuable points. I think there is overlap/duplication- just discussed in different ways. I will look at deleting this duplicate information.
Staff meeting discussions do relate. I will take a heavier look and see what we can do.
Thank you.
Koala.

 

[JaneB]

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

Maybe also consider suppliers as the topic - including performance, any new needed/under consideration, rather than just restricted to supplier audits?

You see, you start off on good stuff that sounds specific to your company(1-3) but then increasingly it starts to sound like a 'Standard-speak checklist'...

I'd always try & avoid overlap/discussing things 'in different ways'. It often makes for confusion, where people don't know what's supposed to be discussed under what heading.