Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

ISO 9001 - 9.3.1 Management Review - Content and Frequency

GunLake

Involved In Discussions
#1
Have my first audit since i stated here coming up this month, Reading through the notes from the Previous Quality Manager, I see apparently they complained about Management Review 9.3.1 in our Quality Manual, Having "Management Review meeting held weekly" but not discussing everything weekly. How they do it here is just cover 1 or 2 items weekly but everything is covered at least once Quarterly. I've dealt with ISO 9001 very little, This is my first ISO audit coming up. Having a hard time trying to word this to prevent another complaint,
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Management review meetings are held weekly at the company, Covering all sections at least once quarterly."
 
Paid Advertisement - Forum Supporter

blackholequasar

Involved In Discussions
#2
ISO 9001:2015 doesn't state the frequency that you are required to have the meetings, only that they are required. That being said, the companies I've worked with have done this as little as once a year, and as frequently as quarterly. I've never heard of weekly Management Reviews, but it's really whatever works best with your company. Internal audits (different than management reviews) are to be held at planned intervals to prove that the QMS is effective and maintained.

Was this complaint on a previous ISO audit as a finding/Non-conformance or was it something that the QM just noted as a complaint?
 

GunLake

Involved In Discussions
#4
Was this complaint on a previous ISO audit as a finding/Non-conformance or was it something that the QM just noted as a complaint?
Hi, Thanks for the reply.
It was not a formal complaint / NC. It was just a complaint from the Auditor to the QM, He just noted some suggestions & small complaints that the Auditor had mentioned.
 

Tagin

Quite Involved in Discussions
#5
Have my first audit since i stated here coming up this month, Reading through the notes from the Previous Quality Manager, I see apparently they complained about Management Review 9.3.1 in our Quality Manual, Having "Management Review meeting held weekly" but not discussing everything weekly. How they do it here is just cover 1 or 2 items weekly but everything is covered at least once Quarterly. I've dealt with ISO 9001 very little, This is my first ISO audit coming up. Having a hard time trying to word this to prevent another complaint,
I'm thinking something along the lines of "Management review meetings are held weekly at the company, Covering all sections at least once quarterly."
That technically might save you from an N/C, but I think the intent is that the topics covered in Mgmt Review are synergistic, and together they provide a holistic review of the organization; so chopping them up into separate weekly sections may defeat that intent. How relevant is the extent to which quality objectives have been met (9.3.2c.2) from a mgmt review done in the first week of July to an assessment of adequacy of resources (9.3.2d) in the last week of Sept.? I see a lot of risk in that.

In addition, unless you are using a form that gives you some organized continuity in the recording of the weekly review sections (their inputs/outputs/notes, it may be difficult to demonstrate the entire review was done.

I'd vote for a less frequent but complete mgmt review, and repurpose the weekly meetings to a 'hot topics' or 'status' meeting.

(My suspicion is that mgmt review was grudgingly added piecemeal into pre-existing weekly meetings as a less painful way for mgmt to swallow the pill of having to do them.)
 
#6
It's a bogus comment. The reality is, at good companies, management review is an ongoing process. Rather than have separate management review meetings, we include management review topics in our weekly/monthly meetings. We hit those that that are relevant that week. Over the course of the year, all topics are hit at least once. We keep a running checklist and notes to make sure we get to everything. Keep doing what you're doing. Good luck.
 

Jim Wynne

Super Moderator
#7
That technically might save you from an N/C, but I think the intent is that the topics covered in Mgmt Review are synergistic, and together they provide a holistic review of the organization; so chopping them up into separate weekly sections may defeat that intent. How relevant is the extent to which quality objectives have been met (9.3.2c.2) from a mgmt review done in the first week of July to an assessment of adequacy of resources (9.3.2d) in the last week of Sept.? I see a lot of risk in that.
I don't know the nature of the risk you're referring to. As far as intent is concerned, I think the intent was to get top management involved in things, and a periodic meeting where the top manager fiddles with his phone, digresses from the topic at hand and can't wait for it to be overwith is probably not consonant with the intent. There is no requirement for a meeting to begin with, and certainly no requirement for defined intervals of meetings if they are convened. Observe the requirements for inputs and outputs and be done with it, whether it's daily or annually.
 

Tagin

Quite Involved in Discussions
#8
I don't know the nature of the risk you're referring to.
The risk that if mgmt review is handled 9.3.2 section-by-section piecemeal over a quarter, then information covered at the beginning of the quarter may be stale at the end of the quarter, and so be whatever 9.3.2 sub-section decisions are handled at the end of the quarter are not based on current information. On the other hand, if the relevant information is updated at the end of the quarter, then that's fine, but it begs the question - then why not just do it once each quarter?

I'm open to an ongoing, flexible approach, but I think it has to be well thought out and documented well, so as to provide cogent documented information.

As far as intent is concerned, I think the intent was to get top management involved in things, and a periodic meeting where the top manager fiddles with his phone, digresses from the topic at hand and can't wait for it to be overwith is probably not consonant with the intent.
Inconceivable - that never happens! :)
 

Jim Wynne

Super Moderator
#9
The risk that if mgmt review is handled 9.3.2 section-by-section piecemeal over a quarter, then information covered at the beginning of the quarter may be stale at the end of the quarter, and so be whatever 9.3.2 sub-section decisions are handled at the end of the quarter are not based on current information.
I don't know how the concept of quarters is relevant. You're assuming that no "fresh" information will be dealt with at each meeting, regardless of the intervals. If a deficiency is discussed in one meeting, the assumption should be that the results of action items pertaining to it will be addressed at the next meeting. There is, or should be, a continuum.
 

Tagin

Quite Involved in Discussions
#10
I don't know how the concept of quarters is relevant. You're assuming that no "fresh" information will be dealt with at each meeting, regardless of the intervals. If a deficiency is discussed in one meeting, the assumption should be that the results of action items pertaining to it will be addressed at the next meeting. There is, or should be, a continuum.
'Quarter' is from the OP's original statement: How they do it here is just cover 1 or 2 items weekly but everything is covered at least once Quarterly.

As I said, I'm open to an ongoing, flexible approach, but I think it has to be well thought out and documented well, so as to provide cogent documented information. But I'd still vote for a less frequent but complete review.
 
Top Bottom