Management Rep Responsibilities - Interpreting and Implementing ISO 9001 5.5.2c

[Carl Exter]

Hey I did a search through the forums under management representative, but didn't seem to find what I was looking for. If anyone has seen a similar discussion and can point me in the right way I'd appreciate it.

What I'm wondering, is how people are interpreting and implementing ISO9001:2000 5.5.2c where it says that the MR will have responsibility and authority for "ensuring the promotion of awareness of customer requirements throughout the organization."

ISO9004 doesn't really seem to address this point directly. What do you think this means, or what would you expect to see if this was adequately implemented? Thanks!

 

[David Mullins]

things like:

awareness training - package and proof of delivery.

customer requirements are included in processes parameters or measured product characteristics - this occurs at many stages of the overall process, from contract review through servicing. Basically looking that customer expectation matches the product.

policy states something (preferably measurable) about customer satisfaction

policy states something (preferably measurable) about customer requirements being met by ...........

etc.

 

[Jimmy Olson]

Hi Carl,

We have this integrated into our policy and our objectives, both of which are posted all over the company. Our MR also covers the policy and objectives each month at an all employee meeting. I realize that some companies don't have meetings each month, but you could possibly look at posting the policy in places. Even though you might be the one to post it, your MR can still take the credit

Hope this helps.

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Agreed

Hi Carl,

I agree with the replies so far, so I have nothing further to add there. I also agree with you that both ISO 9004 and indeed 9001 could have been clearer on this point.

It's a good thing that you brought the subject up, because from what I keep hearing around here, this clause is creating a lot of bewilderment.

/Claes

 

[M Greenaway]

My thoughts on this are that this 'requirement' like many similar in the new standard are on the whole un-auditable if taken literally.

I dont think you need to be looking for what top management itself physically does to ensure this. But what it does show you is where the responsibility lies if you find in the organisation that the activity isnt being done.

Am I making any sense today ?

 

[M Greenaway]

Jim

You could be right, lets hope we dont see our workplace inundated with those tacky posters and slogans however, eh.

But thinking in terms of the auditing of processes, if we were to audit the process of 'top management communication of the importance of meeting customer requirements' would we not look for the output of this process, and how effective it has been by simply asking people doing the actual work if they understand the importance of their tasks ?

If so then we dont need ask our MD what he has done for this requirement, but rather ask the staff for their understanding ?

Maybe ??

 

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Jim Wade said:

-----X------
We mustn't confuse what last century's version of this 'standard' allowed us to get away with (i.e. often no management involvement at all) with what the radically different new version now requires.

rgds Jim

Amen to that. For all it's worth, at least the responsibility is bolted firmly where it belongs.

/Claes

 

[M Greenaway]

Claes

My point exactly !

 

[June Ang - 2005]

Why must know who is MR?

We just having our ISO 14001 & OHSAS 18001 system live audit on last few days.

During the interview section, the auditor has asked the same question to the 3 interviewees : Who is the MR?

As we never emphasis on MR but more on the Policy and Objectives & Targets, so 2 of them given the wrong answer which they thought is me (incharge for ISO 14001) or another gentlemen (incharge for OHSAS 18001), as we are the one who always went to site to do the training & site visit.

Although the auditor didn't give us any NC or observation on that, but he did mentioned that the staff should aware of who is MR.

Our question is that :
- Why must know who is MR?
- What are the effects to the system by knowing who is MR? How it help in improving the system?

Thanks.

 

[M Greenaway]

It is a 'shall' to appoint an MR, and the auditor should establish that there is one (or some), he may do this by asking people who the MR is, but should bear in mind that he might be asking the wrong people.

Now if the MD didnt know it would suggest that an MR hadnt been appointed. As to why have an MR, well someone has to be responsible for those activities defined in the standard as an MR's responsibilities, and without conflict of interest.