Management Representative is NOT a member of Management

[Randy]

Hello Jim, will get back to you on the 1st q. the 2nd, whose giving the input if the M/R is not part of the review meeting.

Where is there a requirement for a meeting?

 

[Jason PCSwitches]

Jason, the M/R must be shown in the organogram, and this person must be formally appointed by the board/top management. The auditor found it written somewhere/or that the management rep was part of management.But the inconsistency must be that he/she was not formally appointed as such, for QMS purposes that is. The M/R will not sit at board meetings,but will sit at review meetings.

This is getting ludicrous. The intent of the standard is to ensure a competent member of the organization is placed in charge of the QMS associated with the corresponding standard. Sure, you can have Tom the Janitor be the MR, and he might be able to do the job. But is that the best way to go about this? And what would that say about the organization that made such a move in respect to how seriously they take their QMS??

Your statement about the organizational chart is mistaken. While I personally think every organization should have one, it's not a requirement and as long as the organization can demonstrate compliance I have no justification for an NC because "I" think there is a better way. The organization needs to ensure (under 5.5.1) that "responsibilities and authorities are defined and communicated".

As per 4.2.1; note 3; this can be in any form or type of medium.

The OP doesn't state how the auditor justified the NC, unless I missed it, but I agree, and I hope, it was based on some objective evidence and not just a preference.

The OP also stated that they chose to ignore that part of the standard, which is probably why they got a write-up.

 

[Jason PCSwitches]

Jason, the M/R must be shown in the organogram, and this person must be formally appointed by the board/top management. The auditor found it written somewhere/or that the management rep was part of management.But the inconsistency must be that he/she was not formally appointed as such, for QMS purposes that is. The M/R will not sit at board meetings,but will sit at review meetings.

This also brings another point to the surface: A good auditor must not be biased. Personal bias is generally derived from personal experience. An auditor must remain open minded and understand, not to be clique, that there are different strokes for different folks. At the end of the day the important thing is to ensure the intent and the integrity of the associated standard is being upheld and providing value to the organization; which has a positive ripple affect to the corresponding industry, sometimes.

After-all, isn't that one of the main reasons this whole game got started, improvement and quality???

 

[AndyN]

Hello Jim, will get back to you on the 1st q. the 2nd, whose giving the input if the M/R is not part of the review meeting.

I don't believe that the MR needs to have total responsibility for the review of the QMS. Often it's the case that the review is totally run by the MR and everyone else merely 'shows up'. This helps them avoid being 'committed' to the QMS as a tool for improvement! If I had my druthers, the MR wouldn't say very much, at all!

 

[JaneB]

OK, change the verb as you wish. There is still more than three things involved.

You can create as many 'Standard according to Jim' varieties as you wish, but I'm staying with the official version.

 

[Big Jim]

You can create as many 'Standard according to Jim' varieties as you wish, but I'm staying with the official version.

But you didn't.

You are reading much too narrow. Each of the three you cited has much more in it. You are the one creating your own standard.

 

[Big Jim]

You would write up the situation I described, where the CEO has explicitly stated that Sally is a member of management, and all of the responsibilities of the MR had been satisfied? On what grounds?

I cannot say for certain that I would write this up. I said I probably would. What grounds? Probably 4.1 c. QMS controls must be effective. On its face this situation is ludicrous.

 

[Jim Wynne]

I cannot say for certain that I would write this up. I said I probably would. What grounds? Probably 4.1 c. QMS controls must be effective. On its face this situation is ludicrous.

I think it's ludicrous too, but for a different reason, which is that our friends on the TC176 committee have never provided an unequivocal way to determine identify ascertain who's "a member of the organization's management."

 

[JaneB]

You are reading much too narrow. Each of the three you cited has much more in it.

Sounds like a bid for 'I'm the only one who really understands all this' .

 

[AndyN]

I cannot say for certain that I would write this up. I said I probably would. What grounds? Probably 4.1 c. QMS controls must be effective.

Seriously, Jim? Wow...