Management Representative is NOT a member of Management

[Jim Wynne]

I.M.H.O. I would say that this questions sums up what's been said, but as far I am concerned this forum is for help when new kids on the block needs it, and we are looking at the pro's and those experienced ones to help,that's what brought me to the forum, but it seems like the pro's and the experienced ones are not much help.

If there's disagreement as to interpretation amongst experienced people, what does that tell you? Frankly, your observation that people who are here day after day helping people (and some for a considerably longer time than I) "...are not much help" might indicate a lack of insight on your part.

No one should expect to get neatly-wrapped, unanimous answers when the source material has been left open to interpretation, and it has been left open to interpretation in this case, as the varied answers from experienced people attest.

I dont think that standard(s) or the requirements of standards are not clear, maybe people interpret them as they wish to make their world better or easier.

Further up the thread you expressed your opinion in this matter, giving the impression that you came to the question in the belief that management review must take the form of meetings which the MR must attend. I pointed out that neither of these things are true (which is not in dispute, I hope). I hope you found that information helpful.

So I am just wondering how much help the person got who started this thread ??

There are times when a thread like this will take a turn and the needs of the OP get pushed aside, but I don't think this is one of them. There are numerous posts where good and direct advice was given.

 

[Big Jim]

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

Jane,

I'm going to guess that you need a reading lesson, or a math lesson.

5.5.2 a "ensuring that the processes needed for the quality management system are established, implemented, and maintained"

At least three concepts in there. Not just one. 1) qms is established 2) qms is implemented 3) qms is maintained

5.5.2 b "reporting to top management on the performance of the quality management system and any need for improvement"

At least two concepts in there. 1) reporting to management on the performance of the qms (which is multifaceted) 2) reporting to top management on any need for improvement of the qms (again multifaceted)

5.5.2 c "ensuring the promotion of awareness of customer requirements throughout the organization" (again multifaceted when you consider the myriad of customer requirements and the myriad of ways as well as the myriad of ways to address them)

So I would say there is a myriad of topics covered in the responsibilities of the management representative.

A myriad is many more than three.

 

[Big Jim]

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."

I think that ISO 9001:2008 is clear on the topic. I suspect that some confusion comes from trying to apply TC176 interpretations on the topic that were made to ISO 9001:2000, before the wording was changed.

But I see your point. TC176 should readdress element 5.5.2 in light of the new wording.

 

[Big Jim]

Seriously, Jim? Wow...

Andy,

In the example given, a punch press operator that is identified as the management representative with no outward evidence of being a manager should raise any auditor's eyebrows.

If indeed the ONLY evidence that the punch press operator is a member of management is that a member of top management says they are, that is even more suspect.

That wouldn't get YOUR attention?

 

[Sidney Vianna]

In the example given, a punch press operator that is identified as the management representative with no outward evidence of being a manager should raise any auditor's eyebrows.

If indeed the ONLY evidence that the punch press operator is a member of management is that a member of top management says they are, that is even more suspect.

That is correct. This whole debacle just shows how ISO 9001 CERTIFICATION has been trivialized and dumbed down in order for more organizations to attain and maintain certification.

Misguided professionals use technicalities and subterfuges, clearly deviating from the intent of the standard, in order to allow substandard systems to be "certifiable". Substandard, by definition means below standard.

Confidence in the system performance should be the end goal here. Not finding loopholes in the document to "justify" poor Sally Smith as the designated scape goat MR.

 

[AndyN]

Jim you wrote:

"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".

then:

"In the example given, a punch press operator that is identified as the management representative with no outward evidence of being a manager should raise any auditor's eyebrows.

If indeed the ONLY evidence that the punch press operator is a member of management is that a member of top management says they are, that is even more suspect.

That wouldn't get YOUR attention?"

Firstly, you inserted your interpretation - not what the standard says - 'shall appoint a member of the organization's management" not member of TOP management as you wrote!

There's a big leap between getting someone's attention, when auditing, to dig further and what you're proposing. You say you wouldn't write it as a non-conformity, yet you behave as if it is! You seem to position yourself on the fence then not give any indications as to what it would take to get you off the fence, other than feelings or opinions? It reads to me that you've made up your mind that this person, even though we are only given a title, can't in any way be the Management Rep...

Further, you gave no indication to any reader as to what evidence you would seek to see if the situation is effective. Maybe we don't 'like' a press operator as MR, but if the place is small enough, they don't have a lot of 'titles' floating around, then maybe it works. I certainly don't agree with any non-conformance that would lump this under 4.1 - what's that got to do with the situation in hand?

 

[Big Jim]

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.



There's a big leap between getting someone's attention, when auditing, to dig further and what you're proposing. You say you wouldn't write it as a non-conformity, yet you behave as if it is! You seem to position yourself on the fence then not give any indications as to what it would take to get you off the fence, other than feelings or opinions?

Further, you gave no indication to any reader as to what evidence you would seek to see if the situation is effective. Maybe we don't 'like' a press operator as MR, but if the place is small enough, they don't have a lot of 'titles' floating around, then maybe it works. I certainly don't agree with any non-conformance that would lump this under 4.1 - what's that got to do with the situation in hand?

Andy,

I stand on my earlier comment. On the face of the evidence given I PROBABLY WOULD WRITE THIS ONE UP.

The reason for probably is to extend the benefit of the doubt until it is investigated. On face value, as presented, there likely isn't much doubt.

 

[Big Jim]

Jim you wrote:

"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".

then:

"In the example given, a punch press operator that is identified as the management representative with no outward evidence of being a manager should raise any auditor's eyebrows.

If indeed the ONLY evidence that the punch press operator is a member of management is that a member of top management says they are, that is even more suspect.

That wouldn't get YOUR attention?"

Firstly, you inserted your interpretation - not what the standard says - 'shall appoint a member of the organization's management" not member of TOP management as you wrote!

There's a big leap between getting someone's attention, when auditing, to dig further and what you're proposing. You say you wouldn't write it as a non-conformity, yet you behave as if it is! You seem to position yourself on the fence then not give any indications as to what it would take to get you off the fence, other than feelings or opinions? It reads to me that you've made up your mind that this person, even though we are only given a title, can't in any way be the Management Rep...

Further, you gave no indication to any reader as to what evidence you would seek to see if the situation is effective. Maybe we don't 'like' a press operator as MR, but if the place is small enough, they don't have a lot of 'titles' floating around, then maybe it works. I certainly don't agree with any non-conformance that would lump this under 4.1 - what's that got to do with the situation in hand?

Andy,

I don't believe that the management representative needs to be a member of TOP MANAGEMENT. I don't believe I have ever said that. I said if a top manager told me the management representative was a manager with no other evidence it would be very suspect.

 

[AndyN]

Andy,

I stand on my earlier comment. On the face of the evidence given I PROBABLY WOULD WRITE THIS ONE UP.

The reason for probably is to extend the benefit of the doubt until it is investigated. On face value, as presented, there likely isn't much doubt.

What grounds can you possibly have for 'probably' writing this up as a non-conformity?

 

[Big Jim]

What grounds can you possibly have for 'probably' writing this up as a non-conformity?

The grounds that it probably is.