Management Representative is NOT a member of Management

[Wes Bucey]

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?

Seems to me ALL managers hold the position because top management agrees they should hold the position. Does that make ALL managers 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.

The loopholes are there because the committee said in the introduction to ISO 9001,
"0.3
...[ISO 9001] focuses on the effectiveness of the quality management system in meeting customer requirements."

No one, least of all the auditor cited by the OP, has suggested the OP's organization has failed to meet customer requirements,except, perhaps, those who persist in terming an organization "substandard" and implying that substandard (because it fails to meet one auditor's impression that his definition of management is more accurate than the definition of the top management of the client organization) by extension means that the organization is substandard in meeting customer requirements..
\
Further, the idea that a person is a scape goat (cleverly stricken instead of deleted so we would all know what the writer's real thought was) does not jibe [agree] with the idea any MR should be a functioning member of a QMS, but is rather a gibe [sarcastic slur] that any [generic] MR is merely a scape goat (for whom? arrogant auditors?)

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?

Has anyone explained the clues used by the auditor in the OP's account to determine the MR was NOT a de facto member of management? (I recall a time when I was the principal stockholder of a company with the function of CFO, but my business card had only my name - was I somehow NOT a member of management because my business card didn't have those three letters?)

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.

I don't think the 2000/2008 difference has anything to do with it. Who decides what "member of management" means in this context? Who decides who's a member of management and who's not? What if I, as "top" management, decree that one defining characteristic of membership in management is appointment as MR, irrespective of other responsibilities? Does this mean that an auditor has the authority to unilaterally declare that I'm wrong, and that the person appointed is not a member of management?

I like Jim Wynne's reasoning, here.

 

[Paul Simpson]

Seems to me ALL managers hold the position because top management agrees they should hold the position. Does that make ALL managers suspect?

Agreed!

The loopholes are there because the committee said in the introduction to ISO 9001,
"0.3
...[ISO 9001] focuses on the effectiveness of the quality management system in meeting customer requirements."

No one, least of all the auditor cited by the OP, has suggested the OP's organization has failed to meet customer requirements,except, perhaps, those who persist in terming an organization "substandard" and implying that substandard (because it fails to meet one auditor's impression that his definition of management is more accurate than the definition of the top management of the client organization) by extension means that the organization is substandard in meeting customer requirements..

Disagreed. There is no 'loophole' in the clause you quoted. In defining the scope of ISO 9001 the intent is to distinguish this management system standard from others. So if we're interested in quality (or fulfilling customer requirements) we refer to 9001, environmental management - 14001, occupational health & safety - 18001. You get the idea. The OP has confessed that they ignored the requirement for MR so how the auditor looked at it is pretty irrelevant. The general point that some of us have been trying to say in this thread is that people should follow the spirit of the standard (in this case that the person with responsibility for the QMS should have the necessary 'grunt' to get it done well). If we can't even agree this is the issue then we're never going to agree on whether an auditor's finding is accurate.

Further, the idea that a person is a scape goat (cleverly stricken instead of deleted so we would all know what the writer's real thought was) does not jibe [agree] with the idea any MR should be a functioning member of a QMS, but is rather a gibe [sarcastic slur] that any [generic] MR is merely a scape goat (for whom? arrogant auditors?)

Very interesting, Wes. Not sure what your point is, though.

Has anyone explained the clues used by the auditor in the OP's account to determine the MR was NOT a de facto member of management? (I recall a time when I was the principal stockholder of a company with the function of CFO, but my business card had only my name - was I somehow NOT a member of management because my business card didn't have those three letters?)[/COLOR

As mentioned we don't have a lot about what was written but do know the company were playing lip service to the requirement. Your personal example is a good one. Any auditor worth their salt would very quickly established from your gravitas and approach that you are / were one of the organization's 'big dogs' and wouldn't be writing anything up.

 

[Jim Wynne]

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.

Because my original scenario was hypothetical, permit me the liberty of extending it. Suppose that Sally's company is comprised of say, ten people, including the "top" manager. None of the other nine, including Sally, have any words in their titles that would suggest that they are managers. There's a machine operator, a shipping guy, a few assemblers and a few office people. Is it your contention that in such a situation, the "top" manager should be enjoined from delegating MR responsibility, given that Sally has prior experience with ISO 9001 and no one else does, and has proven herself capable of satisfying the requirements for MR set out in the standard and the QMS is demonstrably effective?

Rather than honoring the intent of the standard, what you're suggesting here is that babies should be thrown out with the bath water. If in trying to do what makes the most sense in continualously satisfying customer requirements one is reduced to resorting to "technicalities and subterfuges," I submit that the defect is in the standard and not in the strategy chosen to satisfy it.

If the great concern is that no one other than a titular manager can accomplish the requirements set out in the standard, you are wrong. If the contention is that having an incompetent titled manager as MR is better than having a competent person--irrespective of other responsibilities--in the position, you are very wrong if we're to agree that the purpose of the QMS is effectiveness in meeting customer requirements. That is the overarching intent of the standard.

 

[Big Jim]

Because my original scenario was hypothetical, permit me the liberty of extending it. Suppose that Sally's company is comprised of say, ten people, including the "top" manager. None of the other nine, including Sally, have any words in their titles that would suggest that they are managers. There's a machine operator, a shipping guy, a few assemblers and a few office people. Is it your contention that in such a situation, the "top" manager should be enjoined from delegating MR responsibility, given that Sally has prior experience with ISO 9001 and no one else does, and has proven herself capable of satisfying the requirements for MR set out in the standard and the QMS is demonstrably effective?

Rather than honoring the intent of the standard, what you're suggesting here is that babies should be thrown out with the bath water. If in trying to do what makes the most sense in continualously satisfying customer requirements one is reduced to resorting to "technicalities and subterfuges," I submit that the defect is in the standard and not in the strategy chosen to satisfy it.

If the great concern is that no one other than a titular manager can accomplish the requirements set out in the standard, you are wrong. If the contention is that having an incompetent titled manager as MR is better than having a competent person--irrespective of other responsibilities--in the position, you are very wrong if we're to agree that the purpose of the QMS is effectiveness in meeting customer requirements. That is the overarching intent of the standard.

As you extend the scenario, I would agree that Sally could indeed be a manager and could be an effective management representative.

Your extension, though, are facts not originally in evidence.

To support what you just said, I call on a plating shop that is family owned. Dad is the President. Mom is the controller. Each of the three sons are Vice Presidents. Collectively they comprise the board of directors. The management representative is one of the sons. That's all clear enough. In this case, the management representitive is not just a manager, he is a member of top management.

The company has less than twenty employees. At times, the management representative needs to take up slack when there is a really big order, or when one of the platers is sick, and do some plating. Actually, there is one plating process that he usually does because he has the expertese needed.

Even though the management representative in this case steps back into production at times, there is no reason to believe that he isn't a member of management.

From your earlier presentation of the scenario, there is grave doubt that the press punch operator is a member of management. More investigation would be needed. If it could be clearly determined that they were not a member of management, I would be writing it up.

 

[Jim Wynne]

From your earlier presentation of the scenario, there is grave doubt that the press punch operator is a member of management. More investigation would be needed. If it could be clearly determined that they were not a member of management, I would be writing it up.

What criteria would you use in determining that someone is or is not a manager?

 

[Big Jim]

What criteria would you use in determining that someone is or is not a manager?

What criteria would you use to determine that they were a manager?

In business school, we were given two definitions of management. One is "getting things done through people" and the other is "control".

Would a person that operates a punch machine, and nothing else, be able to demonstrate either of those two attributes?

Again, what criteria would you use to determine that they were a manager?

 

[Jim Wynne]

What criteria would you use to determine that they were a manager?

In business school, we were given two definitions of management. One is "getting things done through people" and the other is "control".

Would a person that operates a punch machine, and nothing else, be able to demonstrate either of those two attributes?

Again, what criteria would you use to determine that they were a manager?

Results.

 

[Big Jim]

Results.

That good as far as it goes, and pretty much agrees with what I just said, but results of what? Remember this is your scenario.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

If the great concern is that no one other than a titular manager can accomplish the requirements set out in the standard, you are wrong.

Earlier in this thread, I already stated that the major concerns for me, related to the role of a MR are authority and competence. The Standard throws in the bit about "being part of the management team" simply because, common sense tells everyone that, without being "high enough" in the organization structure, people will not perceive authority in you.

I've been exposed to an organization where a VP of Engineering deliberately falsified design review records, because he did not want other functions critiquing the design package and delaying the new product introduction in the market. Do you really think that a document control clerk, several pay grades below the VP, but assigned as the MR will be able to tell the VP of Engineering that design reviews must happen, as per the requirements and intent of the ISO 9001 standard?

With the shifting scenarios, Jim, I can only sympathize with the writers of the document that must come up with a text that can be "universally adopted", irrespective of the size of the organization, product/service line, etc. But I stand by all my previous posts in this thread. The INTENT of the standard in this paragraph is clear to those who are competent in management systems and are less concerned in creating/allowing loopholes to pass an audit.

Having someone low in the organization, without functional authority, acting as the MR is a crass failure to comprehend the meaning of the MR role. It is a clear failure to comply with the INTENT of the standard.

 

[Big Jim]

Earlier in this thread, I already stated that the major concerns for me, related to the role of a MR are authority and competence. The Standard throws in the bit about "being part of the management team" simply because, common sense tells everyone that, without being "high enough" in the organization structure, people will not perceive authority in you.

I've been exposed to an organization where a VP of Engineering deliberately falsified design review records, because he did not want other functions critiquing the design package and delaying the new product introduction in the market. Do you really think that a document control clerk, several pay grades below the VP, but assigned as the MR will be able to tell the VP of Engineering that design reviews must happen, as per the requirements and intent of the ISO 9001 standard?

With the shifting scenarios, Jim, I can only sympathize with the writers of the document that must come up with a text that can be "universally adopted", irrespective of the size of the organization, product/service line, etc. But I stand by all my previous posts in this thread. The INTENT of the standard in this paragraph is clear to those who are competent in management systems and are less concerned in creating/allowing loopholes to pass an audit.

Having someone low in the organization, without functional authority, acting as the MR is a crass failure to comprehend the meaning of the MR role. It is a clear failure to comply with the INTENT of the standard.

Thank you Sidney for reminding us about competency. The management representative must be competent for that role just like every other position in the quality management system.

I'll mentally add that to my list of potential ways to write up that nonconformity (if it is determined to be a nonconformity).