Management Representative is NOT a member of Management

[AndyN]

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.

With respect Jim, and to make a learning point for those who may be the MR and also those who are auditors encountering this situation:

You have made the statement you believe the situation given by Jim Wynne to be a non-conformance. Others don't agree.

So, to help us (all) to see it from your perspective, how would you report this? Perhaps you'd be good enough, as a professional external auditor, to phrase your nc here, including which requirement of the ISO standard, on the Cove.

If you still need some further evidence in support of your finding, what would you be looking for and, where would you obtain this evidence?

As an auditor, I'm open minded enough to learn from your viewpoint, why this is a reportable nc...

 

[Big Jim]

With respect Jim, and to make a learning point for those who may be the MR and also those who are auditors encountering this situation:

You have made the statement you believe the situation given by Jim Wynne to be a non-conformance. Others don't agree.

So, to help us (all) to see it from your perspective, how would you report this? Perhaps you'd be good enough, as a professional external auditor, to phrase your nc here, including which requirement of the ISO standard, on the Cove.

If you still need some further evidence in support of your finding, what would you be looking for and, where would you obtain this evidence?

As an auditor, I'm open minded enough to learn from your viewpoint, why this is a reportable nc...

I'm waiting for Jim's response. It's his scenario. When that plays out we can pursue your question.

 

[Jim Wynne]

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.

It doesn't agree in any way with what you said, and what prompted my question, which was that you would probably write the thing up and then look for evidence, which is a bass-ackwards way of auditing, I think. I asked what criteria you would use in determining who's a manager and who's not (because you were skeptical), and you dodged the question by turning it back on me. Let's be clear on that.

Now--if the top manager told me that Sally was the MR, I would accept that and move on with the audit. If, during the course of the audit, I were to find evidence that responsibilities of the MR were not being fulfilled, I would document the nonconformity, but I would do exactly the same thing if the MR were Vice President in Charge of Everything. I would have no concern whatsoever about titles. I would be concerned only with effectiveness.

 

[Jim Wynne]

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.

If you look at my hypothetical again (the purpose of which was not to provide an answer to cover every situation) you will see that there is nothing in evidence to indicate that Sally is "low in the organization" and "without functional authority." I said that she is a punch press operator, nothing more. This is a sign of making an a priori judgment in your case, which is a form of bias, which is not a good trait for an auditor.

In many cases, influence is more important than delegated authority. Some people have a knack for getting things done, and getting the ears of the big bosses, even from the lowly position of the production floor and by the same token, there are many hapless doofuses with delegated authority. Authority, in and of itself, is mostly meaningless. Show me the results.

I think the clear intent of the standard is to provide a system for consistently meeting customer requirements.

 

[JaneB]

Re: Management Representative

In many cases, influence is more important than delegated authority. Some people have a knack for getting things done, and getting the ears of the big bosses, even from the lowly position of the production floor and by the same token, there are many hapless doofuses with delegated authority. Authority, in and of itself, is mostly meaningless. Show me the results.

Yes indeed. I have seen cases where someone who might on superficial look appear to be 'low on the totem pole' but who had a great deal of influence with the company, and certainly could & did 'make things happen'.
NB: On reflection, in the case I'm thinking of, the MR was the PA (Personal Assistant) to the General Manager, and thus there was backup authority as well.

if the top manager told me that Sally was the MR, I would accept that and move on with the audit. If, during the course of the audit, I were to find evidence that responsibilities of the MR were not being fulfilled, I would document the nonconformity, but I would do exactly the same thing if the MR were Vice President in Charge of Everything. I would have no concern whatsoever about titles. I would be concerned only with effectiveness.

Sounds an eminently sensible approach to me.

It seems relatively pointless to me arguing about what level on a theoretical organisation chart the theoretical MR 'should' or 'must' be. (But then, I frequently find theoretical arguments rather pointless for a number of reasons.) Jim's point is valid. The key thing always is: what are the results? Is there any actual evidence that this isn't working/isn't working effectively?

Now, in the case of the original poster, he clearly said that the MR wasn't a member of management, and said they had deliberately chosen to ignore that particular part of the clause. Why, I don't know, as it's never a wise decision to deliberately choose to ignore something stipulated in the Standard you want to get certified to.

It's entirely possible - indeed, I hope it is true - that there is other evidence (available to the auditor, but not supplied to us) that there are deficiencies in the system that the auditor believes trace back to clause s/he identified as an NC. Like Jan, I also wonder why it wasn't picked up at the Stage 1. But if there ISN'T any such evidence, and the auditor is purely taking a black and white line on this & refusing to look any further, then I'd very definitely find a better CB. Because it isn't going to get any better from here.

 

[Big Jim]

It doesn't agree in any way with what you said, and what prompted my question, which was that you would probably write the thing up and then look for evidence, which is a bass-ackwards way of auditing, I think. I asked what criteria you would use in determining who's a manager and who's not (because you were skeptical), and you dodged the question by turning it back on me. Let's be clear on that.

Now--if the top manager told me that Sally was the MR, I would accept that and move on with the audit. If, during the course of the audit, I were to find evidence that responsibilities of the MR were not being fulfilled, I would document the nonconformity, but I would do exactly the same thing if the MR were Vice President in Charge of Everything. I would have no concern whatsoever about titles. I would be concerned only with effectiveness.

That really got turned around and I don't see how I said anything like that. I'm no more of a back ass auditor than you are. Of course you confirm a nonconformance before you write it.

A good auditor pays attention, and when something seems out of place, he digs deeper. The way you presented it would have led me to dig deeper.

You say you would not have gone further. OK, it's your scenario, but I have a feeling you mentally pictured a little more than was conveyed.

I also believe the the main intent, or dare I say most important intent, of the standard is to have a system in place that consistantly meets customer requirements. I believe further that there is still another supporting intent that is nearly as important, and that is continual improvement. If continual improvement wasn't needed, the standard would be much shorter, mostly involving production controls.

An inept management representative would greatly hinder continual improvement.

 

[Stijloor]

Friends,

Since 10th January 2011, 207 responses and counting...

Stijloor.

 

[andrev]

I notice that there a a lot of auditors and more senior people, taking part in these discussions,help me with this one. I am just the deputy management rep, although I am the person who designed and implemented and now drives the QMS, I am the only person in the company that knows the different between ISO 9001 and say ISO 14000 but the family (top management)did not want me part of management, so the CEO is the M/R and so the manual reads, I am the D/M/R and so the manual says, I do all the work, and I am the only one who sits with external auditors.
I put this here to show that this "management position" is not taken up lightly by company owners or then top management.By the way I came in as a consultant and was given a full time position to implement and to manage the QMS once I finished the designing.

 

[neyveliravi]

Re: Management Representative

I understand that you have employed the MR as consultant and not your emploee. If I am right,
Root cause: Due to lack of understanding the system requirements, the top management failed to recognize that the Management Representative must be a member of the organization's management.
(I slightly modified the statement of Stijloor)
Correction : The management has given the responsibility to the Quality incharge that, in addition to his present responsibilities, he will be the MR.

His responsibilities are .....

Attach a copy of the appointment order.

 

[JaneB]

I notice that there a a lot of auditors and more senior people, taking part in these discussions,help me with this one.

Andrev, are you asking for some kind of help? If so, what is the question because I couldn't see one? Consider also starting your own NEW thread with a clear title to give people a clue about what it is.