Management Representative is NOT a member of Management

[Wes Bucey]

The implied definition of the MR is the individual who is ensuring the quality management system is established implemented maintained and reports to top management. They also communicate to staff about customer requirements. This sounds like the Quality Manager or equivalents responsibility to me. As far as the CAR root cause either you own it or find who does even if it is the head of the company and document it.

Not "implied" - DEFINED. The MR must have apparent authority - certainly more than a file clerk.

 

[JaneB]

In our most recent external periodic audit we had a n/c written up against section 5.5.2. The individual we identified as the MR is NOT a member of management.

.... The real root cause is that we made a conscious decision to ignore this portion of the standard. We didn't feel it was important enough when compared with our issues with document control, tool calibration etc etc.

And now you know what the consequences of that conscious decision are.

Time to make another (and better) conscious decision.

The Standard is very clear on the requirement (my bold added):

5.5.2 Management representative
Top management shall appoint a member of the organization's management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes
a) ensuring that processes needed for the quality management system are established, implemented and maintained,
b) reporting to top management on the performance of the quality management system and any need for improvement, and
c) ensuring the promotion of awareness of customer requirements throughout he organization.

Those are important responsibilities and authorities, definitely not ones to be ignored or considered 'less important'.

But in doing the CA, I wouldn't worry too much. You could say something like 'failed to fully appreciate/understand the requirement' rather than admitting you ignored it.

If the existing one is too lowly on the totem pole, replace them with one high up - as required by the Standard. If there already is one but the system doesn't cover that, make sure it does (eg, include on your org chart/in a job description, even in a management meeting).

 

[daraghofla]

Re: Management Representative

Root cause: Top Management failed to recognize that the Management Representative must be a member of the organization's management.

Go with this, and that's it. Sometimes we have to owe up to our sins...

Stijloor.

I disagree. This describes the problem. It is not the root cause. The root cause is more likely a lack of training for the the Q eng. in sofar as to their failure to understand the relevance of management responsibility.

However, if I am wrong or you disagree, please let me know. If I'm wrong, I would love to know.

 

[harry]

I disagree. This describes the problem. It is not the root cause. The root cause is more likely a lack of training for the the Q eng. in sofar as to their failure to understand the relevance of management responsibility. .........................

Read the original post (post #1). The relevant part is quoted below and in bold.

..................... The real root cause is that we made a conscious decision to ignore this portion of the standard. We didn't feel it was important enough when compared with our issues with document control, tool calibration etc etc. ...............................

 

[AndyN]

Re: Management Representative

I disagree. This describes the problem. It is not the root cause. The root cause is more likely a lack of training for the the Q eng. in sofar as to their failure to understand the relevance of management responsibility.

However, if I am wrong or you disagree, please let me know. If I'm wrong, I would love to know.

Maybe they had training and the instructor didn't talk about that part of the standard, or they too thought it could be anyone including the janitor! It's too easy to rush to a conclusion that involves training. There are other factors at play here. They said they chose to ignore it. Every day we see people on the roads who have had driver training, yet they chose to ignore road signs etc...

 

[daraghofla]

I disagree. This describes the problem. It is not the root cause. The root cause is more likely a lack of training for the the Q eng. in sofar as to their failure to understand the relevance of management responsibility. .........................
Read the original post (post #1). The relevant part is quoted below and in bold.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kp2001

..................... The real root cause is that we made a conscious decision to ignore this portion of the standard. We didn't feel it was important enough when compared with our issues with document control, tool calibration etc etc. ...............................

Apologies, I missed that

 

[Bill Pflanz]

As someone who worked on a ISO registration in the early 90's, I never had this become an issue. Some of the management represents were part of the management team and some were not. The management representative was not responsible for ensuring that everything in the quality system works. The requirement was that management designated someone as the management representative to work with the registration companies. The practical reason was a single contact at each registration site for the auditors and registration company.

I am not sure anything has changed over the last 30 years to require that this person be part of management.

Bill Pflanz

 

[AndyN]

I think that was a different era, Bill. Also, the requirement has changed with the 2K version.

I think it sends the wrong message to the organization when someone low down the totem pole gets the title. Clearly it's dependent on the size of the organization, but in one example I'm familiar with, the Quality Director of a large multi-site business had appointed a line inspector in some places, as the Management Rep! HE should have been, but chose to 'dodge the bullet' of responsibility (just one example of his lack of professionalism). Frankly, the system, as a result, was a joke, which the hapless MRs couldn't affect in any substantial manner.

 

[Randy]

Let's just take a gander....

5.5.2 Management representative
Top management shall appoint a member of the organization's management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes
a) ensuring that processes needed for the quality management system are established, implemented and maintained,
b) reporting to top management on the performance of the quality management system and any need for improvement, and
c) ensuring the promotion of awareness of customer requirements throughout the organization.

1st, it absolutely looks like the MR must be a member of member of management...but isn't it up to the organization to define what management is? Where is the breakoff point in an organization between management and non-management personnel, at the 2nd tier level, 3rd, 10th? In the US Military "management" can go down to the level of an E1 (that's the lowest rank/payscale of any service member in any branch) who has been given authority to over other E'1's, like on a work detail or even in combat. In Marine Boot Camp I was the Platoon Guide, I was senior to all other "Boot's" and exercised management oversight and was held accountable for assigned tasks. The task each organization has is that they must clearly define what does or does not constitute "mangement", and the head of Plant Maintenance could very well fall into that definition and therefore be eligible to be the MR as could the CEO's secretary (Executive Assistant). The decison rests upon "Top Management" and there is no requirement for justification of that decision.

2nd, it looks like the MR is really nothing more than a type of project manager and other than ensuring that stuff is done and reporting some specific information any additional responsiblities are left to the organization to define. There is nothing that states the MR has to do anything other than make sure stuff happens, he/she doesn't have to do the stuff.

 

[Stijloor]

Let's just take a gander....

5.5.2 Management representative
Top management shall appoint a member of the organization's management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes
a) ensuring that processes needed for the quality management system are established, implemented and maintained,
b) reporting to top management on the performance of the quality management system and any need for improvement, and
c) ensuring the promotion of awareness of customer requirements throughout the organization.

1st, it absolutely looks like the MR must be a member of member of management...but isn't it up to the organization to define what management is? Where is the breakoff point in an organization between management and non-management personnel, at the 2nd tier level, 3rd, 10th? In the US Military "management" can go down to the level of an E1 (that's the lowest rank/payscale of any service member in any branch) who has been given authority to over other E'1's, like on a work detail or even in combat. In Marine Boot Camp I was the Platoon Guide, I was senior to all other "Boot's" and exercised management oversight and was held accountable for assigned tasks. The task each organization has is that they must clearly define what does or does not constitute "management", and the head of Plant Maintenance could very well fall into that definition and therefore be eligible to be the MR as could the CEO's secretary (Executive Assistant). The decision rests upon "Top Management" and there is no requirement for justification of that decision.

2nd, it looks like the MR is really nothing more than a type of project manager and other than ensuring that stuff is done and reporting some specific information any additional responsibilities are left to the organization to define. There is nothing that states the MR has to do anything other than make sure stuff happens, he/she doesn't have to do the stuff.

I believe that in the context of today's business, you need someone who can make things happen. If you delegate this to a person who for example manages a floor scrubbing process (yes, you can call this person a manager), I wonder if the INTENT of the standard is met.

Stijloor.