Management Representative is NOT a member of Management

[daraghofla]

Not really! Many 'senior' management are not exactly 'employees' and often only show up a couple of days a month. They may even hold other similar positions in other companies. So, why can't a 'consultant' do this - how would anyone know? If they hold non-executive management position...

BTW - was it an accreditation auditor or your CB auditor? Makes a big difference...

Hi Andy
It was our accreditation auditor from NSAI. I'm not sure what a CB auditor is??

Regarding the point of finding the loop-hole within the standard, yes that can probably be done for every clause. To me, the MR must have supervisory powers over process owners (as stated in previous posts). If not, the position is pointless from a QMS perspective. I choose to ignore the wording loop-hole and take the intended meaning.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I wonder if the INTENT of the standard is met.

Therein lies the whole issue. People don't see the forest for the trees. Show me an organization that has a powerless underling assigned as the management representative and I will show you an organization that does not understand the M in QMS.

As long as organizations assign the role to someone that does not have the organizational authority to effect change (when needed) and as long as "conformity assessment" practitioners allow for such assignments to go unchallenged, we will have "management systems" that are ineffective in reaching objectives and goals. And then, some wonder why ISO 9001 does not bring improvement to organizations.

 

[Jason PCSwitches]

Yep, but nowhere does it say 40 hrs and 5 days a week and that's where the argument begins. What happens if an organization clearly states in its personnel policy and actions that "All persons, full time, part-time, contractor or Temp are considered employees with regards to rules, policies and regulations".

That's correct. But still, whomever is designated to be the MR must be identified in some fashion as a member of the organizations management. 5.5.1 requires the definition of responsibilities & authorities; usually reflected within an organization chart. As long as the MR is identified as a member management everything else becomes opinionated.

 

[Randy]

Understood. However, the standard is tackling the important issue of management responsibility. I translate 5.5.2 roughly as "an individual, with supervisory powers over the process owners, must be present". The clause makes sense when viewed from this perspective. What's the point of altering your defined organisation roles so as to allow someone with ZERO influence be the management rep? This is an argument I cannot agree with, nor would I want to.

Doesn't matter what one wants, all that matters is what is required and nowhere can one see "must be present". Be present for what? I can be 1,000 miles away and be able to provide a level assurance of your fulfillment of a requirement..You do "voluntarily" pay income tax don't you? The IRS isn't standing there "making" you do it by their presence are they? Of course not, you choose do it.

The MR is just that "Management Representative" a person who has been designated to represent Top Management or speak and demand action on their behalf. The lowest ranking Miles Gregarius (private) in the Roman Army spoke and acted on behalf of either the Senate or Emporer when performing his duties...He represented "Rome", the same holds true in any organization, or at least should if the MS works correct, and that is "when the MR speaks he/she is representing and speaking on behalf of Top Management in their absence" That's what MR means.

Everyone seems to be locked into a manufacturing, four-walled, short-sided, way of thinking on this. Step back, toss off biased thinking and realize that there is not any single correct answer or method, each organization has the utlimate right to decide how and what is best for them in meeting any specific requirement and the only wrong way is the one that is not effective to meet thier needs and that has nothing to do with what someone "thinks".

If the ISO (TC 176 in this case) had wanted the MR to be a full-time employee with authority to hire, fire, eat-a$$, kick fanny and all that then they would have done so. But because ISO 9001 has to be able to meet the needs of any organization, doing anything, anywhere to achieve customer satisfaction it had to have flexibility built into it.

 

[Wes Bucey]

Yeah the standard clearly states that the MR must be a member of the organizations management.

Nowhere does it say, though, that he must be a full-time (40+ hours/week) management member.

Further, to bolster Randy's view that a "management member" is defined by management, NOT an auditor:
Every manager in an organization derives his power and authority from two sources:

1. The owner or Board of Directors which continues to employ him
2. The underlings who recognize and acquiesce to the power and authority of the individual

To revert to an oft-derided buzz phrase from the 90's: "document what you intend to do, then do it, then document you did it!"

An organization management which documents (reduces to writing, then "publishes" [circulates] that document to those who need to know) that an individual is designated as a "manager" who has the authority to implement some aspects of the Quality Management System, but has to lobby top management (as even full-time vice presidents must do) for large-scale changes, has "appointed a member of management to be the MR."

Whether that particular MR is effective in the role has nothing to do with the fact of his legitimate appointment and specified authority.

There is nothing in the Standard which says the MR has to know one whit about Quality or about the Standard, merely that he represents management.

We have another thread currently running about workplace drones - an MR who is a drone would not be the first, regardless if he is a VP or a janitor.

It is naive to think that ANY MR has unlimited authority to implement a QMS - there are always restraints, whether in-house political, budgetary, or intellectual (too ignorant of what can or should be done.)

 

[Jason PCSwitches]

Nowhere does it say, though, that he must be a full-time (40+ hours/week) management member.

Further, to bolster Randy's view that a "management member" is defined by management, NOT an auditor:
Every manager in an organization derives his power and authority from two sources:

1. The owner or Board of Directors which continues to employ him
2. The underlings who recognize and acquiesce to the power and authority of the individual

To revert to an oft-derided buzz phrase from the 90's: "document what you intend to do, then do it, then document you did it!"

An organization management which documents (reduces to writing, then "publishes" [circulates] that document to those who need to know) that an individual is designated as a "manager" who has the authority to implement some aspects of the Quality Management System, but has to lobby top management (as even full-time vice presidents must do) for large-scale changes, has "appointed a member of management to be the MR."

Whether that particular MR is effective in the role has nothing to do with the fact of his legitimate appointment and specified authority.

There is nothing in the Standard which says the MR has to know one whit about Quality or about the Standard, merely that he represents management.

We have another thread currently running about workplace drones - an MR who is a drone would not be the first, regardless if he is a VP or a janitor.

It is naive to think that ANY MR has unlimited authority to implement a QMS - there are always restraints, whether in-house political, budgetary, or intellectual (too ignorant of what can or should be done.)

Never stated or applied that on-site time or mandatory involvement was required, actually the opposite. My point is that they are required to be defined. Whomever & however is totally up to the organization as long as it's defined. The organization can chose how to define it as well.

 

[AndyN]

Hi Andy
It was our accreditation auditor from NSAI. I'm not sure what a CB auditor is??

Regarding the point of finding the loop-hole within the standard, yes that can probably be done for every clause. To me, the MR must have supervisory powers over process owners (as stated in previous posts). If not, the position is pointless from a QMS perspective. I choose to ignore the wording loop-hole and take the intended meaning.

NSAI = Certification Body, not accreditation. (in the USA we also call them Registrars)

 

[AndyN]

Wes, I can't agree with your statement that the MR doesn't have to know about 'quality' or ISO...don't they have to be competent, have awareness and possibly training? This smacks of the janitor being the MR to me...as long as Management have documented it! We really must get away from the 'say what you do, do what you say' mantra! ISO never was about that - it's what you did to pass an audit, just what we're fighting in this post!

The OP's organization got registered! But they didn't apparently give the MRs assignment to a member of management! What we're really talking about is someone who has influence in the organization to coach, guide and coax the other members of management - the business process owners - and less about power/authority over the 'underlings'... Let's put a practical spin on this, for a moment: How many times do we hear about problems caused by management, rather than 'underlings' here at the Cove? And even when we do, it's because management isn't engaged!

 

[Wes Bucey]

Wes, I can't agree with your statement that the MR doesn't have to know about 'quality' or ISO...don't they have to be competent, have awareness and possibly training? This smacks of the janitor being the MR to me...as long as Management have documented it! We really must get away from the 'say what you do, do what you say' mantra! ISO never was about that - it's what you did to pass an audit, just what we're fighting in this post!

The OP's organization got registered! But they didn't apparently give the MRs assignment to a member of management! What we're really talking about is someone who has influence in the organization to coach, guide and coax the other members of management - the business process owners - and less about power/authority over the 'underlings'... Let's put a practical spin on this, for a moment: How many times do we hear about problems caused by management, rather than 'underlings' here at the Cove? And even when we do, it's because management isn't engaged!

Management can have

influence in the organization

, but be complete idiots in the execution of that influence. I am reminded of "Neutron Jack" Welch, CEO of General Electric, whose understanding of Six Sigma was to fire the bottom 10% of "performers" each year (the definition of performance was arbitrary and changed from moment to moment, depending on Jack's mood.) Yet, even ASQ hailed Neutron Jack as a great proponent of Six Sigma.

We may "talk about" the ideal (in our minds) of what and who an MR is, but the Standard is completely silent on that point.

The bottom line here for the OP is

1. is the NC warranted?
2. if warranted, what face-saving way can we resolve it?

The consensus of most respondents is

1. the NC is warranted
2. retroactively document the MR is a member of management (for the limited purpose of being an MR)

Documenting someone a manager is painless and effectively resolves the NC with a documented Corrective Action. It is immaterial if it is a charade - many managers ARE charades!

 

[Bill Pflanz]

Step back, toss off biased thinking and realize that there is not any single correct answer or method, each organization has the utlimate right to decide how and what is best for them in meeting any specific requirement and the only wrong way is the one that is not effective to meet thier needs and that has nothing to do with what someone "thinks".

If the ISO (TC 176 in this case) had wanted the MR to be a full-time employee with authority to hire, fire, eat-a$$, kick fanny and all that then they would have done so. But because ISO 9001 has to be able to meet the needs of any organization, doing anything, anywhere to achieve customer satisfaction it had to have flexibility built into it.

Here is the voice of reason.

Bill