Management Representative is NOT a member of Management

[AndyN]

Here is the voice of reason.

Bill

With the Arkansas accent? No, that's our Randy...

 

[Jim Wynne]

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.

Then I wonder why they bothered with the "member of management" thing in the first place. Why not just say that there must be a management representative, describe describe the requirements, and let it go at that? I also wonder what would happen if the whole MR requirement were just dropped. Nothing of significance, I expect.

 

[Randy]

Then I wonder why they bothered with the "member of management" thing in the first place. Why not just say that there must be a management representative, describe describe the requirements, and let it go at that? I also wonder what would happen if the whole MR requirement were just dropped. Nothing of significance, I expect.

OK everyone be prepared to pass out on this one....I tend agree with you here Jim, especially your last statement (Does anyone need smelling salts yet?)

I believe (not that it matters because in the end it doesn't), I believe that the MR should be a Senior Person just as the MR is required to be under OHSAS (MR must be a member of Top Management), if committment were true and management involvement real this would be the case. What we almost universally see and have now is that committment and involvement is by convenience, "When I have time I will", and winds up being just another agenda item on a long list of agenda items. (As a private individual I think the "annual" Management Review concept is a sham, especially if that's all they do, especially if that is all they do for review. Where is the committment in that? All it tells me is that it is inconvenient to look at MS performance the other 364 days)

And yeah, I personally question the value of having a 3rd, 4th or 5th tier underling or an external person like a consultant with no real organizational authority being the MR, but then again, what I personally question or believe or want can not and does not enter into the equation. This is where objectivity, impartiality and being unbiased comes into play and too many folks in my industry don't fully understand and maybe can't follow.

 

[JaneB]

:mg:

I'd respond, Randy, but I'm still somewhat in a state of shock.

 

[JaneB]

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".

Hallelujah and thanks Randy for this excellent post and your voice of cool logic and reason.

So many people here are in manufacturing/large companies and do get overly blinkered by that view and locked into that picture.

The Standard itself is very clear on the fact that it isn't only for those. It's applicable to any organisation, of any size, in any field.

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.

And does. Without that, smaller companies, service companies and a whole host of non-manufacturing organisations wouldn't be able to be certified. And wouldn't see the point of the Standard.

 

[Randy]

:mg:

I'd respond, Randy, but I'm still somewhat in a state of shock.

I hope you're also not fanny deep in water.

 

[JaneB]

I hope you're also not fanny deep in water.

No, the seriously bad floods are up in Queensland. Dreadful.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

This is where objectivity, impartiality and being unbiased comes into play and too many folks in my industry don't fully understand and maybe can't follow.

There is no conflict between objectivity, impartiality and lack of bias and the need for assessing effectiveness.

A good auditor verifies conformance to requirements. An enlightened one goes beyond that and assess effectiveness. Because conforming systems that are not effective in delivering results are not what we aim for.

 

[Wes Bucey]

There is no conflict between objectivity, impartiality and lack of bias and the need for assessing effectiveness.

A good auditor verifies conformance to requirements. An enlightened one goes beyond that and assess effectiveness. Because conforming systems that are not effective in delivering results are not what we aim for.

Where does the guideline for auditors state "effectiveness" of the QMS is to be assessed? May we have a citation and perhaps a quote? That's the first time anyone raised the idea the existing MR in OP's first post is ineffective OR that the QMS is ineffective. Were there other NC items noted by the auditor or was the status of the MR on the corporate hierarchy tree the ONLY item?

If effectiveness is the key here, then what difference can the status of the MR make if the QMS functions effectively and the rest of the "i" letters are dotted and the "t" letters are crossed?

 

[Randy]

Wes, an MS has to be effective in it's planning, performance and in its ability to achieve objectives and in the fulfillment of its policy, and verifying effectiveness is a requirement we 3rd party folks have to have objective evidence of and specifically state in our reports. Sidney was just giving me a lesson because I'm so very new at this and he was helping a young kid out.