Management Representative is NOT a member of Management

[Jim Wynne]

... I ask, "what improvement to the system would be accomplished by the MR being a manager? (documented, not anecdotal or "guessed at.")

We have no way of knowing anything of substance about the general management system the OP is working with (or under).

This whole topic is exceedingly murky, due in part to ISO's own failure to properly define terms and follow its own directives. In ISO 9000-2005, the repository for normative definitions, we find "management" defined as shown in the attachment. Note that the advice is to use a suitable qualifier so as to be specific about what kind or level of management is being referred to. Because no such qualifier is used in 5.5.2 of ISO 9001-2008, we're left with the ISO 9000 definition, which is "coordinated activities to direct and control an organization."

The result is that there is no way to define "member of the organization's management" that does not include everyone who's involved in "coordinated activities to direct and control..." which essentially includes everyone in the organization.

While the OP's company might have handled this whole thing better and at this point should probably 'fess up and move on, I think an appeal of the finding in which the auditor or registrar is asked to provide a normative definition to support the NC could be very interesting.

 

[Randy]

I'm not talking about feelings, wants, desires, likes, wishes or hopes. I'm talking about a section of a clause within the latest ISO9001 standard.

This is what you said.."This says to me, the MR must have day to day (or at least a controlling interest and understanding) involvement with the QMS."

I was just stating back that it doesn't matter what is says to you, me or anyone else, all that matters is what is and nowhere does it say ownership, continual presence, full time capacity, day to day, or anything else.

I've seen organizations that don't have any "full-time staffing", as it is normally recognized, at any single location. Take a "virtual" organization involved in eCommerce, there may be a central mail drop, but that's it. Not everything is brick & mortor and not everything is manufacturing, and sure as there is green grass in Ireland not every business is traditional or on the East side of the Atlantic.

 

[Paul Simpson]

OK. I'm not going to start pointing the finger (yet ) by quoting posts but let's take this back to first principles. The people writing 9001 all recognize that a quality management system has to be seen as important for it to have a chance of being implemented and followed.

As such they developed an underpinning quality management principle called 'Leadership' and a set of requirements in 9001 called 'Management responsibility.' All of this is to get top management involved in a QMS because without their engagement there isn't a snowball's hope in hell of getting others to be engaged.

One part of Management responsibility is that the person they appoint to have overall charge of the system has to be part of the management team (and therefore have some status within the organization). Again there is purpose behind this, it's not just thrown onto the page. Their status gives the system some status.

Now we can analyse the heck out of the wording or argue that a janitor could do just as good a job but why not just live with it and embrace the intent? By identifying work arounds or weasel words we do the OP a disservice.

By the way just because the MR is a member of the top team doesn't mean they have to get their hands dirty writing procedures etc. That is a delegated task - they just have to endorse the result and do all the other stuff in 5.5.2.

Oh and they don't have to have 'Quality' in their job title. They can be a MR by any name.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

but why not just live with it and embrace the intent?

Excellent question, Boris. Unfortunately, the answer is: because a significant percentage of the organizations implementing management system standards are not interested in embracing intent. They are just interested in going through audits with no non-conformities, attaining and maintaining a meaningless certificate to appease those pesky, demanding customers, having the so called "ticket-to-trade".

And, even more unfortunately, we have consultants and conformity assessment practitioners that operate at that same level, i.e., what is necessary to pass an audit, versus what should I do to have a high-performing and meaningful management system.

 

[Randy]

Where did all the janitor rhetoric come from? A couple months ago I did a multiple system certification where the Facility Maintenance Manager was in Top Management and facility maintenance was so critical that not 1 red cent of product could be generated without infrastructure being at 100% and was involved in every aspect of the production activity. This person was making wellllll into the 6 figure range and yeah, I guess he was the head janitor (which he actually called himself and didn't laugh) as folks here seem to have a brainlock on.

The 9K Management Rep of a company that manufactured one of the multi-media projectors I have been using is the Executive Assistant to the CEO/President (she's the secretary boys and girls). I met her in a training course and no, we do not hold the 9K cert. The day-to-day operational flow goes across her desk and she holds the keys to the gate. She is recognized as being a memeber of "management", no direct reports but whadya wanna guess that folks report to her?

This frozen-minded, stuffed-shirt mindset with business and operational relationships is wrong. With the way things are now and the way they are going in modern business practices, it no longer has to look, walk and talk like a duck to be one

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153), stated "Hell is full of good intentions or desires."

 

[Wes Bucey]

I'm not really comfortable with "top management" as a term because essentially everything that happens in an organization stems from the very top and ultimately "is a delegated task - they [top manager?] just have to endorse the result and do all the other stuff in 5.5.2." as Boris relates. So, too, whoever is ultimately named MR derives his power and authority from the very top. How much heed that top manager gives to the suggestions and information working its way back up the ladder from even the lowest ranking employee seems to me beyond the scope of a one or two day visit from an outside auditor to assess. (Yeah, yeah, I know, all us experts think we can make that determination from the cleanliness of the employee toilets in a 30 second visit!)

Sidney commented:

Unfortunately, the answer is: because a significant percentage of the organizations implementing management system standards are not interested in embracing intent. They are just interested in going through audits with no non-conformities, attaining and maintaining a meaningless certificate to appease those pesky, demanding customers, having the so called "ticket-to-trade".

And, even more unfortunately, we have consultants and conformity assessment practitioners that operate at that same level, i.e., what is necessary to pass an audit, versus what should I do to have a high-performing and meaningful management system.

My response is "So what?" Those pesky customers really want good or excellent products and services from their suppliers. Have they been sold a bill of goods that a supplier having an ISO "ticket" blessed by a third party auditor will assure that goal? Yet we are told continually that an ISO certificate of registration does NOT speak to the quality of the goods and services, only to the fact there is a system in place which should "theoretically" deliver quality goods and services. Do all the "Primes" requiring those tickets from the supply chain ALSO have their own ticket to assure their end customers?

Can we really vilify the supplier or its consultants for gaming the system when "effectiveness" of the system has nothing to do with the quality of the goods or services reaching the customer, only that there is a system in place for dealing with bad goods and services once they do reach a customer?

 

[Cari Spears]

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.

I am a member of our management, and I am the management representative. I do not, however, have supervisory powers over process owners. I'm not the boss of shipping; I'm not the boss of estimating; I'm not the boss of purchasing. What I do have is access to and support from top management.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Can we really vilify the supplier or its consultants for gaming the system when "effectiveness" of the system has nothing to do with the quality of the goods or services reaching the customer, only that there is a system in place for dealing with bad goods and services once they do reach a customer?

Where on earth did you get the idea that effectiveness of the system has nothing to do with its output?

 

[Wes Bucey]

Where on earth did you get the idea that effectiveness of the system has nothing to do with its output?

Do you mean to say we cannot go back through the Cove and find comments from third party auditors who say exactly that? My point is the certificate of registration does not say the quality of the goods or services is meeting a Standard, only that the system is meeting a Standard. The customer infers a good system means good products and services, but that is not necessarily true even if it is true some times (but maybe only because a supplier wants repeat business, not because he has a certificate guaranteeing he will make good products.)

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Do you mean to say we cannot go back through the Cove and find comments from third party auditors who say exactly that? My point is the certificate of registration does not say the quality of the goods or services is meeting a Standard, only that the system is meeting a Standard. The customer infers a good system means good products and services, but that is not necessarily true even if it is true some times (but maybe only because a supplier wants repeat business, not because he has a certificate guaranteeing he will make good products.)

The "official" expectation for an accredited ISO 9001 certificate is available in the attached document.

“For the defined certification scope, an organization with a certified quality management system consistently provides products that meet customer and applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, and aims to enhance customer satisfaction.”​