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.
I wouldn't call the use of the janitor example rhetoric but will acknowledge it is an exaggeration for effect ... that obviously failed miserably.
I'll leave it there and move on to your main point below.
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?
Again I don't care what the individual is called. In your example she appears to be a member of management and therefore her position is appropriate for MR.
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
Thank you, another immoderate moderator! I'll take the insults but not too personally and will just make the comment. I've explained earlier why I believe the standard is written as it is. Now here's the rub. You can't write a million + selling standard that can cater for the onesies twosies.
5.5.2 Management representative
Top management shall appoint a member of the organization's management or somebody who is really good at their job and that others within the company respect because they get the job done and are really interested in quality and are a really good person as well who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have responsibility and authority that includes ...
Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153), stated "Hell is full of good intentions or desires."
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.
That is exactly the point and that is why it's in the standard. Because everything comes from top management (a term I personally don't like but there you go) if they say Jo / Joe is the MR in charge of the QMS then people should be thinking - 'Hey this stuff is important!'
By the way selective quoting is dangerous as you lost the meaning in this case. It is the MR that has to do all of the stuff in 5.5.2 - with the support of the top management because they asked him / her to do the job.
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!)
I agree that it is impossible to gauge whether top management are involved in the QMS just from a 1 - 2 day visit. Sometimes business leaders are very good at portraying a case that is not actually true and can keep this up through a full 30 minute interview with an auditor. :mg: The good thing is that between visits evidence mounts that can be reviewed at the next audit and gives a truer picture. You can't keep all the skeletons in the cupboard permanently. I won't insult your intelligence by quoting Lincoln to you.
Sidney commented: 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?
As Sidney has posted 3rd party certification does say something about a systm to deliver product quality - that doesn't equal a guarantee but the organization should have an improvement cycle that includes learning from its mistakes.
Customer certification IMHO is an irrelevance. They are paying the bills.
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?
In answer to your first question - yes we can.
By not buying into the underpinning principles and always cutting corners you will end up with a QMS that actally makes the business worse rather than better - the same poor processes but with additional documentation and bureaucracy.
I have been fighting all my career to keep the management system close to the quality of the product / service provided and will continue to do so.
