Management Representative Requirements - ISO 9k2k Clause 5.5.2a interpretation

[Jim Wynne]

Glad to see you weigh in, Paul.

My message is an old one - none of this works well without true management support.

Yes, and in fact, an argument could be made that none of this works at all unless the audit trail always leads back to "top management."

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Frankly, an MR should be someone that is competent in understading at least what a quality system is and is familiar with a quality systems standard.

5.5.2 states that ("top management shall appoint a member of management who,......etc") Does that mean that by the definition of management stated by ISO 9000 and also according to the dictionary, then under this type of logic top management could appoint the maintenance department manager that without trying to offend anybody would not, have much experience with quality systems implementation, right? 5.5.2 requirement appears to leave much to uncertainty and interpretation, and a more solid description needs to be defined.

NO. He/she must be a member of management, and competent to perform the assigned tasks. Both are requirements. I have written both up on a few occasions.

1. "a member of management." Many of the complaints in this Elsmar forum could be related to this one phrase. The intent of this change clearly was that the MR would have POWER to see that the necessary stuff gets done. The problem is, many companies still pick a junior "manager," or someone with limited true authority. Then the MR is tied at the ankles. When I have seen a truly "empowered Manager" as MR, as the standard intended, it truly is a beautiful thing. If the president won't take your meetings and calls, your system missed the point. It's not about assigned "authority or responsibility," it's about someone who has the power to say "do this," and it gets done.

2. "competent to perform the assigned tasks" is always a requirement for every position, including management. It can be learned, experienced or taught, but the end result has to be that the manager knows the stuff.

If you cheat either of these requirements, and many companies do, the damages run into the millions of dollars. The US auto industry could make BILLIONS more in profit if they stopped focusing on cost SAVING strategies, and began to focus on LEADERSHIP and CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. It's not rocket science, its good old fashoned hard work, mixed with cometence or proficiency (at the top levels).

For example, how many of the posters on this board are at the highest level of corporate management at their companies? Probably very few. Where are those guys on this forum? I expect most of us are working managers at the plant levels.

If the companies don't make LEADERSHIP and the CUSTOMER the top priority, they will lose. It is inevitable over time.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Well said! Well, except for

It's not about assigned "authority or responsibility," it's about someone who has the power to say "do this," and it gets done.

And how, pray tell, does someone get "the power" if not as a result of delegated responsibility and authority (assuming we're not talking about the seat of power directly)? It's very simple: No permission, no significant action.

 

[chaosweary]

MR - Isn't that the person that gives customers and 3rd party auditors company tours?

 

[Helmut Jilling]

Well said! Well, except for

And how, pray tell, does someone get "the power" if not as a result of delegated responsibility and authority (assuming we're not talking about the seat of power directly)? It's very simple: No permission, no significant action.

Thanks, my comment was a bit brief, and did not communicate my full intent. This thread seems to be focusing on "delegated responsibility and authority." My point is delegated responsibility and authority does little unless the MR truly has INFLUENCE and recognized AUTHORITY and POWER. As you know, responsibility can be delegated, but power and authority is earned and recofnized.

A title does little. That is why the requirement is that the MR actually be a full member of management, not a notch or two below.

 

[JadeS]

MR - Isn't that the person that gives customers and 3rd party auditors company tours?

Hi,

Actually I am an MR and I have never given the customer or 3rd Party Auditor tours, not that I would be opposed in any way.

The MR does need to be an individual to guide, direct and work closely with top management. I am responsible for 5.5.2 a,b,c as well as liaise with the registrars and other external bodies.

When the corporation decided to implement Management Systems, ISO/QS (now TS), etc. we outlined the business processes with little thought to any of the standards requirements. Once the corporate processes were defined and documented it was my responsibility to review them and determine what was missing from the standards point of view, which was very little from a process point.

After this I was responsible to meet with senior management at each of the companies where we structured each company process based from the flow down from corporate structure. Many of the processes never differ from company to company as it makes no difference what the product or service produced. What does differ is the documentation for operator work instructions and so on.

Corporate objectives and targets were determined, documented and assigned. From these objectives and targets each Company created objectives and targets in the same manner as corporate, which are reviewed and approved by corporate. These are always a flow down to the company management teams.

The objectives and targets are then assigned to employees and individuals working on behalf of each Company, no individual is excluded. These objectives and targets must be accomplished in order for corporate to achieve their objectives and targets.

This said I could not imagine completing all these activities without having the backing of top management. It could be done but not on the timeframes that are often times required.

Have a great day,
Jade

 

[juliov]

Hjilling, your assessement about the role of the MR is right on target about the responsibilities and top management support needed to effectively perform a solid job as an MR. I have seen companies appoint an MR without truly understanding what the MR's role really is, usually this person is a junior Mgr without any power to implement the processess in the QMS, the irony is that the plant personnel pick of on this and simply do not listen or take seriously the MR's requests. I had a case where everytime the MR requested a certain meeting to be held or an issue to be reviewed by a plant process owner, the owner would go to the president and had the MR's request overuled, well pretty soon it all became an exercise in frustation for this MR. I agree, if most companies woud truly and effectively implement this role of MR as it was intended the benefits of continual improvement and ROI would be in the $$$$.

 

[juliov]

Chaosweary, you silly you. I have to agree that sometimes this is the case.
I guess that this would be a lost benefit for the company no? using the MR as a plant tour.

 

[vanputten]

There a many types of authority.

coercive authority
expert authority
formal authority, also known as legitimate authority
referent authority
reward authority
Expressed authority
Implied authority
Apparent authority
Inherent authority

I think we are mostly discussing Formal Authority. Some have indirectly refered to Referent Authority (people that are respected - viewed as knowledgable/objective/reasonable/supportive).

In any organizational culture, the other types of authority play a factor. Referent authority can have as impact as Formal authority.

Knowledge of systems, sytem thinking, knowledge of the requirements (expert authority), formal authority, and referent authority are all needed to be a truly effective representative of a management system.

Regards,

Dirk