Management Representative - Specific Training Required?

[AndyN]

There is no requirement for the MR to be competent it can be shown that the MR does not have anything to do with product conformity (6.2.1 & 6.2.2 as reference) so therefore in the absence of any evidence showing a realtionship of an MR to product conformity the NC has no merit.

Tell me you're not really serious with this comment, Randy....please...

 

[Randy]

Yep I was jerking a chain and being nice

Naaaaaaaaaa, not really....The MR has a specific responsibility to ensure the QMS is established, implemented, documented and maintained to all the stuff between 4.1 and 8.5.3. The only reason the QMS is being put in place is to achieve customer satisfaction and that's done through the product (or service) conforming customer requirements and meeting their expectations...specified or not. The competence of the MR has a direct bearing on product conforming because he/she is responsible for the whole kit and kaboodle.

Now is any specific training required...NOPE!

Would some specific training be nice...YEP, but so would a root beer float right now.

 

[AndyN]

Plain and simple, what are we doing wrong? With all the evidence I have brought forth to you, tell me where this nonconformity has merit.

It occurs to me, reading back through this thread that our discussion has proven a significant point regarding the clarity of an auditor's report;

Without all the vital components being present in a non-conformity statement, corrective action doesn't happen, plus anything that might be done is likely to be incorrect, not value-added or just plain busy work!

 

[Sidney Vianna]

tell me where this nonconformity has merit.

No it doesn't.

Tell me you're not really serious with this comment, Randy....please...

Well, this is one of those gray area requirements:

Identify what competencies are required by personnel performing work which affects quality

Does the work of the management rep affect quality? Yes. But so does the plant manager, general manager, company president, CEO, Board of Directors, etc... Still, I don't know CB's forcing their auditors to require to see objective evidence, competence requirements for CEO's and the likes. Double standard? You tell me. The ISO TC176 APG Auditing competence and the effectiveness of actions taken paper specifically targets functions involved with product realization processes. So, one could infer that only functions related to product realization processes are required to comply with 6.2.2, even though it would contradict the note under 6.2.1. Just another example on how the TC176 fails to make clear the intent and requirement. In my humble opinion, of course.

 

[Randy]

Yep, a real toughy because things have to be relevant and relative...the MR has to have something on the ball for sure, but to paraphrase Sid...clear as mud

 

[noboost4you]

I thought I'd said a couple of times that it didn't....for a lack of objective evidence...

You did, but then you kept digging deeper into something that I don't think is broken or invalid. But regardless, thanks for going back and forth with me. It was a great opportunity to look at the whole process and definitely gave me fuel for the fire I'm about to light for the appeal.

 

[AndyN]

You did, but then you kept digging deeper into something that I don't think is broken or invalid. But regardless, thanks for going back and forth with me. It was a great opportunity to look at the whole process and definitely gave me fuel for the fire I'm about to light for the appeal.

Good and thanks! The reasons for 'going back and forth' are really how the audit should have played out - or somewhat like that. Clearly the nc lacked a deal of content to make it valid so it was my attempt to discover (remotely, of course) what the (true) situation is, bearing in mind we can't audit the MR etc. Often, auditors will 'smell' an nc and write it up and it will not be challenged (you're in shock, do want to argue etc). And that's the extent of the auditor's investigation.

However, in the cold light of such a discussion, it becomes clear(er) whether there's an underlying cause here - of the 'smell'. The auditor may have been onto something but didn't do the investigation.

It's a bit like a cop giving you a ticket - they don't care that you've never done that before, were distracted by personal events etc. etc. they just see the 'violation' and bamm! (ask Randy!)