Management Review Corrective Action - Can I get some clarification on this?

  • Thread starter Casey Cochran - 2009
  • Start date

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
#21
Totally on topic

Baldrick said:
This is slightly :topic: , but still relevant to the subject matter of achieving desired results...
Disagree that it is off topic - it is right on the mark!:applause: The issue is whether top (or any other level) management is to be accountable for measures in their processes.

Baldrick said:
Just this week I performed an internal audit on our HR department. One of their objectives was to achieve 10 days' training per employee per year, with performance running at around 3 for the past few years. :nope:

When I asked what actions were in place to achieve the intended 10 days, the HR manager replied that "some objectives aren't intended to be achieved, they're aspirational". He also reckons there is strong evidence that companies who set such "aspirational" objectives achieve better business results than those who restrict themselves to traditional objectives and fixed deadlines.
Did anyone see a bull around - I can certainly smell it has been here. There are lots of companies that subscribe to the "stretch target" philosophy - none of them would accept missing the target by a factor of 2. Setting of targets is a sensitive affair (Dr Deming would have none of it) and to set unrealistic goals leads to people giving up early on.

The argument for stretch targets is that they can really get people motivated and driven to achieve and, even if you fail, you still achieve more than if you had set a "standard" target, clearly not the case in this example.

Baldrick said:
A long (and fairly intense) debate ensued :argue: and we failed to find any common ground before he had to catch a flight back to his home planet. :)

I'm interested to know how a TS16949 assessor would counter this argument. Does anyone have any opinions?
If the objective setting process fails the first time I would expect the organization to take efective corrective action - this could lead to more realistic goals or changes to the process to achieve the goal.

If achievement of the target fails consistently then the objective setting process (and the corrective action process) are ineffective.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

RoxaneB

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#22
Paul Simpson said:
Did anyone see a bull around - I can certainly smell it has been here. There are lots of companies that subscribe to the "stretch target" philosophy - none of them would accept missing the target by a factor of 2. Setting of targets is a sensitive affair (Dr Deming would have none of it) and to set unrealistic goals leads to people giving up early on.
And I agree, to a point....a goal without a plan is an exercise in futility. I'd give up, too. It's a PDCA cycle...not 0.5P-with-a-hint-of-C-thrown-in-for-good measure cycle. ;)

Paul Simpson said:
The argument for stretch targets is that they can really get people motivated and driven to achieve and, even if you fail, you still achieve more than if you had set a "standard" target, clearly not the case in this example.
We have a performance reward system set up for certain metrics. They have our goals (and plans) for 2006, 2007 and 2008. If we reach a future goal (i.e., 2007 or 2008) in 2006, we get a "stretch" reward. If we "only" attain our 2006 goal, we receive the normal reward.

Paul Simpson said:
If the objective setting process fails the first time I would expect the organization to take efective corrective action - this could lead to more realistic goals or changes to the process to achieve the goal.

If achievement of the target fails consistently then the objective setting process (and the corrective action process) are ineffective.
I agree. I've shared this story before, but my organization used to set goals and then cry "Woe is us!" at the end of the year when we hadn't achieved them. Over the past few years, we have worked on our planning skills and understanding of resource availability. We've also started to understand that goals need to be set so that there is improvement but that they are also attainable...as long as we work smart and diligently towards them.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#23
Paul Simpson said:
Utilization is not really a quality objective. The more typical objective would be to do with on time delivery, quality at the customer, warranty etc. Any examples as to how a company might "wait out" one of those?


paul, I really don't understand your point of view at times. Utilization of Equipment is a very common metric at American companies, as are many others. There is nothing that defines delivery and ppm is all there is.

My point was, if a client reviews and discusses 50 charts, I am not going to expect 50 entries as to what decision was rendered. If you want to, well, ok, do so.

I do expect and see significant decisions are documented.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#24
Paul Simpson said:
Agree with RCBeyette's comments the record of review should demonstrate key decisions taken and, in the unlikely event there is a measure off track that they don't want to do anything about, some justification as to why.

key decisions absolutely. But, most American companies I know do not record every stray conversation and decision. Most do, however, document the significant ones. The whole intent of the new standard was to reduce non-value-added activities in all areas, not just procedures. That is why they leave so much to the organization to define, rather than us auditors.

I may appear lenient to you, but I assure you my clients don't think I'm loose or careless in any way. I exercise them, but only in value-added ways. I insist the new standard is not about compliance in minutae.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
#25
Read your pwn post

hjilling said:
Let's say, I ask about a utilization metric where some items are not meeting target. I may ask about what they are doing. They explain sales are low from one key customer, the customer indicated he expected it to ramp up over the next few months, and for now they are using some of the downtime to do more training. That decision does not have to be recorded, because no action was being taken, other than to wait it out. If everyone knew that answer, what value is there to say you must write down, "we are going to wait it out?" No value added.
Those are your words I quoted. The customer not meeting their own purchase forecast is not a "quality" issue. I understand the business will want to monitor sales turnover and utilization of its workforce but it tells the business nothing about the effectiveness of its Quality Management System - the purpose of clause 5.6.

Utilization metrics such as OEE can be valuable measures of the manufacturing process quality - as they use First Time Through, Machine Availability and Build To Schedule, all quality measures in one way or another.
Not, however, how you phrased it in your earlier post.
hjilling said:
key decisions absolutely. But, most American companies I know do not record every stray conversation and decision. Most do, however, document the significant ones. The whole intent of the new standard was to reduce non-value-added activities in all areas, not just procedures. That is why they leave so much to the organization to define, rather than us auditors.
I hope your use of "American" is not an attempt to create another "us and them over the water" battle that have been pretty tiresome over the past years. Believe me, I do not require any "stray conversation and decision", just the key ones. My definition of key is recorded earlier in the thread but I will reproduce it so it is clear:
  • If the management team (that reviews the system effectiveness) sets a target or objective that makes it "significant".
  • If that objective or target is not being met at the time of the management review then I would expect a record in the minutes as to why and what is being done about it.

hjilling said:
I may appear lenient to you, but I assure you my clients don't think I'm loose or careless in any way. I exercise them, but only in value-added ways. I insist the new standard is not about compliance in minutae.
I take it your use of "minutiae" is meant to imply the areas I am talking about are trivial.
I cannot speak for your audit process - I can only judge by your posts. If you are allowing registered companies to miss objectives and targets and not record actions in their review of system effectiveness then I have to record in my posts that IMHO you are wrong. Nothing more or less.

hjilling said:
paul, I really don't understand your point of view at times. Utilization of Equipment is a very common metric at American companies, as are many others. There is nothing that defines delivery and ppm is all there is.
See above, I also believe measures of utilization are "quality measures", even over "here", but not as you first posted (see quote above) my examples of delivery and PPM as quality measures were just that - examples.

hjilling said:
My point was, if a client reviews and discusses 50 charts, I am not going to expect 50 entries as to what decision was rendered. If you want to, well, ok, do so.
If your client chooses to use 50 measures then there should be as many records of actions as there are failing metrics - if they say it becomes too much work then you can suggest they review their objective setting process to make it more effective (perhaps by reducing the number of measures). If they are going to get the desired benefit from the standard then they have to buy in to the PDCA / PDSA cycle - pretty basic stuff.

hjilling said:
I do expect and see significant decisions are documented.
As above anything set by the management team is significant.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#26
For months our posts used to agree on most things, but lately, we seem to always find ourselves on opposite sides of a point. I will comment on a few items for the sake of clarity, then bow out of this one.

We have a different take on the requirements of the standard, you and I. Both mean well, but we see things differently.

Paul Simpson said:
Those are your words I quoted. The customer not meeting their own purchase forecast is not a "quality" issue. I understand the business will want to monitor sales turnover and utilization of its workforce but it tells the business nothing about the effectiveness of its Quality Management System - the purpose of clause 5.6.

The standard is not limited to "quality" issues in as strict a sense as you seem to view it. If a company is to be a beneficial supplier, it must be robust in every sense, not just in making good parts. I audit a whole company, including the supporting functions that only indirectly affect quality. These may also have metrics, and those metrics are part of the processes discussed in 4.1.



Utilization metrics such as OEE can be valuable measures of the manufacturing process quality - as they use First Time Through, Machine Availability and Build To Schedule, all quality measures in one way or another.
The organization defines their processes and metrics, not the auditor. I will not impose my viewpoints on a client. I will hold them to the requirements as stated. Other things are limited to recommnedations. You appear to be more prescriptive with your clients. We both make many good suggestions, but I have learned that I don't want to try to make an auditee do it my way.


I hope your use of "American" is not an attempt to create another "us and them over the water" battle that have been pretty tiresome over the past years.

No, but it does recognize there are seemingly different nuances to how ISO has been applied in Europe and Asia, as opposed to USA. No slight intended.


Believe me, I do not require any "stray conversation and decision", just the key ones. My definition of key is recorded earlier in the thread but I will reproduce it so it is clear:
  • If the management team (that reviews the system effectiveness) sets a target or objective that makes it "significant".
  • If that objective or target is not being met at the time of the management review then I would expect a record in the minutes as to why and what is being done about it.
Then we almost agree. In the USA, most companies set many metrics, and designate some to be key metrics. However, it is common to set objectives for dozens of metrics. If a significant decision or action is made, it is generally recorded, and I review it. It is not the custom however, to document every "stray conversation and decision." That is not consistent with my training as an ISO and TS auditor. If I were to require it, they would simply review less, and record less.

In that case, ISO would be dumbing down the system, as we say. How does that benefit anyone?


I take it your use of "minutiae" is meant to imply the areas I am talking about are trivial.
No, I was referring to ISO 9k2k does not focus on minutae, it focuses on substantive areas. The "document reduction" efforts of ISO were not limited in scope to procedures alone. In fact, the word itself is not even used much in the standard this time. It was a conscious act to take it out. The intent, as I understood it, was to reduce the unnecessary documentation in the systems. That had been a primary complaint of certified companies. It was such a significant position in the minds of the TC176, that the USA delegation voted against adoption of TS-16949, because it put a little greater emphasis on documentation, which violated one of their primary intentions.



I cannot speak for your audit process - I can only judge by your posts. If you are allowing registered companies to miss objectives and targets and not record actions in their review of system effectiveness then I have to record in my posts that IMHO you are wrong. Nothing more or less.

If your client chooses to use 50 measures then there should be as many records of actions as there are failing metrics - if they say it becomes too much work then you can suggest they review their objective setting process to make it more effective (perhaps by reducing the number of measures).
I already stated that all significant decisions are documented, and actions taken generally are too. But, not every "stray conversation and decision."



As above anything set by the management team is significant.

Not necessarily.


Nice chatting with you mate, but I'm bowing out of this thread...it is becoming a bit wearying.
 

Caster

An Early Cover
Trusted Information Resource
#27
Look out - here come Deming!

Baldrick said:
This is slightly , but still relevant to the subject matter of achieving desired results...
Baldrick said:

Just this week I performed an internal audit on our HR department. One of their objectives was to achieve 10 days' training per employee per year, with performance running at around 3 for the past few years.

When I asked what actions were in place to achieve the intended 10 days, the HR manager replied that "some objectives aren't intended to be achieved, they're aspirational". He also reckons there is strong evidence that companies who set such "aspirational" objectives achieve better business results than those who restrict themselves to traditional objectives and fixed deadlines.

A long (and fairly intense) debate ensued and we failed to find any common ground before he had to catch a flight back to his home planet.

I'm interested to know how a TS16949 assessor would counter this argument. Does anyone have any opinions?


I'm surprised Deming hasn't come up here yet.

His point to abolish targets used to hurt my head (I had to push out a lot of MBA think to make room for it).

Then I had an experinece that perhaps gave me an insight to what he meant.

We did a Kaizen on the most profitable job in the plant. In 5 days we had made it at least 100% better. Very happy. During our presentation the President asked us how much better could it still be made (already the best job by far, already made better by our Kaizen). I had it on film. Eveyone looked down, shuffled their feet, looked embarassed, and had no answer until someone finally said 10%. We all said "yeah" and it was left at that.

What the Kaizen team knew was that 10% wasn't close, 100% wasn't even close. There were almost unlimited improvement opportunities avaialble (in the best job).

So I now wonder is that part of what Deming meant? We could have set a target of 10% improvement and hit it, or we could have just got to work and achieved infinitely more than 10% - no target needed...

So an aspirational goal could be a good thing in Deming world....work every day to get better....the results will follow.

The ISO/TS idea of metrics is based on Management by Objectives - already considered old hat in the early 70s.

Tom Peters is also not focused on metrics...he wants us to be passionate about things and the results will happen.

Captain Bob is another - do what you know is right in your heart and you will succeed.

Ricardo Semler is another - the numbers are only to see what happened in the past, not what you can do in the future

This takes real leadership and courage. And effort. And time. So it is doomed.

We all know how to "make our targets" don't we? It's easier than working every day to get better.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
#28
Caster said:
...The ISO/TS idea of metrics is based on Management by Objectives - already considered old hat in the early 70s.

Tom Peters is also not focused on metrics...he wants us to be passionate about things and the results will happen.

Captain Bob is another - do what you know is right in your heart and you will succeed.

Ricardo Semler is another - the numbers are only to see what happened in the past, not what you can do in the future

This takes real leadership and courage. And effort. And time. So it is doomed.

We all know how to "make our targets" don't we? It's easier than working every day to get better.

Interesting comments. IMO, I think these comments apply to how TS is commonly implemented. But not how it should be.

What I mean is, it is commonly thought "ISO/TS idea of metrics" is what matters. I don't agree. Metrics are just report cards. The key ingrediaent most people miss is to redefine the criteria of effectiveness for each process. The metrics don't matter move, because 40% of the time, we are measuring the wrong thing, or there is alot of noise in the metrics.

If we can define what "Good Looks like" for each process, we can do a better job of striving toward reaching those objectives. The metrics just measure the progress. I would focus on the criteria for "targets" rather than just 10% improvement in this or that. The data shouldn't be the goal, it should be the report card.

In the same way that "defining a problem correctly is halfway toward solving it," so, defining the true criteria for effectiveness for each process is halfway toward achieving it.

Often this exercise results in a lot of course corrections because we find we're going in the wrong direction. That is what 4.1.c is all about. It provides the framework upon which we work to optimize our processes.

I argue that it is a "magic ingredient" in my seminars.
 
R

rjkozak

#29
Allocation of resources

A required output of management review is resources allocation, so the practical approach is to see that managment did take some sort of action to improve. It may be too lofty of a goal based on market forces-

TS guidance document may shed some light here also. A practical approach to the specific situation may be in order. Sometimes forces beyond control, such as material shortages , price increases, industry slow down affect metrics and performance.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
B CAR (Corrective Action Request) from Management Review Meeting ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
M Reviewing Corrective Action Status for effective Management Review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 5
S Risk Management Review ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 4
G Management Review (integrated system) Management Review Meetings and related Processes 17
M Management review check-list Management Review Meetings and related Processes 3
S Management Review (9.3) - Management Review Minutes/Report ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
J ISO 13485 System 'soft start' - How to best reflect this in initial audits, management review minutes and other records? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
O ISO 13485 - Is management review required before stage 1? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
G ISO 17025-2017 Management Review reporting items - Inputs ISO 17025 related Discussions 1
I Management review in conformity assessment standards - Certification Bodies Management Review Meetings and related Processes 6
S Has anybody done IMS - Management Review Meeting ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 8
T Management review meeting workflow ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
Casana ISO 9001 - 9.3.1 Management Review - Attendees in a flat organization Management Review Meetings and related Processes 6
C Management Review Agenda Management Review Meetings and related Processes 20
Q Do Management Review records have to be on a controlled form? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 30
J ISO 9001:2015 Small Operation Management Review General Auditing Discussions 6
W ISO 9001:2015 Management Review Input Template wanted ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
G ISO 9001 - 9.3.1 Management Review - Content and Frequency Management Review Meetings and related Processes 12
S ISO 9001:2015 Clause 9.3.2 - MR (Management Review) - Adequacy of resources ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
Q How to run a Management Review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 10
S List of requirements for Management Review in IATF 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
D EMS Management review outputs - Strategic direction of the organization Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 1
B How to comply with IATF 16949:2016 9.3.2.1k - Management review IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
E Template of a Management Review Agenda or Report in compliance with ISO 13485:2016 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
M FDA News USFDA Final Report – MDUFA IV Independent Assessment of FDA’s Device Review Process Management Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
R ISO 9001:2015 9.3 - Required inputs to the management review - Audit Nonconformance Manufacturing and Related Processes 14
T Difference between "data analysis" and "management review" ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
J 3 Questions about Management Review - ISO 9001 and IATF 16949 Management Review Meetings and related Processes 4
W Can 2 different sites under different Quality System have a common management review? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
I Trying to explain some of the Management Review Inputs (AS9100D) Management Review Meetings and related Processes 10
W IATF 16949 Clause 6.1.1 - My first Major NCR (Management Review) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 57
H ISO 9001:2015 Cl. 9.3.1 - General Director doesn't participate in Management Review ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
Tagin Management Review - How elaborate should Management Review be? Management Review Meetings and related Processes 14
R University Research Project - Management Review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 17
G ISO 9001:2015 - Management Review 9.3.2 c) 5) - Monitoring and Measurement Results ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
B IATF 16949 Clause 9.3.2.1 - Management Review Inputs IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
B IATF 16949 Cl. 9.3.2.1 - Management Review Inputs - Process Effectiveness and Efficie IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 14
A How to satisfy the "Interested Party" Management Review Requirement ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
Z MRM (Management Review Meeting) Template for ISO 9001:2015 Management Review Meetings and related Processes 3
S What defines Top Management after a Merger? Quality Management Review (9.3.1) Management Review Meetings and related Processes 1
A ISO 9001:2015 Clause 9.3.2 - Management Review Inputs must be Documented? Management Review Meetings and related Processes 15
S Corporate Quality Manager keeping me out of the Management Review Meeting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 28
B Global / Local Management Review - ISO 9001:2008 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
D What should be included in Management Review Meeting for ISO 9001:2015? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 19
P Trending CAPA's in our Management Review Meetings ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
S Risk Management during Contract Review AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 14
P How CAPA's are trended in Management Review Nonconformance and Corrective Action 1
P Management Review - Performance and Product Conformity question General Auditing Discussions 7
Q Management Review - Alternative methods Management Review Meetings and related Processes 20
N Incompleted tasks from previous management review meeting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 1

Similar threads

Top Bottom