Re: Management Review Meetings - Auditor issued an Area of Concern regarding our meth
On the outset your manual looks OK. But it is not OK from the point of normal practice
Subjective. Nothing in the Standard supports this. A fallacious argument based on what is considered by you to be 'normal practice'.
1)It is highly improbable tha the owner finds time every week to attend the MRM.
Nope. You're making an assumption = an example of something I call 'blinkered' - presumably based on a certain rather narrow view or limited experience. In my consulting, I have seen many organisations where the owner is regularly involved in frequent meetings which meet the requirements - or part thereof - of the MR clause 5.6
If he absents from the meeting ,such meetings cannot be labelled as MRMS.
Subjective interpretation. Depends on the structure of the organisation.
Because MRMs are called by and presided by top managementonly.
Subjective interpretation. Depends on the structure of the organisation.
2)Every week your focus will be on the current issues and not concerning the performance during the whole year.
Assumption. Subjective.
3)However you try you cannot inject the seriousness required in an MRM into a weekly meeting.(After all we are going meet after a few days again).
Yet another subjective assumption.
Where is "seriousness" demanded or required, by the way? I've come across plenty of businesses who had a lot of fun, weren't serious during meetings (at least to an outsider) but who still ran
highly effective businesses at ISO 9001 level. Another example of what I'd call a 'blinkered' approach and making up your own rules.
It is prudent to be practicle than mear legal here.
V.J.Brahmaiah
Not quite sure of your meaning - but I will always return to the Standard itself rather than an interpetation of it, if this is what you mean by 'be practical'. I think this is a fallacious argument.
You can have your own way and I, mine.It is a matter of perseption.
Yes, I agree points of view can differ. But I hold to the
Standard as the ultimate reference, not 'perception' or your rules.
Minimum quorum FOR an MRM is (by a common sense approach and not specified):-
I. A person from top management with full executive powers
II. The MR.
III.representative of Marketing
IV.Representative of product development and product realization
V.Representative of Quality Assurance
V. In the event of resignation of MR, a replacement should be made without delay.
Rubbish. Nothing in the Standard says this.
And being this specific about titles? As has already been said, not a good idea. Another example of making up one's own rules, not abiding by what the Standard itself says.
In the Absense of top management the MRM should be cancelled. Other absences are of less significant and may be permitted by TM.
Ditto - as above.
I TAKE OBJECTION TO YOUR PERSONAL CRITICISM.
I'm sorry you see personal criticism. I attacked what you said and rebutted it. I don't see that as personal criticism. This may be an area where we have to agree to disagree. I didn't pick out all your quotes and say what I've said above because it had already been done by others, but have done so now at your apparent request.
Also, not all organizations are manufacturing, nor are they staffed by 10's of hundred's of people, I have experience with an organization using ISO 9001 that had less than 10 people, so there again your comments would be inapplicable because top management consisted of "Owners -Husband & Wife".
Don't lock yourself in to one line of thought and please remove the burr from the saddle blanket.
Thanks Randy, you took the words out of my mouth.
The Standard is deliberately
generic. Many people ignore or just don't notice certain places where it spells this out, in very, very plain language such as:
It is not the intent of this International Standard to imply uniformity in the structure of quality management systems or uniformity of documentation. 0.1
All requirements of this International Standard are generic and are intended to be applicable to all organizations, regardless of type, size and product provided. (1.2)
It is worth thinking long and hard if necessary, about the meaning and implications of these bits. Not least when required to avoid being blinkered by one's own experience and/or limited vision.
I commend their study to you.
