Management Review - Move to yearly from twice yearly

[Al Rosen]

Re: Management Review-move to yearly from twice yearly

The minimum requirement is once a year.

Where does it say this?

 

[Randy]

Re: Management Review-move to yearly from twice yearly

The minimum requirement is once a year.

Hence if once a year is fulfiling your needs and helping in continual

improvement,so be it.The agenda should be addressed in totality.

Good Luck and Best of Wishes

No it's not, and you cannot find that anywhere in ISO 9001

 

[bobdoering]

Re: Management Review-move to yearly from twice yearly

No it's not, and you cannot find that anywhere in ISO 9001

They don't even specify to "Audit at your leisure." Might as well...

 

[QualityPhD]

Re: Management Review-move to yearly from twice yearly

The minimum requirement is once a year.

Hence if once a year is fulfiling your needs and helping in continual

improvement,so be it.The agenda should be addressed in totality.

Good Luck and Best of Wishes

Let's pick this apart......

1. There is NO minimum interval for management review. Perhaps a hint/inference/assumption but the competent auditor that a complete management review be performed during a surveillance audit cycle (3 years), or as a requirement for a registration audit, but certainly not annually --- and it depends of the performance of the organization.

2. "should be completed in totality" ---- Per this poster, I'd weigh my words carefully. Intro to auditing terms and definitions in the Standard(s)---- what is the key difference between "should" and "shall"????? The standard clearly states" top management SHALL conduct management review and "this review SHALL contain" the following inputs... blah blah blah

3. Given items 1 and 2, I shall not be debating "continuous improvement" with this auditor/consultant/trainer.

Sorry mahasatta, this is not a personal attack on you. I don't know you and perhaps you're even a great gal or guy. Maybe this is even a language barrier issue -- (I deduced this from your proper European grammar).

 

[DaveG]

What Ann said...

I'm amazed that in 22 years of "ISO" people still ask questions like this... but then I don't understand why companies give their money to registrars.

 

[bobdoering]

... but then I don't understand why companies give their money to registrars.

I like that thought! If ISO was straight forward enough, all one would have to do is internal audits - and if anyone wondered if the company was compliant show them the audit data.

Brilliant!

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Good Morning,

I have a question.... We just had our 3/4Q 2008 Mgt review yesterday(yep its behind, hence the discussion).

So it is my understanding that mgt review needs to happen at "planned intervals". We have it down as twice yearly, but it is so difficult to get people together to have the meeting.

We do a weekly 5-15 meeting that has all the information, we also do a monthly QOS that summaries all the weekly info. By the time we do our mgt review, all the data has been discussed and is out of date in regards to new information.

During our last ISO audit, we had a discussion about the fact that "for us", MGT review is more of a formality than a useful tool.

Do you think that the Mgt Review move to yearly would be a good idea?

thanks for you input.

Pammy

Hi Pammy,

I'm always a bit apprehensive when I see people paying more attention to the frequency of the activity than to the actual intent of the activity and the anticipated beneficial outcome.

As I'm sure you know, the standard requires that input to management review shall include information on:

a) results of audits,
b) customer feedback,
c) process performance and product conformity,
d) status of preventive and corrective actions,
e) follow-up actions from previous management reviews,
f) changes that could affect the quality management system, and
g) recommendations for improvement​

Waiting for a year to review the "follow-up actions from previous Management Reviews", or "Customer Feedback", would hardly seem to serve any useful purpose. If an annual meeting is all you can offer to your auditor, he/she should question how "effective" the Management Review Process is.

I'm sensing that the resistance to having more frequent reviews revolves around the obligation to provide objective evidence that those reviews actually occurred. To add to Randy's comments...it doesn't say you have to have a meeting.

Since, in reality, you are already doing frequent Management Reviews, why don't you create an "Action Item Database/Tracker" that records and tracks all Management review activities at all levels of the organization. It would provide a record of items like (not an exhaustive list):

1) Review Input/subject/issue/problem/etc.
2) Management member responsible for Action
3) Actions required (corrective/preventive/improvement)
4) Verification activities
5) Validation activities
6) Due date
7) Close out date
8) Other...​

Like Randy said, it's not necessary for people to even gather in a room. What's important is that the organization is meeting the intent of the standard, and that it can be demonstrated.

Better yet, see posting No. 4 in the following link for a sample "Action Tracker" database switchboard: http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=29383 (other sample reports are posted there also.)

Something like this will not only ensure that you meet the requirements for Management Review and the necessary records, but it will be an invaluable tool for day-to-day tracking of actions and improvements. Once in a database, you can extract all sorts of reports to demonstrate compliance, verification, validation, etc., without any additional work. When you populate an Action Item record, you are generating all the info required for a "Management Review Report" (which can be filtered by Manager, by date, by Department...whatever).

Make the Standard work for you...and not the contrary!

Patricia Ravanello

 

[Big Jim]

I have two clients that do not have meetings for their management review. One does it with reports to the president covering the "state of the QMS" portion and responses from the president of the "where are we going from here" portion.

The other follows the Japanese practice of "ringi" to accomplish their management review. A document called the "ringushi" is passed around top management containing the "state of the QMS" portion, each manager makes comments on the document and passes it on. It circulates until all agree. Once they all agree, implementation of the "where do we want to go from here" part is instantaneous. (I'm not sure of the proper spelling of either "ringi" or "ringuishi".)

That said, I prefer meetings, and twice a year is usually often enough for them to be effective.

The real key is to figure out how to make whatever you do meet the requirements and be effective. There is a lot of latitude. Make sure your documentation allows for whatever method you choose.

 

[Sam4Quality]

Originally Posted by pammesue

Good Morning,

I have a question.... We just had our 3/4Q 2008 Mgt review yesterday(yep its behind, hence the discussion).

So it is my understanding that mgt review needs to happen at "planned intervals". We have it down as twice yearly, but it is so difficult to get people together to have the meeting.

We do a weekly 5-15 meeting that has all the information, we also do a monthly QOS that summaries all the weekly info. By the time we do our mgt review, all the data has been discussed and is out of date in regards to new information.

During our last ISO audit, we had a discussion about the fact that "for us", MGT review is more of a formality than a useful tool.

Do you think that the Mgt Review move to yearly would be a good idea?

thanks for you input.

Pammy

I find this query quite an interesting one, although I am over with the misunderstandings I had with it in the past as a consultant myself!

Imagine while auditing top management, asking "I know you are conducting regular monthly management meetings to cover your daily business issues and issues related to the system, but when do you exactly conduct your management reviews?"

I don't see any reason, WHY! Why should we need to purposely collect all management to sit for a meeting just to fulfill a requirement when they already have through regular monthly meetings? And they have documents to support it. They don't need to!

However, I would definitely want to see all points of the subclauses 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 covered. Now, if they are covering points from the review input at various intervals through the year, do we need to compile all review inputs and eventual outputs into one MRM document? Again, the standard does not ask that, it will not, it should not!

Coming to the OP's query, if you do want to conduct a management review meeting, I think it is sensible to shift it to an annual review, where you can compile all information from those 5-15 and QOS meetings and have a comprehensive summary meeting, provided you are discussing issues relevant to the review inputs and subsequent outputs. Otherwise, having MRM's more than once is purely a waste of time, and would make the meetings look more stupid than sense, especially when you are actually conducting other meetings and discussing topics relevant to the QMS!


Ciao.

 

[AndyN]

What Ann said...

I'm amazed that in 22 years of "ISO" people still ask questions like this... but then I don't understand why companies give their money to registrars.

Hello, Dave:

Welcome to the Cove. Interesting comments and maybe we can help your understanding - most of the people who post questions here aren't really 'ISO folks' - they may be responsible for implementation etc., however since the standard isn't prescriptive, there's room for questions regarding what works. You'll find similar types of discussions about all aspects of implementation.

On the other point - many of us are representatives of registrars/certification bodies. None of us have been given money by clients, we've always provided a service for the money! If you'd take the time to read through, you'll find many posts where people here clearly find a cost benefit from their relationship with their registrars.

Of course, we understand that not all businesses have the need for registration, and there are some that don't always get value from it. Just like any supplier arrangement, you get what you pay for and also you get out of that arrangement what you put in!

We look forward to more of your contributions.......