Management Review - Move to yearly from twice yearly

[mahasatta2002]

Accepted and agree that the standard does not categorically state the

frequency.

I withdraw the statement 'The minimum requirement is once a year'

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

Further to my comments above, I have edited a sample Database to demonstrate how it can be used to:

1) Create a repository for all Action Items in the organization (see Attachment 63) allowing you to filter and sort information by numerous means.
2) Track and record all actions (CA/PA/CI) resulting from reviews at all levels (corporate/divisional/departmental/program or project/individual employee), including non-conformances identified at internal and external audits.
3) Generate "Management Review Summary Reports (see Att. 64)
4) Generate individual "Corrective/Preventive or Improvement Action Records" (see Att. 65) (When you auditor asks what CI actions you've undertaken since the last audit, you just pop up the filtered report and/or detailed records of actions taken)...no extra work...no extra stress!!​

Sometimes a little additional thought and resources expended up front can save you immeasurable time and resources later, and truly demonstrates that your organization not only understands and complies with the ISO requirements, but uses it for its own benefit.

Patricia Ravanello

 

[mahasatta2002]

Re: Management Review-move to yearly from twice yearly

Hello QualityPhD,

Understand,appreciate your point of view including your clarification and the

sensitivity.

 

[Patricia Ravanello]

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![/SIZE]


Ciao.

Dear Sam,

I agree, Management Reviews should not be held just for the sake of it. They must make sense. The rationale lies in the segregation of inputs to Management Reviews at different levels.

While not all companies are created equal, I believe that in reality, Management Reviews are held at several levels in an organization, and the review inputs and frequency, must, of necessity, vary from level to level.

The attached PDF demonstrates, for a multi-level organization, a possible hierarchy of reviews, and potential input (Please disregard actual Metric names...many were added just to populate this sample database). This is managed through a Metrics DASHBOARD which I created, and which allows ready and controlled access to company-wide performance metrics at a moment's notice.

ISO doesn't dictate that you have to waste your time or duplicate your efforts...just that you organize it so that it makes sense for your organization. How effectively and efficiently you do that is up to you!

Patricia Ravanello

 

[Big Jim]

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.

You might want to throw in 5.6.1 to your list of elements to cover. The need to review the quality policy and quality objectives are in 5.6.1.

I think it would be easy to miss that it is beneficial for management to pull their collective heads out of the day to day operations to reflect on "where are we and where do we want to go". If they are not careful, they will miss the forests for the trees.

I totally agree that if there are lots of support meetings throughout the year, management review to meet the requirements of the standard would not need to be as often as if those support meetings were not taking place. Really, this is probably the ideal method.

When I'm auditing management review and I find they are doing it annually, I'm looking especially hard to make sure it is effective. Having a lot of support pretty much helps to see it is effective.

 

[Pancho]

The attached PDF demonstrates, for a multi-level organization, a possible hierarchy of reviews, and potential input (Please disregard actual Metric names...many were added just to populate this sample database). This is managed through a Metrics DASHBOARD which I created, and which allows ready and controlled access to company-wide performance metrics at a moment's notice.

Patricia, I am always amazed by how clear the sample forms and diagrams that you share with us are. Thanks!

 

[Sam4Quality]

Originally Posted by Patricia Ravanello

Dear Sam,

I agree, Management Reviews should not be held just for the sake of it. They must make sense. The rationale lies in the segregation of inputs to Management Reviews at different levels.

While not all companies are created equal, I believe that in reality, Management Reviews are held at several levels in an organization, and the review inputs and frequency, must, of necessity, vary from level to level.

The attached PDF demonstrates, for a multi-level organization, a possible hierarchy of reviews, and potential input (Please disregard actual Metric names...many were added just to populate this sample database). This is managed through a Metrics DASHBOARD which I created, and which allows ready and controlled access to company-wide performance metrics at a moment's notice.

ISO doesn't dictate that you have to waste your time or duplicate your efforts...just that you organize it so that it makes sense for your organization. How effectively and efficiently you do that is up to you!

Patricia Ravanello

Honestly, I am impressed at the depth to which you have gone to make management reviews highly effective! The concept, which is really a fact, that management reviews are held at various levels in an organization is particularly striking a thought-provoking chord in me, although I am well aware that it does happen at all levels!

If what you have presented here on pdf, is being practiced in your organization, I think it is an achievement of sorts, at least for me considering the side of earth on which I currently stand ! By segregating the metrics/inputs appropriate to the relevant heirarchy, it presents a crystal clear picture of who is responsible for what at what level, and the resulting output is readily available for all heirarchy's to initiate appropriate remedial action and/or to conduct their own reviews based on the data at the appropriate review frequency. Very very impressive!

No waste of time, no duplication, all efficiency, all effectiveness! And environment-friendly (paperless)! Awesome!

Ciao.

 

[Sam4Quality]

Originally Posted by Big Jim

You might want to throw in 5.6.1 to your list of elements to cover. The need to review the quality policy and quality objectives are in 5.6.1.

I think it would be easy to miss that it is beneficial for management to pull their collective heads out of the day to day operations to reflect on "where are we and where do we want to go". If they are not careful, they will miss the forests for the trees.

I totally agree that if there are lots of support meetings throughout the year, management review to meet the requirements of the standard would not need to be as often as if those support meetings were not taking place. Really, this is probably the ideal method.

When I'm auditing management review and I find they are doing it annually, I'm looking especially hard to make sure it is effective. Having a lot of support pretty much helps to see it is effective.

I agree Jim, I missed the policy and objective review. It should be part of the review process without a doubt.

Also, the "Ravanello Heirarchical Management Review" (that's how I'd like to call it!) has a great deal reassured my belief that Management review meetings should not neccesarily involved only people from the Top Management; but should also include employees at various levels within the organization, thus making reviews more realistic and profound.

Ciao.