Management Review "planned interval" define please

[batman1056]

I have just audited a company who had annual management reviews but then had quarterly ones with another management structure. When I reviewed the quarterly meetings the membership had dropped from 9 to 2 people over the year.. So in essence not effective, I was tempted to give them a NC for not having effective systems in place to ensure continuous improvement.. That includes the use of reduces in management meetings which provided no value.

 

[RoxaneB]

Management Review does not necessarily have to be a meeting, so citing a lack of effectiveness based on the 2 people in attendance may be rather non-value-added...and insulting to the 2 people who do participate in the meeting.

Instead, look at the output of the meeting...encourage leadership to share if they capture the essence of management review via other methods. Then you can perhaps offer an opportunity with more value such as having them identify the various means in which management view is conducted (i.e., not just a meeting).

 

[TigerLilie]

I have documented the planned interval in a procedure for Management Review. We started out as quarterly, but last year changed to every 6 months. We have regular KPI meetings weekly and senior manager meetings and documented every morning. But the full blown management review report is documented for the 1st half and another report for the 2nd half of the year.

Question, are your biannual management reviews in line with your company's fiscal year? Our FY starts and ends in July. So we used to have our biannual management reviews (with COQ data) and third-party audits in July and January.
Since then we have changed our audit schedule to March and September, but remain collecting COQ and management review data for July and January.
I always thought this was confusing, but my boss, who isn't here anymore, never wanted to change it. Thoughts?

 

[Jim Wynne]

Question, are your biannual management reviews in line with your company's fiscal year? Our FY starts and ends in July. So we used to have our biannual management reviews (with COQ data) and third-party audits in July and January.
Since then we have changed our audit schedule to March and September, but remain collecting COQ and management review data for July and January.
I always thought this was confusing, but my boss, who isn't here anymore, never wanted to change it. Thoughts?

You can do it however you want. It doesn't matter how they line up with your third-party audits; they are separate and mostly unrelated events.

 

[kgott]

Planned intervals is not the right term to use or the right way to perceive it.

We know there is a problem with our 'xyz' document but hay, we will be having a review in 18 months time we'll fix it then. Yea right!

Management review occurs at any time any member of the management team reviews any aspect of system performance.

Most organisations I have worked for including this current one review numerous aspects of the management system on an on-going basis.

I've not worked for an organisation that does not review:

Individual performance, daily or weekly, why, cos they could be slackers trying to avoid work.

incoming work, weekly or monthly, why, cos working coming in the door is the pipeline of cash flow.

spend vs progress, why cos profit or loss is important.

quality - every two years. why cos that's how important it is

safety, every three years, why cos that's how important it is.

 

[AndyN]

Planned intervals is not the right term to use or the right way to perceive it.

We know there is a problem with our 'xyz' document but hay, we will be having a review in 18 months time we'll fix it then. Yea right!

Management review occurs at any time any member of the management team reviews any aspect of system performance.

I'm not sure this is an accurate representation of what was intended. WHen you consider "planned intervals" the idea is to consider those inputs and also the outputs and decide when a review is needed. Management Systems aren't reviewed daily or weekly - especially when internal audits aren't done that frequently. Monthly, quarterly I can agree - or even not to a specific calendar. But it must be a consideration of performance, including audits and look for improvements!

 

[kgott]

Management Systems aren't reviewed daily or weekly !

Perhaps not the whole system Andy but parts of it are, albit small parts, and over time all the parts are. I think in many cases business leadership does not realise that this is what they are doing and so it tends to not get recorded.

In my current employers business, there is no end of management meetings most of which are not recorded. It starts at the team leader level with a team meeting, business unit level, operations management level, and directors level. For a 120 person business I have never known so many many meetings to be held.

Not all busienses are run like this business but I'm certain some aspects of the busienss operating systems are reviewed just about every day

 

[John Broomfield]

I have just audited a company who had annual management reviews but then had quarterly ones with another management structure. When I reviewed the quarterly meetings the membership had dropped from 9 to 2 people over the year.. So in essence not effective, I was tempted to give them a NC for not having effective systems in place to ensure continuous improvement.. That includes the use of reduces in management meetings which provided no value.

batman,

You are not auditing a company. You are auditing a company's management system to see if it conforms to the standard and is effective. You've presented no evidence of ineffectiveness but you've expressed your opinion about the size and frequency of the management system performance review meetings.

In what way was the management system not delivering the improvements required?

John

 

[normzone]

Perhaps not the whole system Andy but parts of it are, albit small parts, and over time all the parts are. I think in many cases business leadership does not realise that this is what they are doing and so it tends to not get recorded.

In my current employers business, there is no end of management meetings most of which are not recorded. It starts at the team leader level with a team meeting, business unit level, operations management level, and directors level. For a 120 person business I have never known so many many meetings to be held.

Not all busienses are run like this business but I'm certain some aspects of the busienss operating systems are reviewed just about every day

You've summed it up well. I think that "management review" happens all the time but is not documented in such a manner that it is readily auditable. This is one of the reasons why so many organizations conduct a "management review meeting" on a yearly basis, structured directly from the requirements of the ISO 9001 standard.

It keeps the auditor at bay, AND constitutes a handy arena for dragging issues into the light that some people might prefer not to discuss.

 

[insect warfare]

I'm not sure this is an accurate representation of what was intended. WHen you consider "planned intervals" the idea is to consider those inputs and also the outputs and decide when a review is needed. Management Systems aren't reviewed daily or weekly - especially when internal audits aren't done that frequently. Monthly, quarterly I can agree - or even not to a specific calendar. But it must be a consideration of performance, including audits and look for improvements!

I'm a firm believer in conducting strategic management reviews at "planned" intervals, as opposed to "periodic" intervals - there's a reason why it says "planned" in standards. "Periodic" to me smacks of "let's set it and forget it". But if you can define (and preferably document) a sound methodology for holding management reviews closer together when there are more actions and decisions to follow up on, and holding that pattern until you start to see a relaxed state, then (in my book) you've reached the promised land. And it would be prudent to establish min/max frequency thresholds anyway, if only as a safeguard, to 1) avoid excessive gaps between reviews and 2) manage the natural accumulation of changing business circumstances.

I think handling management reviews this way can demonstrate effective use of the risk-based assessment model, which I suspect lots of ISO 9001:2015 users will gradually realize as they traverse into the realm of (visible) risk management.

Brian