A
WOW, thank you, JaneB, for the interesting discussion!: )
I've tried to do so at an MD company, where management has adopted an approach somewhat (I guess) similar to your suggestions: the mngng director told me (a young engineer at that time) on numerous occasions not to pay much attention to those papers ("it's all politics, also we pay them some money for the cert.") and to concentrate on a "real stuff", such as process validation, technological improvement(s), process control, etc.!: )
Needless to say that their management review has historically had exactly (I swear!) the agenda you proposed!: )))
And I has been really tight on time with those engineering department's jobs (the mentioned process validation, technological improvement(s), process control, etc.) to make mgmt review meeting template like the one I've posted.
Then we have done the review in their "regular format":
Guess what: in a short time P&G-hired ppl came to audit our relatively small company (to aid P&G in seeking of an mfg partner!!!$$$!!!) and I've ended with 11 pages of 10-height, single spaced list of nonconformance findings (it turned into 30+ pages of requests for corrective action, what means "just re-establish your QMS") including major contents missing from the mgmt review.
The guys started with a standard requirement, wanted to see it addressed in QM, in QP and then, if addressed in the docs: asked to see an objective evidence.
(Was that an FDA auditing approach? I've then moved to automotive quality and still don't know... however I so liked the principle that, as you see, keep following it since then!)
The TS requirements related to management review in my recent QMS are duplicated not twice (as you've guessed): the requirements are TRIPLICATED ; and I am proud of that; and I feel very well on having it, and I will never do less than that!
1. in the QM: copy/paste from TS, replace "organisation shall" with "Xxx Inc is" + reference to a QP vs. each of the "shall's" + keep the index of TS -> to document the mgmt commitment;
2. In the QP: copy/paste from the QM + replace "organization is" with "it is the responsibility of Manager X to" + keep in brackets numbers of the reference TS chapters -> to address the responsibility;
3. in the "mgmt review summary" form: copy/paste from the QP including the numbers of the TS's chapter and ID of the responsible mngr + leave some place for comments to fill at the review -> to ensure that you have not missed to review and to record the output from review of any little standard-required thing.
The result is:
1.) Nothing is prescribed for obligatory review and recording unless it's required by TS (and no any unnecessary head movements)!
2.) Bullet-proof reliability of the action and record taken vs. any audit (where are you, the P&G guys??
).
3.) Anybody at our Company is welcome to propose additional topics for the review (I am always asking for the proposals and, if fact, our former HR manager has once been wiling to add smthing, and I've added the topic - you can see it in the template thoroughly marked as "this is an optional input for the review", just for the purpose of keeping track of the silly proposal and removing it outta the review template by a first chance!!!!!
And nobody (except of the former HR manager) has ever proposed to add anything else to the review; that instead that me and my "mgmt review template" are both open for any suggestions and additions!
Somehow I feel (I may be wrong) that you suggest me to add stuff like "Revenue & cashflow" to the review??
I guess that, upong getting the proposal, our managing director will call promptly some really intensive care psychological emergency ambulance to aid my own self!: )
Why shall I force this
to our mgmt review???
The TS does not specifically want us to review it...
Moreover, I'd strongly recommend to any quality manager (unless specifically asked to) to leave review of this topic for whom it may concern.
Personally I guess that our mnging director is spending months of his work and private time discussing this topic with the controller, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, customers and maybe others… of course, raising this topic at our annual management review may really be one of his secret wishes he has never told me about.:truce:
At the same time I want to see anybody from the top mngmnt asking me to remove smthng from my mgmt review template
It will never happened because the template consists of a MINIMUM REQUIRED stuff (not counting the mentioned topic, which is <an optional input for the review>) and anything taken out off the template may potentially result in a major audit finding (do I need it?).
While I am truly agree that the template is far from perfection (who is not??) in terms of aesthetics / formatting, prioritization and English language: it is addressing (unless I've missed smth) the minimum requirements of TS for management review in our QMS and I guess that it may not have any other places for improvement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the conclusion:
I feel like you are backing an idea to drive improvement first by
<good intention, common sense and well knowledge> and then by fulfillment of <standard requirements>(?);
when I am putting first the standard requirements.
What do you think?
Can you really not run a 'management review' without duplicating all the words of the relevant Standards twice (once in the procedure, again in the summary)?
Needless to say that their management review has historically had exactly (I swear!) the agenda you proposed!: )))
1. Revenue & cashflow
2. Sales & marketing - especially new business
3. Business competition, risks, possible changes
4. Customers satisfaction/feedback
5. Processes, plant, equipment, etc...
2. Sales & marketing - especially new business
3. Business competition, risks, possible changes
4. Customers satisfaction/feedback
5. Processes, plant, equipment, etc...
Then we have done the review in their "regular format":
1. Revenue & cashflow
2. Sales & marketing - especially new business
3. Business competition, risks, possible changes
4. Customers satisfaction/feedback
5. Processes, plant, equipment, etc...
2. Sales & marketing - especially new business
3. Business competition, risks, possible changes
4. Customers satisfaction/feedback
5. Processes, plant, equipment, etc...
The guys started with a standard requirement, wanted to see it addressed in QM, in QP and then, if addressed in the docs: asked to see an objective evidence.
(Was that an FDA auditing approach? I've then moved to automotive quality and still don't know... however I so liked the principle that, as you see, keep following it since then!)
The TS requirements related to management review in my recent QMS are duplicated not twice (as you've guessed): the requirements are TRIPLICATED ; and I am proud of that; and I feel very well on having it, and I will never do less than that!
1. in the QM: copy/paste from TS, replace "organisation shall" with "Xxx Inc is" + reference to a QP vs. each of the "shall's" + keep the index of TS -> to document the mgmt commitment;
2. In the QP: copy/paste from the QM + replace "organization is" with "it is the responsibility of Manager X to" + keep in brackets numbers of the reference TS chapters -> to address the responsibility;
3. in the "mgmt review summary" form: copy/paste from the QP including the numbers of the TS's chapter and ID of the responsible mngr + leave some place for comments to fill at the review -> to ensure that you have not missed to review and to record the output from review of any little standard-required thing.
The result is:
1.) Nothing is prescribed for obligatory review and recording unless it's required by TS (and no any unnecessary head movements)!
2.) Bullet-proof reliability of the action and record taken vs. any audit (where are you, the P&G guys??
).3.) Anybody at our Company is welcome to propose additional topics for the review (I am always asking for the proposals and, if fact, our former HR manager has once been wiling to add smthing, and I've added the topic - you can see it in the template thoroughly marked as "this is an optional input for the review", just for the purpose of keeping track of the silly proposal and removing it outta the review template by a first chance!!!!!
And nobody (except of the former HR manager) has ever proposed to add anything else to the review; that instead that me and my "mgmt review template" are both open for any suggestions and additions!
Somehow I feel (I may be wrong) that you suggest me to add stuff like "Revenue & cashflow" to the review??
I guess that, upong getting the proposal, our managing director will call promptly some really intensive care psychological emergency ambulance to aid my own self!: )
Why shall I force this
to our mgmt review??? The TS does not specifically want us to review it...
Moreover, I'd strongly recommend to any quality manager (unless specifically asked to) to leave review of this topic for whom it may concern.
Personally I guess that our mnging director is spending months of his work and private time discussing this topic with the controller, shareholders, creditors, suppliers, customers and maybe others… of course, raising this topic at our annual management review may really be one of his secret wishes he has never told me about.:truce:
At the same time I want to see anybody from the top mngmnt asking me to remove smthng from my mgmt review template
It will never happened because the template consists of a MINIMUM REQUIRED stuff (not counting the mentioned topic, which is <an optional input for the review>) and anything taken out off the template may potentially result in a major audit finding (do I need it?).
While I am truly agree that the template is far from perfection (who is not??) in terms of aesthetics / formatting, prioritization and English language: it is addressing (unless I've missed smth) the minimum requirements of TS for management review in our QMS and I guess that it may not have any other places for improvement!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the conclusion:
I feel like you are backing an idea to drive improvement first by
<good intention, common sense and well knowledge> and then by fulfillment of <standard requirements>(?);
when I am putting first the standard requirements.
What do you think?
Last edited:
