Thank you. But let's be clear about what it is & what it's not - it's only a small cosmetic suggestion to improve one tiny part of a bigger thing. The bigger thing remained untouched.
...however, it takes some time to make a digest from the standard... potential for mistakes.... who cares how it looks... who will appreciate the additional effort????... management does not care what's in the summary / not reading it... auditors will not care... good ppl have spent their time writing the standard... why should I struggle to improve acceptable stuff for no reward...
Well, yes, and exactly so. And that's also exactly WHY my grave misgivings and profound aversion to such cumbersome & simplistic 'cut & paste' type systems.
Yes, I know all too well that it takes time, thought and effort to make something truly appear as simple, and to be useful & user-friendly. Without making that effort - just adopting a 'cut & paste' approach is simplistic. Looks simple, but actually it really isn't. You've got absolute masses of duplication and immense numbers of words among your various documents - yeah, I know that word processors make it incredibly easy to do that... doesn't mean it's a good idea. Apart from anything else, such duplication means time & effort required for someone to sort through & figure them out, not to mention effort to mainain in case of any change.
For the Review 'Summary' document you supplied, as you yourself say:
management does not care what's in the summary / not reading it... auditors will not care...
So, the big question is:
why on earth would you do it like this??? Who and what is it really for - purpose & audience being the 2 key things to establish before creating anything. If you are creating documents that are, as they appear to be, mainly for the auditors' benefit, then I severely question the value. 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)?
So, it looks like that you had no principal problems with my idea of addressing of all standard requirements in QP's(?)...
No. That's a big - and false - conclusion to leap to, and I don't know how you managed it given that I've stated repeatedly and strongly that I am adamantly opposed to that kind of simplistic approach. I just responded to a request.
How one might do it better overall is a much bigger question and one I've already written about in this & other threads.
What I've done with many of these kinds of simplistic clause-based systems (and believe me, I've seen way too many and been asked by companies to simplify many when they finally realised how painful they were) is to throw them away completely, and start off
with the business itself, and what it does - ie, a true process approach - rather than the clauses of the Standard.
Just one specific example: the same MR result could be achieved via a single page Agenda (at most) plus the supporting docs of course, & then some kind of record of outcomes which would be perhaps 2 pages (at absolute most) summary of outcomes with any specific Actions, including who, what & by when. Oh, and yes of course, adequately trained & experienced personnel. But I wouldn't & don't advocate MRs that are solely focussed on the QMS: I like to see management review as integrated into the whole business.
Were your concerns related only to the lack of arrangement / adaptation / cutting the blah-blah from/of the requirements of the standard?
Nope. Absolutely not. As already said, many times, I profoundly dislike such 'clause by clause' systems. Instead I advocate & use an approach that makes the effort to look at the business itself, and its language, and context, and how it operates & does business, and then works out how to fit the requirements of the Standard around the business and most definitely NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Because that adds infinitely more value, from being easier to operate in & with to requiring less effort to maintain.
By way of example, your Review document lists things in this order:
1. Scope of the Quality Management System and the Exclusions
2. Follow-up actions from previous management reviews (5.6.2.e).
3. Changes that could affect the quality management system
4. Results of internal and external quality audits
5. Customers' satisfaction with product supplied...
This 'order of business' is inwardly focussed & doesn't match the interests or priorities of any business owners or executives/senior managers I've had experience or worked with. I've yet to come across any who prioritise 'system scope' and 'audit results' before the $$ and customers, for example. And I fully agree with them.
They're much more likely to want to know 'how are we doing', eg:
1. Revenue & cashflow
2. Sales & marketing - especially new business
3. Business competition, risks, possible changes
4. Customers satisfaction/feedback
5. Processes, plant, equipment, etc...
See the difference?
Any competent quality professional should be capable of seeing that their agenda & interests does cover the requirements of the relevant Standard/s.
But have a QMS, or its documents or a 'management review' structured around & based on clauses & sub-clauses? Nope & a thousand times no. As you can tell, this is something I feel passionately about.
As I already said, it's that kind of approach that turns people off or burns them. 'Oh', they say, 'that quality stuff's really hard, you have to do all that tedious stuff'...
OK, perhaps as you say the current system is much better than what they had before & thus they like it better than what they had before. In which case congratulations.
But just because something is now a dull ache instead of a raging toothache doesn't mean it's great. And it could be oh, so very much better.