Management Review: Separate Procedure or Description in Quality Manual?

How do you address Management Review?

  • Quality Manual (only)

    Votes: 16 18.8%
  • Management Review Procedure

    Votes: 22 25.9%
  • Both

    Votes: 38 44.7%
  • I use a simple form (agenda)

    Votes: 9 10.6%

  • Total voters
    85
A

Alex Kobzar

#81
ISO and TS is not about passing audits, it's about tuning, aligning and optimizing the performance of every process in the organization.
Just to illustrate my idea:

I would strongly disagree with the quoted statement because from my point of view the ISO/TS 16949:2002(E) is about (0.2) <- this is the number of the TS chapter> promoting "the adoption of a process approach when developing, implementing and improving the effectiveness of a quality management system, to enhance customer satisfaction by meeting customer requirements."
Please take a second to count number of misinterpretations of the standard requirements in the quoted statement (*) and to feel my vision.
Also when you have spent precious time writing the sentence (aka re-inventing the "bicycle" of the purpose of TS, which is already determined in the TS chapter number 0.2): I have just copied/pasted the standard requirement in one KISS'ed and mistake-proof way.
Wouldn't you now agree with feasibility of my concept?

(*) I believe that it is possible to count at least 4 (probably 5) misinterpretations of fundamental requirements of TS (which may potentially lead to 4 or probably 5 major audit observations at a level of "management commitment", would this relatively short statement be quoted in a QM):
TS is not about "tuning", "aligning" and "optimizing the performance" of "every process" and not only in "organization" (it also has an influence on suppliers of the organization)... now how would you please show me that an organization has adopted "a process approach when developing, implementing and improving the effectiveness of" its "quality management system, to enhance customer satisfaction by meeting customer requirements" without stating it in a QM and (if and as applicable) addressing it in QP's?:cool:
 
Last edited:
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#82
Lost in translation?

I have to accept your apologies, because my idea is not about "lightly skimming over" requirements of QMS, but about simplifying and standardizing maintenance of the formal sides of QMS.
My concept is about addressing ALL of applicable requirements of a QMS in a simple straight-forward manner, by the word of standard(s). I would define it as: "help others to do whatever they believe is to improve the bottom-line, when encouraging them by the power of management commitment to the requirements of QMS (as committed in QM an addressed in QP-s) and when "lightly skimming over" creation of sufficient objective evidence for ALL requirements of QMS".
Who can argue with someone who has a signature "Keep it simple & stupid"?:lol:
 
J

JaneB

#83
My concept is about addressing ALL of applicable requirements of a QMS in a simple straight-forward manner, by the word of standard(s).
Alex,
I wonder if you have asked your senior management what they think of the system you've set up, & whether they'd agree that it's 'simple & straightforward'? I don't find it either, based on the sample documents you've supplied which I've looked through. And there's a big difference between simple & simplistic.

It's this kind of very simplistic, 'numbered clause by numbered sub-clause by clause' approach that I've found over many, many years of experience actually turns people OFF quality, not on. (But then, that kind of approach is poles away from mine). OK, it may/perhaps gets you through audits... but I'd lay odds most people actually loathe the system & find it cumbersome, unfriendly, bureaucratic & hard to work with.

And if as a senior manager/exec. I was expected to read through a 'MR Summary doc' of 6 pages of stuff like the following quotes, PLUS all the clause numbers & referenced documents & graphs & tables etc to try & find out anything useful, let alone what I wanted to know, I think I'd be wondering why I ever bothered! If this is the summary, heaven save me from the full version. There's an interesting draft article posted by Craig in the reading room that might offer some further perspective.

Quote from your MR Review doc:

9. Summary of regular reporting and evaluation of the cost of poor quality (5.6.2.j, 5.6.1.1, 8.4.1 and 8.5.1) and of product conformity (5.6.2.c). (These results of the quality management system performance will be recorded to provide an evidence of achievement of the quality objectives specified in the business plan (5.6.1.1)).

A.K. has introduced trend of total manufactured vs. scrapped quantities.

Comment: None.

10. Employee motivation and empowerment (6.2.2.4), including the survey results (form 6-TR-004).
A.K. has introduced summary of surveys (form # 6-TR-004, Rev. 0): one answer has been corrected within a follow-up with an employee; the rest of the answers have been correct.

Comment: None.

11. The need for changes to the quality management system, including quality policy (5.6.2.l, 5.1.c).
The Quality policy will be reviewed to ensure that the Policy is suitable (5.1.e) and appropriate to the purpose of Xxx Inc. (5.1.a); and provides a framework for establishing and reviewing of the quality objectives (5.1.c).
If quality policy is updated: the Quality Manager will ensure that the updated quality policy includes a commitment to comply with requirements and continually improve the effectiveness of the quality management system (5.1.b); is communicated and understood within the organization (according to the procedure number QP-62-01, Training and awareness) as well as through publishing of the quality policy across the company (5.1.d).

F.D. has confirmed the commitment to achieve the TS 16949:2002 registration.
A.K. has introduced a proposal draft of a new Quality Policy (see also chapter 10. hereinafter).

A need in update of the quality policy has identified; A.K. has presented a draft of the updated policy to the management review.
The draft has been reviewed to ensure that to ensure that the Policy:
- is suitable / appropriate to the purpose of Xxx Inc.;
- provides a framework for establishing and reviewing of the Quality Objectives
The draft has been approved by the management review.
The final draft of the review is attached hereinafter.

Comments:
None
And this is just a small portion... the mind boggles. How, for example, can the rest of the employees' answers to a survey on motivation be "correct"??
You want to keep it 'simple & stupid'. Indeed.
 
A

amanbhai

#84
All the company wide procedures are defined in the manual.
Like MRM, Internal audits, etc etc.
I thought it is easy for us.
 
A

Alex Kobzar

#85
I wonder if you have asked your senior management what they think of the system you've set up, & whether they'd agree that it's 'simple & straightforward'?
Of cause they did(!!!!); moreover I've gotten full support from those ppl and they have personally and quite consciously signed each of the QP's! :cool:

I'd lay odds most people actually loathe the system & find it cumbersome, unfriendly, bureaucratic & hard to work with.
NOBODY EVER DID (including ALL managers and auditors)!!!!!
As the designer of the system I have been getting strictly compliments.:eek:

How, for example, can the rest of the employees' answers to a survey on motivation be "correct"??
They were trained and have chosen correct answers from the multiple-choice questionnaire (I've posted example somewhere).

And if as a senior manager/exec. I was expected to read through a 'MR Summary doc' of 6 pages
I've been fascinated with your assumption that a top management may be interested to read summary of a management review(???).
I trully believe that the summary is not intended for reading by the top management.
Why would they read the body of the review when they have heard all that at the meeting(!?).
I guess that maximum what they may probably be wiling to take another look at after the review is the attachments to the review such as e.g. trend of "production scrap" or summary of customer complaints, etc.).
My template of the mgmt review summary is only intended
a.) to provide documented evidence of the event of the review (truly amusing reading for external auditors!) and
2.) to document requests for CAPA initiated at the review (to be then taken to a CAPA follow-up log).
My way our annual mgmt review takes less than two hours to get all the stuff reviewed;
that is less than half of the time the reviews have taken with the ancestor Quality Manager (that time for QS system).
Moreover: instead of the time spent, that review has not covered many of the standard requirements (each one may be a major audit finding!).
1.) The management has been really grateful to me for saving their time.
2.) My template fool-proves that ALL the requirements of TS are reviewed and indexed after the TS chapters (that helps me when auditors are looking to find the evidence);
3.) the quotations from the standard in the mgmt review summary template are mostly not intended to be even read at the reviews (these are a reminder for me to direct the discussion);
4.) the way the review is conducted promotes initiation of important and to-the-point CAPA (mostly replaced by XXX in the template I've posted); even where the management have not identified a need in improvement: the evidence of the review of the required input is provided;
so, at our company and all-around everybody are just happy with my approach:biglaugh:

Most of the few quality mgmt systems, which I’ve seen had very little relation to their Scopes.
QM and QP's in such systems were usually
- full of good intentions of their creators;
- written in a form of work instructions and
- provided with extensive flow-charts detailing and specifically telling what and how different people shall do different stuff!:bonk:
All that instead of addressing specific requirements of Scope to specific position holders…
This approach is very not uncommon and somehow those systems even getting through audits...
I guess it mostly happens at companies not willing to clearly assign responsibilities.
My approach is that managers shall read the QP's, however may not do so.
In our system it is the responsibility of each Manager to do whatever it takes to improve the bottom line (with absolutely no need to look into QP's), while the QP's are created to ensure that whatever right stuff ppl at the Company do, the way they want: it will eventually be according to the QP's.
 
Last edited:
A

Alex Kobzar

#87
I will appreciate having a specific example for "why not" or for "how to do it better"!:thanks: in advance!: )
 
A

Alex Kobzar

#89
WOW, that's awesome!: )
...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...

Copy/paste the standard requirements: takes minimum time, may look awful; comprehensive, mistake- and bullet-proof!: ) :eek:

So, it looks like that you had no principal problems with my idea of addressing of all standard requirements in QP's(?)...
Were your concerns related only to the lack of arrangement / adaptation / cutting the blah-blah from/of the requirements of the standard?
:thanx:
 
Last edited:
J

JaneB

#90
WOW, that's awesome!: )
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. :nopity:

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.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
S Risk Management Review ISO 14971 - Medical Device Risk Management 4
G Management Review (integrated system) Management Review Meetings and related Processes 17
M Management review check-list Management Review Meetings and related Processes 3
S Management Review (9.3) - Management Review Minutes/Report ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
J ISO 13485 System 'soft start' - How to best reflect this in initial audits, management review minutes and other records? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 3
O ISO 13485 - Is management review required before stage 1? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
G ISO 17025-2017 Management Review reporting items - Inputs ISO 17025 related Discussions 1
I Management review in conformity assessment standards - Certification Bodies Management Review Meetings and related Processes 6
S Has anybody done IMS - Management Review Meeting ISO 14001:2015 Specific Discussions 8
T Management review meeting workflow ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 9
Casana ISO 9001 - 9.3.1 Management Review - Attendees in a flat organization Management Review Meetings and related Processes 6
C Management Review Agenda Management Review Meetings and related Processes 20
Q Do Management Review records have to be on a controlled form? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 30
J ISO 9001:2015 Small Operation Management Review General Auditing Discussions 6
W ISO 9001:2015 Management Review Input Template wanted ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 1
G ISO 9001 - 9.3.1 Management Review - Content and Frequency Management Review Meetings and related Processes 12
S ISO 9001:2015 Clause 9.3.2 - MR (Management Review) - Adequacy of resources ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
Q How to run a Management Review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 10
S List of requirements for Management Review in IATF 16949 IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 10
D EMS Management review outputs - Strategic direction of the organization Miscellaneous Environmental Standards and EMS Related Discussions 1
B How to comply with IATF 16949:2016 9.3.2.1k - Management review IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 2
E Template of a Management Review Agenda or Report in compliance with ISO 13485:2016 ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
M FDA News USFDA Final Report – MDUFA IV Independent Assessment of FDA’s Device Review Process Management Medical Device and FDA Regulations and Standards News 0
R ISO 9001:2015 9.3 - Required inputs to the management review - Audit Nonconformance Manufacturing and Related Processes 14
T Difference between "data analysis" and "management review" ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
J 3 Questions about Management Review - ISO 9001 and IATF 16949 Management Review Meetings and related Processes 4
W Can 2 different sites under different Quality System have a common management review? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 4
I Trying to explain some of the Management Review Inputs (AS9100D) Management Review Meetings and related Processes 10
W IATF 16949 Clause 6.1.1 - My first Major NCR (Management Review) IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 57
H ISO 9001:2015 Cl. 9.3.1 - General Director doesn't participate in Management Review ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
Tagin Management Review - How elaborate should Management Review be? Management Review Meetings and related Processes 14
R University Research Project - Management Review Management Review Meetings and related Processes 17
G ISO 9001:2015 - Management Review 9.3.2 c) 5) - Monitoring and Measurement Results ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
B IATF 16949 Clause 9.3.2.1 - Management Review Inputs IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 1
B IATF 16949 Cl. 9.3.2.1 - Management Review Inputs - Process Effectiveness and Efficie IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 14
A How to satisfy the "Interested Party" Management Review Requirement ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
Z MRM (Management Review Meeting) Template for ISO 9001:2015 Management Review Meetings and related Processes 3
S What defines Top Management after a Merger? Quality Management Review (9.3.1) Management Review Meetings and related Processes 1
A ISO 9001:2015 Clause 9.3.2 - Management Review Inputs must be Documented? Management Review Meetings and related Processes 15
S Corporate Quality Manager keeping me out of the Management Review Meeting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 28
B Global / Local Management Review - ISO 9001:2008 ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8
D What should be included in Management Review Meeting for ISO 9001:2015? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 19
P Trending CAPA's in our Management Review Meetings ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 1
S Risk Management during Contract Review AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 14
P How CAPA's are trended in Management Review Nonconformance and Corrective Action 1
P Management Review - Performance and Product Conformity question General Auditing Discussions 7
Q Management Review - Alternative methods Management Review Meetings and related Processes 20
N Incompleted tasks from previous management review meeting Management Review Meetings and related Processes 1
N Suggestions for Management Review Presentation Management Review Meetings and related Processes 2
S Quality Assurance Manager involvement in Management Review AS9100, IAQG, NADCAP and Aerospace related Standards and Requirements 11

Similar threads

Top Bottom