Management Review - Signatures Required?

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
#41
Randy said:
Am I nasty...you betcha.
At least you admit it. But not something most people would be proud of. You have so much else to be proud of i.e. your multiple retirement incomes, careers/talents/businesses and of course your MENSA membership. But being proud of being nasty? :confused:

Maybe you need a vacation from all that work.

JMO.
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor

Randy

Super Moderator
#42
"Tunopia" is a combination of tunnel vision and myopia. I use the word to describe the state that most function specific professionals exist in because they either refuse to, choose not to, cannot, will not, or do not understand business/organizational activities outside of their narrow band or range. Subsequently the FSP's confine themselves to non-issues to try to gain attention to their needs, have difficulties communicating beyond their borders and up the chain, and exist in the nether worlds of their organizations, unable to advance beyond 2nd or 3rd tier influence.

I use the term smoking stuff instead of telling people to pull their head out of their azz, especially when they seem to get wrapped around the axel over relatively minor issues (piddly stuff).

Maybe my hide is somewhat tougher than other folks. I guess it started getting tough when my 10th grade history teacher greeted us at the beginning of the year by telling all of us that we were ignorent and unlearned....turned out he was correct. Mr. Howard King use such language to incite within us a desire to prove him wrong, not to injure us.
 
N

noboxwine

#43
Randy: I cannot decipher your analogies and vernacular, but I thought my response covered Rosie's question below. Anyway, if you agree to bow down to registrars that induce rules outside of the standard, no matter how 'piddly' it may be, that's fine. Run your biz as you see fit. However, my business practices cannot justify it, morally or financially. My data that proves this kind of 'practice' is fruitless.

Most importantly, I think, it makes those new to QA very uncomfortable and confused about what systems and ISO is all about. It's difficult enough for some newcomers to understand the written standard itself. Now, they may have interpret, outside the written standard, a new dialect for each registrar or auditor ? Nonsense.

RosieA said:
Has anyone else fought this battle? What do you do when a Registrar has their feet planted on an issue, and it isn't specifically required by the standard? Should I fight this or give in?
 
E

energy

#44
Tact

Randy said:
"Tunopia" is a combination of tunnel vision and myopia. I use the word to describe the state that most function specific professionals exist in because they either refuse to, choose not to, cannot, will not, or do not understand business/organizational activities outside of their narrow band or range. Subsequently the FSP's confine themselves to non-issues to try to gain attention to their needs, have difficulties communicating beyond their borders and up the chain, and exist in the nether worlds of their organizations, unable to advance beyond 2nd or 3rd tier influence.
"Most function specific professionals"? Well, that covers most of us, for sure. This "Tunopia" and "wrapped around the axle" is found in a lot of Randy's posts. Do a search. One can see where newer members can be agitated by these responses, but I can tell you this: Under that gruff exterior is a softy. Being a former Policeman and Marine can dull you to the sensitivities of others, but there is no malice intended. A recognized Mensa member, (yes that's in a lot of posts, too) it should be understood that those "outside that particular box" have a limited grasp of what they are doing. Read between the lines and you get great information. Randy, my good man, tact is not one of your strong suits. Rosie, C'mon back! :bonk: :smokin:
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
#45
Randy said:
Think of the registration certificate as a license and the registrar as the licensing agency. The agency is bound by whatever regulatory requirements it has to meet and also is allowed to modify or stiffen them up somewhat. "You want my license, obey my rules."
Issues of tact (or the lack thereof), smokin' stuff, "tunopia", piddly squeekin', (I'm suprized he forgot another of his favorites -- "getting your t*ts in a wringer"...) :vfunny: etc. aside...

This quote by Randy made me think. I think a good question when interviewing a potential registrar might be something like this: "Do you impose additional requirements, above and beyond the 'shalls' in ISO 9001, that must be met in order for you to issue a certificate?"

I wonder how many registrars would answer in the affirmative? And how many of those who answer "no" would later be found to be fibbing?

If they answered yes I'd think you had better get a complete list of what those additional requirements are, or else you could be in for a long, bumpy ride.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#46
Mike S. said:
Issues of tact (or the lack thereof), smokin' stuff, "tunopia", piddly squeekin', (I'm suprized he forgot another of his favorites -- "getting your t*ts in a wringer"...) :vfunny: etc. aside...

This quote by Randy made me think. I think a good question when interviewing a potential registrar might be something like this: "Do you impose additional requirements, above and beyond the 'shalls' in ISO 9001, that must be met in order for you to issue a certificate?"

I wonder how many registrars would answer in the affirmative? And how many of those who answer "no" would later be found to be fibbing?

If they answered yes I'd think you had better get a complete list of what those additional requirements are, or else you could be in for a long, bumpy ride.
You hit the nail on the head!! ;) You are right on target and have grasped what I was alluding to.

Registrars have the absolute right to impose "special" requirements above and beyond just auditing the implimentation of the standard.

I work primarily in the EMS or ISO 14001 field. ISO 14001 does not require a "Manual", however some registrars require the existance of one and that it be provided to them during the Phase/Stage 1 Assessment. Also because of the legal liabilities of environmental issues within an EMS the absolute ability to be able to verify communication of information to/from Top Management is necessary. The registrars and auditors of a certificated EMS assume levels of liability in the process and they like to minimize it as much as possible, signatures of appropriate people on appropriate may help to minimize it and also help to provide evidence of communication/committment.

I will give you this....A signed pice of paper is quite honestly worthless unless some other type of objective, verifiable evidence can be shown. I could generate a document, sign all of your names (or have them signed) to it and say you were at a management review meeting when in fact you weren't. As an auditor, I attempt to interview folks whose names are on those things to see if they really know what was going on. If not, I cry BS. I may not use the term BS, but the auditee knows what I mean.

It is incumbent that organizations (and the folks making the decisions) that enter into arrangements ask questions and find out what the really need to do before they start crying and whining about being held to a requirement not in the standard. Most don't until after the fact.

I instruct/tutor a ton of implimentaion and other courses for 9K, 14K, IMS, and OHSAS and I tell everyone in every course..."ASK your registration body, if you are going for registration, what their requirements are and about the credentials of their auditors." Some of the folks that I have had the privilage of instructing come here and I think they will verify that. If you don't ASK, it's your fault not the registrar's. Hold the registrar's feet to the flame with what they tell you...get it in writing (Duh, what an original concept).
 
#47
Randy said:
If you don't ASK, it's your fault not the registrar's.
I respectfully disagree here, Randy. Several years ago (the 70's), when I was in college I had a roommate that had fairly long hair. Mine was always cut close. One day he commented he needed a haircut, and asked where I had mine cut. He returned really ticked off. His hair was short!

The first thing a barber does is ask how you want your hair cut. His response was "over the ears", meaning overlapping, or covering the ears. The barber cut it "over the ears" or above the ears. They both said the same thing, but had two different concepts.

Clause 7 makes it pretty clear that it is the supplier's responsibility to make sure that the requirements are clearly defined. That means that it is the registrar's responsibility to tell, and not wait for you to ask. If I asked if you have any additional requirements, you could always just say yes, and we could go on for days, as I try to pull every last additional requirement out of you. Instead, you need to tell me up front what the requirements are. But when you engage "function specific professionals ", such as auditors, then the line gets fuzzy.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#48
db said:
Clause 7 makes it pretty clear that it is the supplier's responsibility to make sure that the requirements are clearly defined. That means that it is the registrar's responsibility to tell, and not wait for you to ask. If I asked if you have any additional requirements, you could always just say yes, and we could go on for days, as I try to pull every last additional requirement out of you. Instead, you need to tell me up front what the requirements are. But when you engage "function specific professionals ", such as auditors, then the line gets fuzzy.
I don't know how many contracts you've reviewed, but the ones I have specific requirements were stipulated in the language.

As for Clause 7.....The customer is the one that determines and specifies the requirements of the product, the organization has to figure out how to meet the requirements and special issues involved in the realization of the product.

I'm not defending registrars in this, but people fail to accept that they can, and many times do say basically the following..."Yes, we will determine (for specified compensation) whether or not your organizations SYSTEM conforms to requirements and issue a certificate stating so. In order to do so you need to understand that we have requirements that we arte bound by and of our own which are....... Do you agree?" More often than not the questions asked by organizations are: How much? When? Nothing else. No questions about the credentials of audit staff, supplementary requirements and issues. NADA!!

We are in a place now where we have developed a mind-set...it's not my fault, I was force fed Big Mac's and cigarettes....... Same type of thing here with registrars and requirements "It's your fault because I didn't ask, I was only concered with cost and time."
 
N

noboxwine

#49
I wanna see it !

Randy said:
Registrars have the absolute right to impose "special" requirements above and beyond just auditing the implimentation of the standard. :confused:

Randy: I agree you're just an angry Teddy Bear and do very well with your programs. I sift through your posts and garner a lot of good points. That aside:

Why are we buying the ISO International Standards, if the registrars impose additional requirements ? Shouldnt we be buying a standard from the registrars, instead ?

Now, I'll put this in terms you'll understand.

Unless you can show me, in writing, where the governing bodies of ISO state that registrars can impose additional requirments outside of their International Standard, you're full of sh*t ! (I had a crabby 10th grade teacher, too) :vfunny:
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#50
noboxwine said:
Randy said:
Registrars have the absolute right to impose "special" requirements above and beyond just auditing the implimentation of the standard. :confused:

Randy: I agree you're just an angry Teddy Bear and do very well with your programs. I sift through your posts and garner a lot of good points. That aside:

Why are we buying the ISO International Standards, if the registrars impose additional requirements ? Shouldnt we be buying a standard from the registrars, instead ?

Now, I'll put this in terms you'll understand.

Unless you can show me, in writing, where the governing bodies of ISO state that registrars can impose additional requirments outside of their International Standard, you're full of sh*t ! (I had a crabby 10th grade teacher, too) :vfunny:
And it (my "s") stinks too :biglaugh:

Here is a small excerpt from IAF Guide 62 (you may need to format it for easier viewing):

2.1.5. Conditions for granting, maintaining, extending, reducing, suspending, and withdrawing certification / registration IAF Guidance to clause 2.1.5. (G.2.1.42. – G.2.1.45.)

G.2.1.42. Clause 2.1.5 of ISO/IEC Guide 62 does not mention a specific period in which at least one complete internal audit and one management review of the organization’s quality management system shall take place. The certification / registration body may specify a period.

Irrespective of whether the certification / registration body has chosen to specify a minimum frequency, measures shall be established by the certification / registration body to ensure the effectiveness of the organization’s management review and internal audit processes.

G.2.1.43. Certification / registration shall not be granted until there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the arrangements for management review and internal audit have been implemented, are effective and will be maintained.

To counter your statement show me where thay can't impose requirements. They are "required to insure conformance or compliance to the applicable standard", how they do that is many times left to them and is a matter of contarctural agreement.
 
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