I thought that about MR role. It was not through the MR's own, personal authority in the company that the role is carried out but through the authority of the top management in who's name you act in your role as MR. Whatever other role you perform at whatever level you are put at the MR role is through the authority of the Top Management. I took that as meaning when doing MR role your voice is considered that of top management, when doing other roles you speak with your own voice which can be ignored or acted on depending on your position. Could be wrong.
M
maxximus
OHSAS 18001 requirement : "The organization shall appoint a member(s) of top management with specific responsibility for OH&S, irrespective of other responsibilities, and with defined roles and authority for ..."
ISO 9001: "The organization shall appoint a member of management ... "
How you can prove it , that the janitor is a member of management?? You can show your Organisation chart , where the janitor will be situated on the same level as somebody in your company who is called, titled "management member" (like purchasing manager, sales manager, etc.)That will be correct and will not get the non-conformity
Otherwise, it is in discrepancy with the standard (ISO9001), in my opinion.
ISO 9001: "The organization shall appoint a member of management ... "
How you can prove it , that the janitor is a member of management?? You can show your Organisation chart , where the janitor will be situated on the same level as somebody in your company who is called, titled "management member" (like purchasing manager, sales manager, etc.)That will be correct and will not get the non-conformity
Otherwise, it is in discrepancy with the standard (ISO9001), in my opinion.
drgnrider
Quite Involved in Discussions
Not trying to disagree with what you or the standards say, but the standards do not specifically define "management", other than "top management", and then they do not specify wherein the chain-of-command this position lies. This could be as vague as 'anyone who is in charge of someone or some process'. Does not have to hold the title of manager.
I guess my title of "Calibration Coordinator" could just as easily be "Calibration Manager". I have nobody that works with me but I basically have full control of calibration operations.
I guess it all comes down to how the organization wants to interpret the definition.
I guess my title of "Calibration Coordinator" could just as easily be "Calibration Manager". I have nobody that works with me but I basically have full control of calibration operations.
I guess it all comes down to how the organization wants to interpret the definition.
hogheavenfarm
Admin
I have always believed , (maybe wrongly), that the role of Management Representative was exactly what it says, a 'representative of management'. So we ask who are we a representative to, and why.
It is not just within the company. If management sends a 'representative' to deal with a customer issue, then it implies that the representative has the authority to make decisions, and negotiate, on behalf of management. Same is true for a vendor issue. These things can be attended to by the QAM, but he is not the 'official' representative of management unless he is so designated, (as MR).
I have been at many meetings where the customer proposed solutions only to find that I had to carry the options back to management for approval, so then what is the point? Too many MR's are in this position, and it argues against nominating the janitor as MR, as he also just becomes a message bearer, not an active part of the system.
If the role of MR was to simply be a 'single point of contact', then it should be called "Management Contact", not representative.
To your other point, I am not familiar with 18001, but it seems they are asking for a top management position, not just anyone.
It is not just within the company. If management sends a 'representative' to deal with a customer issue, then it implies that the representative has the authority to make decisions, and negotiate, on behalf of management. Same is true for a vendor issue. These things can be attended to by the QAM, but he is not the 'official' representative of management unless he is so designated, (as MR).
I have been at many meetings where the customer proposed solutions only to find that I had to carry the options back to management for approval, so then what is the point? Too many MR's are in this position, and it argues against nominating the janitor as MR, as he also just becomes a message bearer, not an active part of the system.
If the role of MR was to simply be a 'single point of contact', then it should be called "Management Contact", not representative.
To your other point, I am not familiar with 18001, but it seems they are asking for a top management position, not just anyone.
M
Mazoku
I think logic tells us that someone representing management, as the title suggests, should have an equal or similarly equal amount of authority as top management capable of actually making decisions. I am just a tech at my company and I would never assume they would make me MR because I just do not hold the authority to represent management or make management level decisions. While the standard does not define "management" I think logic defines it as someone within the organization that holds the appropriate amount of authority.
W
Wilderness Woody
hogheavenfarm
Admin
This may be a moot point as far is ISO 9001 goes, as I hear the 2015 version has dropped references to MR.
M
maxximus
It looks like it will be deleted - Clause 5.5.2.
In the case of a small organization I see the benefit, however, when we are talking about company with more complicated structures and processes, it could be a problem. I?m working in manufacturing company, with cca 500 local empl., member of a group over 200 000 employess worldwide, including the field operations, huge selling division and service centres.
I would expect from the 2015 revision to make the appointment of MR more specific.
