MR Inputs (9.3.2) - "Monitoring and Measurement Results" vs. "Process Performance"

[wny4ever]

Referring to this clause 9.3.2, what is the difference between "monitoring and measurement results" and "process performance"?

9.3.2 Management review inputs
The management review shall be planned and carried out taking into consideration:
c) information on the performance and effectiveness of the quality management system, including trends in:
3) PROCESS PERFORMANCE and conformity of products and services;
5) MONITORING AND MEASUREMENT RESULTS;

 

[Jen Kirley]

Re: MR Inputs (9.3.2) - "monitoring and measurement results" vs. "process performance

The key word to consider is "trends." Up until now we have often only looked at periodic "snap shots" in Management review.

Process performance is in-process, some look at it in terms of cpK but it can also just be trendlines in the process's ability to generate that which it was intended to do. I usually think of proces performance as management/service processes that deliver to the customer.

Monitoring and measurement results sends us back to 9.1.1, which requires us to determine what is to be monitored and measured above and beyond production processes and the items specifically listed, such as audit results (in terms of more than "X audits planned, X audits completed").

Monitoring and measurement does not need to always be of the same things. Suppose there was a project to reduce the amount of time needed to initiate, approve and finalize a document change. There could be a measurement of that time; it could be trended and reported in Management review because of its status as a project. If that metric is important enough to an organization, it could be continued.

I hope this makes sense!

 

[wny4ever]

Re: MR Inputs (9.3.2) - "monitoring and measurement results" vs. "process performance

Thank you for your response, Jen. However, it doesn't answer my question. Both of those MR input requirements are included in 9.3.2.c, which is under the "including trends" statement.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Re: MR Inputs (9.3.2) - "monitoring and measurement results" vs. "process performance

I am sorry for the delay in answering you. I also think I did a poor job in explaining myself.

ISO 9000:2015 (the updated definitions standard) defines performance as a measurable result (the word "result" unhelpfully adding to the confusion) and adds a note that it can be quantitative or qualitative, and a second note that it can can relate to the management of activities, processes, products, services, systems or organizations.

So we can think of 9.3.2c3 as a reporting of output of the "Do" phase in the process approach, where processes are actually running.

9.3.2.c5 uses the same terminology found in 9.1.1, in which the organization determines (a) what needs to be monitored and measured, as well as the (b) methods for monitoring and measurement, plus analysis and evaluation and (d) when the results are analyzed and evaluated. This is the "Check" (or "Study", for Deminguites) phase of the process approach.

So, in 9.3.2.c5 Management is now looking at results. What are the performance data telling us? ISO 9001:2015 uses the term result throughout but ISO 9000:2015 does not define result, so I referred to the Free Dictionary online which defines result as

1. a. Something that follows naturally from a particular action, operation, or course; a consequence or outcome. See Synonyms at effect.
b. results Favorable or desired outcomes: a new approach that got results.

2. Mathematics The quantity or expression obtained by calculation.

All of this fancy explanation could be boiled down to a simple expression: performance is how something goes, whereas a result is an outcome.

I hope this makes sense!

 

[Scott.Hilton]

Re: MR Inputs (9.3.2) - "monitoring and measurement results" vs. "process performance

I'm actually looking into this as well, I'm not sure why 5 has it's own category on this.

What is unique about 5?

-Cover customer satisfaction trends in 1
-cover Quality objectives in 2
-Cover process performance and conformity in 3
-NCR and Corrective action in 4
-Audit results in 6
-Supplier performance in 7

If we discuss the metrics and results along with actions in 1-4 and 6-7, then what exactly is 5 for?

 

[Jen Kirley]

Re: MR Inputs (9.3.2) - "monitoring and measurement results" vs. "process performance

Input #5 is for results of monitoring and measurement, which refers to what we set up in 9.1.1 and analyzed in 9.1.3. It is at the process level, showing management what process level people have already seen: the results indicated by measurements that indicate the degree/extent to which operational controls put in place are effective. A process may have a number of these types of measurements, which can be rolled up in an analysis (9.1.3) to arrive at process performance.

It would have helped, I think, if the input points were in a different order.

Let's keep in mind there is no definition of how often management reviews take place, or that everything needs to be reviewed at once. The standard seems to imply it will be a high level meeting, but a yearly look at inputs #3 and #5 arguably should not wait until the end of the year. There are probably ops reviews or similar, done even on a monthly basis, in which these are reviewed in order to generate a timely and appropriate response if needed.

 

[Scott.Hilton]

Re: MR Inputs (9.3.2) - "monitoring and measurement results" vs. "process performance

Input #5 is for results of monitoring and measurement, which refers to what we set up in 9.1.1 and analyzed in 9.1.3. It is at the process level, showing management what process level people have already seen: the results indicated by measurements that indicate the degree/extent to which operational controls put in place are effective. A process may have a number of these types of measurements, which can be rolled up in an analysis (9.1.3) to arrive at process performance.

It would have helped, I think, if the input points were in a different order.

Let's keep in mind there is no definition of how often management reviews take place, or that everything needs to be reviewed at once. The standard seems to imply it will be a high level meeting, but a yearly look at inputs #3 and #5 arguably should not wait until the end of the year. There are probably ops reviews or similar, done even on a monthly basis, in which these are reviewed in order to generate a timely and appropriate response if needed.

So what I think I am getting to is essentially setting up a report out for sections 1-4 and 6-7 that includes: Goal (Input), Results (measurements/trends) and actions as required (output) based upon that input/measurements. If we do that, at least from what I am seeing, we are covering the intent of .5.

I think I think at least.........

 

[Jen Kirley]

Re: MR Inputs (9.3.2) - "monitoring and measurement results" vs. "process performance

So what I think I am getting to is essentially setting up a report out for sections 1-4 and 6-7 that includes: Goal (Input), Results (measurements/trends) and actions as required (output) based upon that input/measurements. If we do that, at least from what I am seeing, we are covering the intent of .5.

I think I think at least.........

It may finally be time to establish balanced scorecards on a wider basis, if it helps - please remember the standard does not require a balanced scorecard; I just find their structure could be helpful in sorting out the strategic from the tactical. One could argue that a single, well-crafted scorecard could represent all of the expectations of 9.3.2 inputs #2, #3, and #5. There are a number of books on the subject - I have Kaplan's and found it was a good read but lacked examples. Luckily we have lots of examples to review, to help understand how these data might be arranged to show how they support the organization's overall strategic objectives.

 

[Scott.Hilton]

Re: MR Inputs (9.3.2) - "monitoring and measurement results" vs. "process performance

It may finally be time to establish balanced scorecards on a wider basis, if it helps - please remember the standard does not require a balanced scorecard; I just find their structure could be helpful in sorting out the strategic from the tactical. One could argue that a single, well-crafted scorecard could represent all of the expectations of 9.3.2 inputs #2, #3, and #5. There are a number of books on the subject - I have Kaplan's and found it was a good read but lacked examples. Luckily we have lots of examples to review, to help understand how these data might be arranged to show how they support the organization's overall strategic objectives.

And I think that may be what is causing me the issue, our objectives and report outs are already structured very close to that type of format. So if I use the existing format and ensure to add actions to those report outs, then I am ensure the "results" have associated action as appropriate.

Really appreciate the soundboard on this one

 

[simonwar1970]

6 years on and I have the same query, and thank the replies above to answer the question.

How i approached it along with...... for example, 9.3.2. (c) 3. Process Performance, is:

.....for MGT Review purposes, we talk about the mechanism for determining process performance and the processes we use or should we consider, and not the results, (which we actually add into meeting Quality Objectives).

For example:
Mgt Review agenda points for us under 9.3.2. (c) 3. Process Performance, include,
a) how we monitor machine performance, do we use OEE, could we use OEE, should we use, cost of measuring vs value of knowing?
b) how we relate employee capability to process performance, how can we do this, how do we appropriately monitor people, without upsetting them?
c) calibration, how we calibrate, do we use NATA Labs, internal methods for equipment calibration and testing, any advances in marketplace.

So we use Mgt Review to discuss our approach to process performance and not the actual performance of the process.

For what its worth

Simon