Retained Documented Information for Management Reviews

[Perspicuity]

Thank you for your input Jen! I have always perceived that 5.6.1 stating "records of management reviews shall be maintained" meant just that...."all records shall be maintained". This I believe was bolstered by 5.6.1 being a section titled "General" which then applies itself in generality to the whole process. Unlike 2015 that states records shall be retained "of the results of management reviews"; "results" would indicate that the conclusions of the review and its outputs are the only thing that need be retained. This is further supported by the retention requirement being stated subordinate to 9.3.3 (Management review outputs). This alienates the requirement from 9.3.1 and 9.3.2. I do believe that the review requirements or 2015 are superior to those in 2008. However, I do believe that the records (i.e. evidence) required by 2015 are inferior.

I am a quality manager, a AS9100 LA, a ISO9001 LA and a NQA-1 Nuclear LA. When I assess a management review I want to see the inputs, who participated, when it was accomplished and the outputs. I have had organizations challenge the need to have anything but outputs and this causes a conundrum to those of us that prescribe to literal text rather than tribal knowledge.

In a hypothetical situation, a management review record for the 2015 standard could be complete as follows;

1) This review determined no opportunities for improvement during the period.
2) No need for QMS changes have been determined during this review.
3) Resources have been determined as adequate for the effective operation of the QMS.

Spike the ball and we are done!

Note: If one adheres to the IAF/AGP document, you need to include your budget in the outputs. Though, this is certainly not stated by ISO9001 (any edition).

 

[Sidney Vianna]

I am a quality manager, a AS9100 LA, a ISO9001 LA and a NQA-1 Nuclear LA. When I assess a management review I want to see the inputs, who participated, when it was accomplished and the outputs. I have had organizations challenge the need to have anything but outputs and this causes a conundrum to those of us that prescribe to literal text rather than tribal knowledge.

The context of your professional background might be affecting your expectations. If you deal in highly regulated environments, such as the nuclear industry, you are used to extremely tightly controlled business (including quality) practices.

As I said before, the ISO TC 176 SC 2 WG 24 revised the ISO 9001 document with one of the mandates being: Thou shall make it of broader use...
So, ISO wants the standard to be deployed in the bakery down the street and the dry cleaners in the corner, at the same time it can be used by a defense supplier making nuclear weapons.

You can't expect the same level of controls. That's why context of the organization and expectations of relevant stakeholders became explicitly mentioned in the standard.

But, I still question: with all this at play, is still a standard?