TS 16949 Clause 5.6 - Management Review Requirements - Without a meeting?

Solinas

Involved In Discussions
#1
Hi all,

I was wondering if any of you were meeting TS 16949, section 5.6 (Management Review) WITHOUT holding a meeting?

I've worked at companies where the phrase "Management Review" was always a part of "Management Review Meeting" - it was assumed that periodically (i.e. every year) you hauled the executives into a room and presented a Powerpoint Presentation on the State of the QMS.

Technology is better now - you an have conference calls, online meetings with shared desktops, etc. but it's just another type of meeting.

I'd like to hear from anyone who is doing something more creative. Have you implemented a good Management Review while breaking out of the meeting box?
 

RoxaneB

Super Moderator
Super Moderator
#2
Re: 5.6 - Management Review without a meeting

Hi all,

I was wondering if any of you were meeting TS 16949, section 5.6 (Management Review) WITHOUT holding a meeting?

I've worked at companies where the phrase "Management Review" was always a part of "Management Review Meeting" - it was assumed that periodically (i.e. every year) you hauled the executives into a room and presented a Powerpoint Presentation on the State of the QMS.

Technology is better now - you an have conference calls, online meetings with shared desktops, etc. but it's just another type of meeting.

I'd like to hear from anyone who is doing something more creative. Have you implemented a good Management Review while breaking out of the meeting box?
While we didn't get away from having the big meeting, we used it in a manner we found effective. Under Management Review, we included other meetings where the Managers were in attendance (especially if those meetings were part of their responsible process(es)). We had monthly department KPI meetings, monthly site Operations Review meetings, team meetings, etc. and all of this was structured on a meeting tree so that the flow of information (in both directions) could be seen.

What this allowed us to do was deal with the immediate issues at the lower level, yet more frequent, "management reviews" and leave the planning, strategic, trend analysis/response stuff for the higher level "management review".

In my more current position, we had our department meetings via webinar. I facilitated the regional meetings (4 regions with 3-6 sites per region + the appropriate regional manager), the day before our Process meeting (also held via webinar with Corporate in Florida, the regionals and myself located remoted), which was used to populate/explain information that went before the Executive Committee and Board 2 days later.

The success to either of these sets (i.e., multiple smaller meetings, web-based meetings)? Agenda and structure and preparedness! Folks need to know what they need to have ready and BE READY to discuss. Minutes were record of actions/decisions made and follow-ups done, as well.
 

kgott

Quite Involved in Discussions
#3
Re: 5.6 - Management Review without a meeting

I suppose that having a meeting by phone, video conference etc is still a meeting. As I understand it, management review can occur at various levels of the busienss and can be accomodated in different ways.

For example; management review of design can occur as a result of the person in charge of design meeting with their design people and discussing and resolving relevant issues. The result of this meeting then becomes gets reported/discussed at higher level meetings. Similar with other aspects of management and the standard.

In a previous position I included all the issues at 5.6.2 of ISO 9001, into the monthly meeting agenda of the management group of a particular facility and they were only addressed if there was something to discuss at that item. It worked quite well but it would, in retrospect have worked better had I not used the terminology used in 5.6.2. One of the advantages of doing this was that it was a way esculating issues to senior management and it also made it easier at audit time.
 

Pancho

wikineer
Super Moderator
#4
Re: 5.6 - Management Review without a meeting

We post KPIs to a wiki. For a couple of days managers pitch a round of asynchronous review, comment, and CARs. Then we still have a quarterly meeting, though often by teleconference and shorter than what it would be without the on-line info. We find the discipline of a scheduled meeting helps everyone meet the deadline in posting and reviewing.
 

kgott

Quite Involved in Discussions
#5
Those wikis sound interesting. Any relation to wickileaks? (jotd)

I'm always intrigued by KPIs.

Perhaps these should be a thread on their own but I often wonder if they are arrived by just by plucking a number out of thin air or are they determined on the basis of the calculated capability of the process to deliver the desired level of performance?

Or, alternatively, are they established as a result of studying the process, identifying all the drivers to a process outcome and doing a process analysis then deciding on which of the drivers are the key drivers of performance?

Most of the KPIs I have run into on jobs I have worked on seem to be to plucked out of thin air as they are usually zero lost time injuries for safety and zero defects for quality – at every level of the org chart. hummmmm
 

Big Jim

Quite Involved in Discussions
#6
One of the topics covered in one of my business school classes in the early 80's was participative management style, and in particular, Japanese management style. An intriguing concept practiced in some Japanese companies is something called "Ringi".

With Ringi, any manager that has a proposal that he wished to share with other managers would open a "Ringushi". This document was basically a proposal for discussion. The Ringushi was passed among management, and each manager would make his comments, pro or con, and pass it to the next. The Ringushi would continue to circulate until all reached concurrence. By doing this, once approved, the proposal could be implemented very rapidly.

Much to my surprise, I stumbled onto a client that used this concept for management review. An agenda was laid out that covered all the requirements of element 5.6.1 and 5.6.2, including the KPI results. As the agenda was passed around management, they each made their comments. No action items were determined for at least one round, as they were still learning the "state of the quality management system". Once they felt they had determined the state of the system, the agenda circulated again, as many times as needed, for proposals and acceptance of the proposals. The acceptance of the proposals became their action items and were stated as items that improved the quality management system, items that improved product quality, and what resources were needed so that 5.6.3 was covered.

It worked well for them, but required someone to crack the whip to keep the document circulating. Most surprising of all, they did not realize they were emulating a Japanese concept.

Maybe it could work for you as well.
 

kgott

Quite Involved in Discussions
#7
Actually that seems like a good idea, a bit long winded and I agree that keeping the document circulating is the main difficulty but it does have the advantage that consensus regarding action is easier to harness.

From the management meetings I have attended and over the years; and I have attended a few, I have observed that in a meeting these sorts of problems can occur and drive poor decisions.

1. My idea is better than yours - which degenerates into a debating competition, the better debater ‘wins.’

2. I’m the most powerful person here so my idea is the best idea. - The boss knows more than anyone else.

3. Bill, what do you think? Bill: I’m happy either way – I’m a fence sitter.

4. When asked which way we should go Joe relaies: “I agree with xyz.” – I just want to be on the winning side.

5. If you argue for solution ‘A,’ I’ll argue for solution ”B” – I love to argue for the sake of it or, I have a score to settle with you.

These alternative and innovative ideas to my mind are well worth trying if they can be got off the ground and given a decent chance.
 

Chennaiite

Never-say-die
#8
Given that meeting is a place where different decision making brains co-exist, I personally dont go with ringi type.

In my experience with Japanese auto OEM, ringi was used more so for formal approval/endorsement of decision taken or actions planned during the meet.
 

sitapaty

Inactive Registered Visitor
#9
MRM without a meeting of concerned persons is OK if it is through video conferencing of persons located in differant geographical locations.Tele conferencing is not adequate.These days even MRMs have becoming just formalities due to lack of interest by the CEOs/Heads.It is required that a stricter scrutiny of MRMs and CEO audits are required to preserve the value of certifications.
-sitapaty
 
Last edited:

howste

Thaumaturge
Moderator
#10
One of the topics covered in one of my business school classes in the early 80's was participative management style, and in particular, Japanese management style. An intriguing concept practiced in some Japanese companies is something called "Ringi".

With Ringi, any manager that has a proposal that he wished to share with other managers would open a "Ringushi". This document was basically a proposal for discussion. The Ringushi was passed among management, and each manager would make his comments, pro or con, and pass it to the next. The Ringushi would continue to circulate until all reached concurrence. By doing this, once approved, the proposal could be implemented very rapidly.

Much to my surprise, I stumbled onto a client that used this concept for management review. An agenda was laid out that covered all the requirements of element 5.6.1 and 5.6.2, including the KPI results. As the agenda was passed around management, they each made their comments. No action items were determined for at least one round, as they were still learning the "state of the quality management system". Once they felt they had determined the state of the system, the agenda circulated again, as many times as needed, for proposals and acceptance of the proposals. The acceptance of the proposals became their action items and were stated as items that improved the quality management system, items that improved product quality, and what resources were needed so that 5.6.3 was covered.

It worked well for them, but required someone to crack the whip to keep the document circulating. Most surprising of all, they did not realize they were emulating a Japanese concept.

Maybe it could work for you as well.
I've seen a similar management review done by email. The difference is that everyone is copied on all correspondence. That way everyone can review at their convenience, and it doesn't get held up when somebody is traveling or puts it on the back burner for a while.
 

Top