posted 27 August 1998 01:15 PM               

ISO 9001 4.1.3 states ãThe supplierâs management with executive responsibility shall review the quality system at defined intervals sufficient to ensure its continuing suitability and effectiveness is satisfying the requirements of this American National Standard and the supplierâs stated quality policy and objectives (see 4.1.1). Records of such reviews shall be maintained (see 4.16).ä

ISO 8402 3.9 defines management review as ãformal evaluation by top management of the status and adequacy of the quality system (3.6) in relation to quality policy (3.1) and objectives.ä

The majority of companies comply by holding annual or semi-annual Management Review meetings where face to face discussions are entered into. It does not, however, state that ãmeetingsä shall be held. My response also indicated that meetings are usually the preferred method because things may arise that may not be considered on an individual basis. However, they are not essential. I offered the following example:

Section 4.1.2.3(b) states ãThe supplierâs management with executive responsibility shall appoint a member of the supplierâs own management who, irrespective of other responsibilities, shall have defined authority for·reporting on the performance of the quality system to the supplierâs management for review and as a basis for improvement of the quality system.ä Since this report must be prepared anyway, use it as a management review tool. Prepare the report outlining and describing performance and include the items detailed in 4.1.3. Include items such as internal audit results, noncompliances found, status of corrective actions, etc. After the report is complete, circulate it with a cover sheet that explains the content and purpose of the report. Include on the cover an area where comments can be recorded. Require that the receiversâ sign and date the cover indicating they have read the report, circulate to all recipients and have the original returned to you. Copy the recipients afterward and keep the original as your objective evidence.

Was I completely off base? Comments would be appreciated.

posted 27 August 1998 03:16 PM               

Simple Management Review form

posted 27 August 1998 11:11 PM               

Don't over complicate any system for the sake of compliance. Do what is appropriate for the employees, the business, the product and the processes.

Keep It Simple!

At the same time, remember that what satisfies ISO 9000 does not automatically satisfy QS9000!

posted 09 September 1998 09:36 PM               

I continue to contend:

1) Can you explain: What are you doing?
2) Explain how you meet the requirement.

If you are copying 'requirements' into your level 2's, you are not meeting the overall intent:

Can You Explain How You Comply?
Keep it Simple! It must be appropriate for your business and product(s).

posted 10 September 1998 11:21 AM               

I agree with you for the most part. Along with Keep It Simple is the fact that it must work. In general, the smaller the company the less complex it is thus the simplier the systems. One company of about 12 people I worked with was the source of the 'management review'. As I said (I think) they do meet once or twice a year - just the owner and the one vice-president - but it suffices for what they do.

You stated:

"His contention is if it does not say it in ISO his company dont have to do it. His consultant told him to "keep it simple", but now he wonders why ISO hasn't benefitted his company."

I contend that has nothing to with keeping anything simple - it has to do with the attitude of the person who wondered why ISO wasn't 'helping' his company. If the person was being guided by a consultant, well - there are bad consultants - lots of bad consultants as a matter of fact. The expectation that ISO is a magic bullet, or that ISO is "all you have to do" is just plain stupid thinking.

I suggest that the failure for ISO to 'benefit' his/her company is that person's fault and is unrelated to ISO requirements. ISO is just a set of required minimum business systems. I tell my clients that I cannot really remember an implementation where problems weren't found and addressed (typically fixed) but that it is very possible that ISO will provide no outstanding evidence that it has helped the company in any way and that, in fact (as almost always happens), the first 'evidence' is typically new customers who had a choice between the company and others and they wanted (specifically) an ISO registered firm to buy from.

There are two types of companies in my world - those which have good business practices to begin with and those which don't. Take them both and implement ISO and see what you get.

To say Keep It Simple is, I admit, in its self simplistic (just as Say What You Do and Do What You Say is simplistic) - there is more to it than just keeping it (whatever 'it' is - I assume 'it' to be a system or series of systems) simple - we all know that, yes? Better said might be Keep It Appropriate for Your Company.

Company 'qualifiers' I consider when addressing system(s) requirements include:

Facility Size
Number of Facilities
Location of Facilities Geographically
Number of Personnel in (Each) Facility
Dispersion of Facilities Geographically
Processes
Product(s)
Management Demeanor (Both Upper- and Mid-)
Hourly Demeanor
External Customers and their Requirements (Ford? GE? Motorola? Sue's Sandwich Shop? Wal-Mart? SAM's Discount Club?)

From now on I personally pledge to say:

Keep It Appropriate

posted 13 September 1998 10:44 PM               

Simple, ahhhhh, yes, simple. Simplicity is the better method for many companies. I have seen those that believe that the ISO 9000 is the MASTER. I believe (IMHO) that it is the SLAVE. It tells us what we must do. We decide HOW we will do it. Marc, I prefer simple, but NOT at the cost of the businessâs best interest. Do not implement a system that would be ãin complianceä but would cost the business (money, customers, etc.) in the long run. For example, do not implement a system that would cost a small company a fortune in paperwork. Can you explain: the key word is appropriate, but be able to justify when it is not appropriate. Be able to explain if a section (or portion of a section) is not appropriate and WHY!

Christian, there are those who would prefer to comply with the ãletter of the standardä rather than the ãintent of the standard.ä Does that mean that those who do comply are not doing what is best for their business? Maybe, maybe not. Do we, as assessors, judge them for their business practice? No! Objective evidence is our concern. Each depends upon the operation and the philosophy of their management. The example you gave above is a classic. The manager is, what I consider, a ãtrophy hunter.ä He wants the registration without going through the pains of making his operation more profitable and efficient. But, the ãpainsä of registration can be reduced without sacrificing effectiveness of a ISO 9000 Quality Management System.

Roger, I prefer simple but not at the expense of my companyâs effectiveness. There are many portions of the standard where I have gone beyond the ãletter of the standardä and others that I have ãcomplied withä the standard. Each is, in my (humble) opinion appropriate for our operation. Again, KEEP IT SIMPLE but, in Marcâs words, also APPROPRIATE.

Barb, your insights (as well as all others) are very helpful and provide (me, at least) ammunition to use in my discussions with my management team (they can be stubborn sometimes). I also agree that simple is much easier to spell than appropriate. Perhaps Marc will revert to his original slogan. Perhaps not.

ãShort Term Results Must Never Be Confused With Long Term Goals.ä

With that said, I surrender the pulpit to the next speaker.

Best Regards,

posted 20 September 1998 05:36 AM               

-------snippo------

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1998 11:24:59 -0600
From: Paul Murgatroyd
Subject: RE:Q: Management Reviews/Broodryk/Murgatroyd

Yes, It is useful to consider the management review as a process that will add value to the overall success of the business. Furthermore, it is in my opinion the most vital component of the quality management system (many systems I have observed have failed due to deficiencies in the management review process. Furthermore this widespread and chronic state of decifiency is perpetuated by registration organizations typically accepting what I believe to be insuffcient objective evidence of compliance with the spirit of the related requirement clause. Hopefully, from what I have seen in the working drafts this will be addressed by the next edition of the International Standard ). More specifically, a properly designed and implemented review process will ensure that the system continues to develop towards an optimizing state in terms of a capability maturity model (capable in terms of delivering against the desired objectives). Ideally, the approach is proactive. with a focus on continuous improvement involving the PDCA cycle. As well, it is advisable to integrate the review into the overall strategic business planning process. The Actors in this process should include the most senior level of management that would normally be involved in strategic business planning. Again, the management review process will be the engine of improvement if properly implemented.

The management review process can be defined using the standard process model comprised of input, process activities, and output . A model I have found to be useful in this case is as follows:

Inputs:

Customer feedback data (eg: complaints, survey results, etc.)
Internal feedback data (eg: inspection results, internal audit results, etc)
Regulatory requirements
Benchmarking data
Present strategic objectives for quality management
Other relevant information

Process Activities:

Presentation of the input data that facilitates identification of levels and trends in outcomes
Comparative analysis of outcomes achieved against the desired strategic objectives Conclusion regarding effectiveness and of the present system in delivering the desired objectives
Planning the correction of known deficiencies and prevention of potential deficiencies

Outputs:

Corrective or preventive action plans
Revised strategic objectives for quality management

Although this is a fairly cursory address of your question, I hope it will be of assistance. If you can get your hands on a working draft of the next edition of ISO 9001 and ISO 9004, it will also provide some useful guidance. I invite you to contact me directly via e-mail if you would like to engage in more detailed dialogue on this topic.

posted 28 February 2000 06:32 AM               

From: Jamie Fairchild [email protected]

Al,

I'm not sure exactly what you have tried thus far, but, here's what I did for what it's worth...

I asked each manager (functional and administrative) to develop a 5 min. overview for the yearly management review that addressed the following questions:
* What have been your quality successes?
* What are your quality measures?
* Where do you see opportunities for improvement?
* What are your training goals?

In my opinion, it worked out really well. Each manager got a little uncomfortable and nervous about being held accountable for quality in front of their peers. Most of the managers talked for more than 5 min. (that's good and bad ). After that review, I have seen a significant increase in the personal commitment of each manager to quality, and a sense of personal accountability.

This list of questions addresses some of the key issues here. You could develop whatever questions seem appropriate for your organization.

posted 28 February 2000 06:37 AM               

Regards,

posted 28 February 2000 06:45 AM               

----snippo-----

From: ISO Standards Discussion [email protected]
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:09:48 -0600
Subject: Re: Making Effective Management Reviews /Hitchcock/Arbuckle

From: Don Arbuckle [email protected]

This may not be the type of answer that you are looking for, but I will post it anyway...

First, if the top management team is not taking responsibility for the QMS, then you may be asking too much. Second, the fact that "***your*** present system defines ownership to the executive committee" tells me something right there... They probably view it the same way, specifically, "your" system.

I would suggest a talk with the top executive, behind closed doors. The conversation should *not* revolve about your feeling that the system is not supported, although that is where you want it to end up. Take the tack that the management reviews are not accomplishing anything productive, that they are a waste of time and no real improvement of the QMS happens there. (be prepared to explain why, using appropriate amount of detail and quotes from others...) See what he/she says. He/She will either agree or disagree.

If he/she agrees, remind them that the Mgmt Rev is an ISO requirement and that an ineffective Mgmt Rev places the registration at risk. Since it is a requirement, what can be done to make the review more effective? You might consider placing the Mgmt Rev process on the Corrective/Preventive Action system and see where it ends up. Do a *real* root cause analysis!! (suggestion: place it there as a preventive action so as not to frighten execs)

If he/she disagrees, then develop a plan to help the others on the staff "see" this person's vision. Use the previous ideas to help cement the concepts and actions into a comprehensive and effective review.

Either way, there will have to be a serious discussion with the top exec and then with the others. Explain how the QMS goes beyond QC and QA and demonstrate how improvements will add to the bottom line. $peak in terms that Top Mgmt understands - if you catch my drift!

BTW - I have used this as a consultant many, many times, but usually early on in the implementation, so we don't get part-way down the road and find out the QMS is not supported by Exec.Mgmt.

Good luck, and feel free to call if you have further questions...

posted 28 February 2000 06:55 AM               

From: Edwin Humphries [email protected]

Phyllis

> Could you please tell us what you consider to be the minimum a
> company must show for management review to show they are
> doing it and that it is effective based on the standard?

Actually, I can't. Not because I'm incapable, but because I'm unwilling to prejudge any interpretation as either complying or not.

I've seen too many ISO9000 implementations that comply absolutely with the letter of the standard, are bureaucratic monsters, totally irrelevant to the operations of the company, and totally incapable and ineffective in improving quality - some even have a deleterious effect on it. This has been particularly true for systems that match the "conventional" implementation we seem to spend so much time discussing on this list.

I've also seen some implementations that actually don't meet the words of ISO9001, yet are extremely effective, efficient, lean and relevant. For these, my approach has been to help the company express their methods in the right words to allow the auditors to see them as complying - often at a stretch.

As I've said on this thread, my normal suggestion to a client seeking to implement management review for the first time is to have meetings of defined senior managers at routine intervals, the meetings to have a written agenda based on a planned proforma, to be minuted, and to result in formal corrective actions - in fact, much what everyone else has been suggesting.

But I REFUSE to say this is THE way to do it: it's just that I haven't (yet) come across a better way. I might - and then my advice to my clients will change.

In the meantime, I will examine in detail (which I can't do in this list) every alternative system that is presented to me, and look for the opportunity to find it compliant, rather than the opportunity to prove that I know better than the client how to run their business (I don't). Where possible, I will use my skills in writing and my knowledge of ISO9000 to help the client make as few adjustments as are necessary to allow me to describe THEIR system in a way the auditors will find compliant.

I know I'm a bit of an iconoclast where it comes to conventional QA, but I can't help it; I am very suspicious about quality professionals who profess to have THE RIGHT answer - there simply isn't one.