posted 18 April 1999 05:12 AM               

From: Mark Bradley
Subject: RE: Management Responsibility /Syed/Bradley

> Hi,
>
> I am working as Quality Assurance Coordinator/Quality Management Rep. in
> a group in Doha, Qatar (Gulf/Middle East Region). I have started this
> since Oct '98. The group itself is chaired by Chairman, who is the only
> and final authority for providing resources. And only limited
> authorities have been given to company managers. There are 15 companies
> in Our Group.
>
> The problem is Our Chairman has a very busy schedule and I did initiate
> Group Management Review Council as reqd. in 4.1.3 of ISO 9002:94, but
> despite agenda were distributed, he had to leave for some business trip.
> As defined in the procedure, his brother, i.e. Vice-Chairman was
> supposed to chair the meeting, but he refused to attend the meeting
> stating that it was not his duty to attend the meeting.
>
> As all members of this review council, i.e. Executive Council for
> Quality, were very disappointed and started to leave. This caused a
> company-wide demotivation and as MR, I am trying to find some new
> strategies.
>
> These are:
>
> 1. To implement ISO 9002:94, from Company Manager Level without
> involving Chairman and Vice-Chairman even they are only and final
> authorities to provide resources (i.e. mentioning them as NOT in
> Scope).
> 2. If this is not possible, can we send them meeting minutes to take
> action without reviewing and discussing with Council members?
>
> I hope that you can understand the situation. Please give any suggestion.
>
> Syed Muhammad Ali, QA Coordinator/QMR.

I would suggest the following:

Create an ISO Implementation Team that has as it's members an individual from each of the departments. This team is your Action group. Meet frequently and use this team to coordinate your implementation of ISO. Meet with upper management quarterly to fill them in on the actions of the Implementation team. This worked well at a company I worked for in getting QS-9000, and I am using it presently at my present company to pursue ISO9002.

You still meet the requirements this way, but don't have to depend on upper management to be at all the meetings necessary to implement ISO.

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

Subject: Re: Q: Management Responsibility /Syed/Paris
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 1999 12:43:12 -0600
From: ISO Standards Discussion

From: YYYYYYYYYYYYadd
Subject: Re: Q: Management Responsibility /Syed/Paris

Interesting post, Mr. Ali. I've had similar experiences, and one former client appears to be about to lose registration because the CEO felt that when the certificate was on the wall and the consultant (me) left, his involvement was over.... despite all the training I gave him to the contrary. He's since cancelled three review meetings, and the surveillance audit is pending. It's not reassuring.

The standard says "The supplier's management with executive responsibility shall review the quality system at defined intervals." It does not require management review MEETINGS... although obviously auditors like to see them, and such meetings are the most effective way for management to do the review. I've spoken with a few registrars about this particular issue and they say that an acceptable method IS to have reports sent to executive management for their review, but that in order to meet ISO 9000 the managers must do more than just RECEIVE the reports. There must be proof that they are reviewing the information and actually feeding the results of that review back into the system for improvement. For example, simply initialing the reports as "received" is not sufficient. This is difficult to do from a distance --- but not impossible.

There is no ISO9000 requirement that the managers be sitting in the same room. ISO must be flexible enough to accomodate modern office communications (teleconferencing, internet, etc.) Perhaps you can develop a means to satisfy the standard without having your CEO physically present. He must be PSYCHOLOGICALLY present, though.... and it's unclear from your post if he's really bought into the program or not. You say he's "busy." If he really wants the benefits of ISO (other than the certificate and marketing advantages) he will incorporate the needs of ISO into his schedule, even if it makes him busier. Then there's the question of will he be too busy to be physically present during the AUDIT, which IS required!

>As all members of this review council, i.e. Executive Council for
>Quality, were very disappointed and started to leave. This caused a
>company-wide demotivation and as MR, I am trying to find some new >strategies.

This illustrates the greatest harm uninvolved executive management can have.

>These are:

> >1. To implement ISO 9002:94, from Company Manager Level without involving Chairman and Vice-Chairman even they are only and

> >2. final authorities to provide resources (i.e. mentioning them as NOT in Scope).

This is completely NOT something you want to do, and will likely be a major nonconformance in an audit. Again, the standard calls for "The supplier's management with executive responsibility " to do the review. Excluding them from the scope is like excluding the entire 4.1 element from the scope, and that constitutes a missing element --- a major nonconformance.

Your second option, sending minutes, MAY work as I discussed--- but it will be very tricky, and will still require your CEO's absolute involvement, even if it's from a plane or 2000 miles away.

YYYYYYYYYYYYadd

posted 20 April 1999 11:09 AM               

This post kills me! This is what feeds that stereotype we just discussed about Senior Managements role in an organization. The Top Person in any organization sets the tenor. If senior managament believes Quality is the Quality departments responsibility, the possibility for improvement is virtually lost. Fortunately, Mr. Ali might be able to set up the organization to pass ISO 9002 from a middle position, but sadly it will be a smoke and mirror approach. I would like to be a fly on the wall as the Registrar's auditors sit down with the Chairman and Senior Management (including the Vc who said it wasn't his duty) when they cover Management Responsibility and the Quality System. It really pisses me off when I hear or read a story like this one (excuse my grammar here). Management Review is for ALL of management. In my organization, I recall the first couple of Management Review meetings lacked commitment and cross functional input. Folks looked at me and thought I put a poor agenda together and that I was ill prepared for the meeting. They were reluctant to come to the next meeting. So was I. I had to stop the second meeting to ask the group whose meeting this was, Mine or Theirs? What looks of astonishment. They had no idea that this was Our meeting! Most had not even read the Management Review SOP (I might add it contained the Standard Agenda and explained the need for Management Review with other guidelines)! Then others complained about the semantics chosen for the Agenda (no comments during draft review, plenty came during the meeting). Well, I shrugged it off after a couple of days. The system will yield what the system is capable of. And that was what it did (complainers). Subsequent meetings have improved, folks are more prepared, and fortunately Senior Management is supportive, unlike Mr. Ali's position.

Final comment: It is every managers DUTY to prepare and participate in Management Review. The Vice Chairman (regardless if it is formalized in a procedure or not) is DEAD WRONG!

Good post Marc. Now back to the group...

posted 23 April 1999 04:46 AM               

General Manager of the Company understands his role in the scheme of things.

Managing Director (his father) is a loose cannon who wanders in and out of the business, refuses to use purchase orders, never attends any training sessions and moans about cost of implementation.

posted 23 April 1999 05:01 PM               

You caught me projecting again (sorry, but I often do). But I must stick to my guns on this for now. Is my position harsh? I guess it is the perspective by which an individual views the system. I am a top down individual. Granted 'dad' may not have a huge hand in the day to day operations and is just around long enough to raise some dust and leave, yet this is who has the ultimate charge for Quality (even if he delegates, it truelly isn't an item that can be, IMHO). Quality is born in the boardroom. Should the leader of the board show little interest (especially when he pays for it)? Above that, should he break the rules? What kind of leadership does he provide? While the son runs the shop and folks know he is the go to guy, they will notice the behavior of dad and a few will use this to their advantage. Meantime, the son runs around doing damage control (not even corrective action) trying to smoothe things over. Nonvalue added, but necessary. There is a better way.

posted 28 April 1999 09:08 AM               

quote:

---

I just wrote him out of the system.

---

While 4.1.3 requires ãmanagement with executive responsibility·ä it does not require ALL ãmanagement with executive responsibility·ä and ISO 9000 does not require management commitment, although it greatly influences success. The word Îcommitmentâ can be found only at 4.1.1 which requires:

quote:

---

·supplierâs management with executive responsibility shall define and document its policy for quality, including objectives for quality and its commitment to quality.

---

A registrar may be able to stretch this to a noncompliance, but I doubt it.

I have had to do a similar situation here, but not for the reasons cited above. The President of my firm is physically located in the corporate office, approximately 800 miles from the manufacturing facility. The corporate office is outside the scope of this registration. He visits manufacturing approximately six hours a month, mainly to discuss business operations. His commitment to the system is high and he demonstrates it each time he visits, but this condition did create a management review problem.

While this situation is tricky, it can be done. The procedures for Management Review were written such that the President is involved in management review but does not have to attend review meetings (Besides, review Îmeetingsâ are not even required). He provides input through advanced notice of meetings, an agenda and a request to reply by return his inputs. If none, he states ãnoneä and the meeting is conducted between myself and the VPâs. If he has inputs, there are discussed at the meeting, with myself as the Presidentâs liaison. Afterwards, he is provided minutes of the meeting stating his involvement as outlined above, and signed acceptance of the minutes is requested by return, which he does faithfully. While 4.1.3 does not REQUIRE procedures, the above is very well documented in them, probably to the overkill point, but I wanted my FDA bases covered.

Besides, when it comes to our ISO and FDA system, I have the last and final word, not the President and the employees (including the VPâs) know this.

Perhaps a variation on the above may be useful in Michaelâs situation. I would recommend not Îwriting him out,â but rather include him indirectly through procedures.

As to Kevinâs comments regarding the negative impact of dadâs behavior, I would tend to agree in part, but I will withhold judgement without knowing dadâs involvement in operations and how seriously employees regard dad, as Tom correctly pointed out. If they know he is a Îloose cannonâ and the son really runs the show, that should be considered as well. This was exactly the case at one company I worked for. Dad owned the company, but did not run it. His only involvement in day-to-day operations was to arrive when he wanted, smoke cigars, read the paper, sign checks and then leave when he wanted. The employees knew who ran the show (Executive VP-his son) and there was virtually no trickle down effect from dadâs behavior (other than the cigar smell from his office).

quote:

---

I think to assume that the registration is "smoke and mirror" is too harsh a conclusion.

---

I agree within the confines of the concerns and comments stated in my previous paragraph.

posted 28 April 1999 10:14 AM               

What if dad is breaking the rules and does not follow procedure (i.e. avoiding POs)? As CEO, he has a responsibility to the Quality Program and System, even if he does not lead the program itself (I won't go there). He must follow the program or risk creating nonconformances to be detected by the Registrar. If you were the Registrar and you found materials being ordered outside of the channels by the President, what conclusions might you reach?

I'll concede that my statement, while I think accurate to the information provided, may have been inclusive of Cigar Smoking Dads. But a whisper of cigar stench and avoidance of a documented daily work activity are different (one a comment, the other a nonconformance).

What do you think?

Regards,

posted 28 April 1999 12:31 PM               

From Michael:

quote:

---

refuses to use purchase orders

---

From Kevin:

quote:

---

If you were the Registrar and you found materials being ordered outside of the channels by the President, what conclusions might you reach?

---

ISO 9001; Section 4.6.2(b) states, in part:

quote:

---

define the type and extent of control exercised by the supplier over subcontractors. This shall be dependent upon the type of product, the impact of subcontracted product on the quality of final product·

---

Is Dad ordering parts that affect final product? Answer: Not known with available data and further information is not available.

Is Dad ordering parts that are inside or outside the Îextent of control exercisedâ with subcontractors? Answer: Not known with available data and further information is not available.

Is Dad ordering parts without a Îreview and approv[al of] purchasing documents for adequacy of the specified requirements prior to release.â Probably, but depending upon the answers to items one and two, this may or may not be relevant.

Findings on 4.6.2(b): None. Concerns: Three.

Comments: Requires further investigation. The President of the Company appears to function outside the quality system and scope of ISO 9001, but at this time, there is not enough objective evidence to issue a noncompliance.

The purpose of an assessor is to determine compliance, NOT noncompliance. Of course the above assessment would also have to include the organizationâs procedures as required by 4.6.1, but these are not available for this exercise.

quote:

---

He must follow the program or risk creating nonconformances to be detected by the Registrar.

---

As you can see from above he has created a risk, but (using available data) not to issue a noncompliance. Besides, if Michael has been effective at Îwriting him out,â his role may not come up in an assessment, but that is unlikely due to various portions of 4.1.

From Michael:

quote:

---

wanders in and out of the business

---

Not a noncompliance.

quote:

---

never attends any training sessions

---

Not a noncompliance.

quote:

---

moans about cost of implementation

---

As long as compliance is maintained to clause 4.1.2.2, not a noncompliance.

I will state once again, the situation described by Michael is not desirable nor does it enhance or add to an effective systems management method. Kevinâs comments and observations are perceptive and should be taken into consideration. Tomâs observations are also astute and should be given due attention. But, the system of compliance is defined by the organization, not the registrar (ISO 9001; Section 4.2.2). If more assessors realized this, things would be simpler.

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Regards,
Don

posted 28 April 1999 03:21 PM               

I agree with all points made, I made many assumptions based on "traditional paradigms". Perhaps our individual perspectives (mine, yours, Michael's), developed by our own preconceptions of our own experiences within our own Quality Systems, lead us to this discussion. I enjoy dsicussions like this, as it does create moments of reflection for me, that without, would probably feed into the paradigms that control the development of my perceptions. Again, no right or wrong about it so I make no apologies for that or expect them either. I hope no one feels misplaced or bad about discussions like these, as I don't think (my projection) that folks are malicious. We are all products of the Systems we inhabit and are influenced as such. Enough said on that for now.

I will make comments based on my own experiences, my own traditional views if you will, that in retrospect, illustrate the control living in a system will sometimes have on a person. Funny that it seems my pessimism draws out the blind spots. But that is part of my personal CI program, so in many ways I am grateful for these experiences.

Regards,

posted 29 April 1999 12:13 AM               

quote:

---

I enjoy dsicussions like this, as it does create moments of reflection...

---

As do I, Kevin, as do I.