|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums 
|
|
|
This thread is carried over and continued in the Current Elsmar Cove Forums
|
The New Elsmar Cove Forums
|
 The New Elsmar Cove Forums
 ISO 9000:1994
 Reporting pattern of MR....
|
 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Reporting pattern of MR.... |
|
eskay Forum Contributor Posts: 21 |
posted 15 April 2000 07:31 AM
   
I have got a funny querry (I think!). To whom should the Management Representative report? The standard states that (4.1.2.3b) "reporting on the performance of the quality system to the SUPPLIER'S MANAGEMENT for review... blah....blah..." During one of the certification audits recently (in a group company of ours), I got a observation stating that the MR is not reporting to the person who has signed the quality policy. Eventhough I argued with the assessor for a while on this stating that the MR is representing to the executive management (me representing the QA of the group for all third parties!). He said he cannot accept it. Whereas in the corprate head office where I'm the MR, I report to the senior management (not directly to the person who signed the Quality policy), this was accepted without raising an eyebrow by other certification body!!! Finally I amended the Org. Chart as he wanted. (As you said in other posting Marc, I gave him WANT HE WANTED!). But why does every certification body have different view and where this is going to stop. Would welcome anybody else's experience / comments in this regard. Kannan IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 15 April 2000 08:35 AM
There is absolutely no requirement in ISO9001 which states that the MR has to report to the functionary who signed the quality policy. I have never seen this as an issue before. IP: Logged |
|
David Mullins Forum Contributor Posts: 248 |
posted 17 April 2000 03:51 AM
MR: "The supplier's management with executive responsibility shall appoint a member of the supplier's own management..." QPolicy: "The supplier's management with executive responsibility..." It's the same person doing this. Whoever is the person executively responsible for the Quality Policy shall appoint a member of their very own management team. Hence lines are drawn in the standard. I believe they were originally placed there to stop consultants being Management Reps. It doesn't say report to, but the MR should be a member of the executives management! So you can't be too hard on the auditor. I hope I explained this? ------------------ IP: Logged |
|
eskay Forum Contributor Posts: 21 |
posted 17 April 2000 04:34 AM
David, I was not too hard with the Auditor. I was trying to explain him that the member of the executive management was the MR in the above case. MR is designated as GM of the Company who runs the show and reports to the group management. But the Auditor was insisting that MR should be directly reporting to the person who has signed the Quality Policy. This is were I had a difference of opinion with him. After this incident I spoke to other certification bodies as well on this matter who confirmed it is not necessary that the MR should be reporting to the person signed the policy. Anyway, thanx for your comment. Kannan IP: Logged |
|
Lauram unregistered |
posted 17 April 2000 09:20 AM
I was management rep. Reported to Quality Manager. Quality Manager and others reported to the Plant Manager. Entire "executive team" signed the quality manual. Quality Policy was jointly signed by members of management(plant manager)and union leadership! And in the front of the Quality manual. Never had a problem. I don't think "management with executive responsibility" is necessarily a person, but could be a team. Then anyone in the org can be management rep? IP: Logged |
|
eskay Forum Contributor Posts: 21 |
posted 17 April 2000 11:47 AM
Lauram, You are right. Exactly thats what I was trying to tell the Auditor. In our case the MR was from our executive management. But still he said he can't accept!!! I came to a conclusion that every auditor's view point / interpretation of standard differs. Maybe another auditor from same certification body may accept what I've done initally. Kannan IP: Logged |
|
Jim Biz Forum Wizard Posts: 275 |
posted 17 April 2000 05:57 PM
Are you SURE the auditor wasn't pointing out the section that relates "Whos duties irrespective of all others will be the implemententation & maintanence of a Quality system? I realize that you decide WHO the Mr is BUT- would think in "some cases" who you choose may have a conflict in assigned duties? (just a thought) IP: Logged |
|
Marc Smith Cheech Wizard Posts: 4119 |
posted 17 April 2000 08:35 PM
quote:This is exactly why I started this web site...  And the reason this forum is here!IP: Logged |
|
Alan Cotterell Forum Contributor Posts: 120 |
posted 29 April 2000 10:31 PM
I think the intention related to the reporting of the Management Representative to senior management, is that he/she has direct access to the level in the organisation where the real power is weilded. In many cases this is at the CEO level (business owner). I think what should be considered is at what level significant quality problems should be known. If I was the CEO, I would want to be aware of problems in my major risk area, which could result in nonpayment by customers in some cases, and potential loss of business. The problem is that Quality Managers are often lower in the hierarchy than Production Managers, Sales Managers and Engineering Managers, and often report to one of those levels. Effectively sending a report to the CEO can in some cases, involve 'going over your managers head'. This can present a problem for most people unless the managers in the hierarchy between the Quality Manager and the CEO clearly understand the fact that the Management Rep. must have direct access to the appropriate level when necessary. The simple way to obviate this problem is to give every employee the right to send a Nonconformance Report to the top for problems which they perceive should be formally addressed by the organisation. This approach is indicated in ISO9004:2000. IP: Logged |
All times are Eastern Standard Time (USA) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
Hop to: |
Your Input Into These Forums Is Appreciated! Thanks!
Main Site Search 
