1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
You must be a registered member in order to post messages and view/download attached files in this forum.
Click here to register.

Not all inputs covered in Management Review - NC?

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by tony s, Jun 23, 2019.

?

Do you agree or disagree with the audit finding? And why?

  1. Agree

    6 vote(s)
    66.7%
  2. Disagree

    3 vote(s)
    33.3%
  1. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    I posted the nonconformity statement in verbatim. No more, no less.
     
  2. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    62
    The standard requires consideration. You need to consider something before you can determine it's applicability. In other words, you look at the input and ask is this applicable to us? If no, then NA. If yes, then address. The problem is how do you show an auditor that it was considered and determined NA -- that's where the "NA" on the checklist, agenda, or whatever you use to document the management review becomes helpful.
     
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    As Tony says, "take into consideration". Surely, it's nothing to do with how many. After all, management reviews (not necessarily meetings, of course) simply need to be planned - which doesn't imply any number of review in a specific timeframe. People make a big mistake on thinking this, internal audits, calibration etc should be done to a calendar. Each review, could - based on various criteria - plan for subsequent reviews. Making it a mechanistic "quarterly", "semi-annually" or "annual" timebase is missing a vital point. Business performance/changes etc don't happen on those schedules!
     
    tony s likes this.
  4. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Fair enough - I guess by 'context' I also mean understanding what they demonstrated (or didn't demonstrate) to warrant the nonconformance being written. How did they defend their current process?
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    If that's your goal, fair enough. As we know, it's not about pleasing an auditor, it's about the value the review brings to management. What do they get from it?
     
    tony s likes this.
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Good to hear. How do your management perceive the review?
     
  7. qmr1976

    qmr1976 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
    Unfortunately, I do agree with this finding only because we got hit with it as well. It's hard to buck the system when there is a 'SHALL' statement involved. I don't agree with the finding if they were just looking at one management review meeting. If you could provide evidence that all of the inputs were discussed over a specific period of time and have it documented, that should be enough. It's frustrating because it could've been discussed, but if you didn't document it, you didn't do it in the auditor's eyes. We have modified our management review agenda to specify each input so that it is at least brought up in the meeting, providing proof that it was discussed. (At what length is none of their concern.....if there is nothing to discuss just put 'N/A' or nothing to report. This was the recommendation of our 3rd party auditor. )
     
    Rick Rachel likes this.
  8. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Ouch!
     
  9. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Ever asked them? I hear such people telling me about their "ISO-Says-So" management reviews all the time, so I know they are doing them wrong. Why would they not tell you, as Quality Manager? If you work with them to set it up and don't take control of it, like you have to "own it", then it should be pretty clear what value it is. Indeed, one VP of Operations I know told me it was the most productive meeting they had ever attended.

    Have you ever considered using a consultant or had some training to find out if your type of MR format is valued?
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2019
  10. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    I was only told about this issue and asked them if they can provide me a copy of the report. From the report, I posted the exact statement. I believe a nonconformity statement should be adequate enough to provide justification for raising the NC. The auditor started the statement by stating "The standard requires that the organization shall consider all the inputs required in the management review". Where does this "all" come from?
     
  11. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Unfortunately that people will accept a finding just because a CB auditor mandated them to. Although there is a shall in the statement that doesn't mean that all the statement under it must have documented evidences. Refer to my post# 13.
    I guess this is the interpretation of the CB auditor that raised the issue.
    I just wish that CB auditors will not expect organizations to document also a checklist to provide "proof of consideration" on the statements of the standard I posted in post# 13.
     
    Izzul Asyraf and Andy Nichols like this.
  12. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    I'm just curious if you also did this to the other statements of the standard with the word "consider" as I enumerated in post# 13. Would you present a checklist if ever asked to demonstrate whether you consider them or not?
     
  13. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    816
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Yes, where the results must be documented such as management review.
     
  14. RoxaneB

    RoxaneB Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    926
    Likes Received:
    1,081
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I suppose "all" is implied considering the standard does not say "talk about whatever you would like from this list", nor is there an "and/or" after the list of inputs.

    That being said, my presumption is that the the auditor asked "So, how do you plan what you'll talk about during management review?" This was then, I presume, followed with "Okay, so that's some of the inputs listed, how do you consider the others?" If your colleague was unable to provide an answer, my gut says that's where the nonconformance comes from.

    It's potentially a non-value added NC, but if your colleague was unable to explain how they consider the list of inputs - or indicate how/where/why some of the inputs are not relevant - then I can see where this black-and-white external auditor's mind was at.
     
  15. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    "Three of these things belong together. Three of these things are kind of the same.
    But one of these things just doesn't belong here. Now it's time to play our game. It's time to play our game."
    • ISO 9001:1994 Clause 4.1.3 - "Records of such reviews shall be maintained"
    • ISO 9001:2000 Clause 5.6.1 - "Records from management reviews shall be maintained"
    • ISO 9001:2008 Clause 5.6.1 - "Records from management reviews shall be maintained"
    • ISO 9001:2015 Clause 9.3.3 - "The organization shall retain documented information as evidence of the results of management reviews".
    Can you guess which thing is doing its own thing? Hmm. Before my song is done.:)
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2019
  16. qmr1976

    qmr1976 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2019
    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    83
    Trophy Points:
    27
     
  17. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    You must have had a great experience. How many auditors have you had experience of? As a Quality manager, it's usually not that many even over extended periods - for various reasons. If, for example, you have been almost always in the telecom sector, the number of auditors who can audit electronics manufacture, geography etc all are factors.

    On the other hand, it seems to me that consultants know of a much larger community of companies and a relatively wider experience of auditors and when you look around various forums and networks of colleagues, it appears the whole certification picture isn't so wonderful. Recent automotive industry statistics put the CB findings completely at odds with the OE's expectations and is the reason they still audit their suppliers.

    Do your customers still audit your facilities? Chances are, it's because they don't take CB audits are being value added.

    Added in edit: I've also learned that age has nothing to do with competency. Not an ageist, by any means, however, some people only know one way of doing things. I've seen those who are corporate refugees having spent 25/30/35 years at ONE company and that's all they know. That's ONE experience in my book. If they've ONLY held a job in Quality, it's the same thing: limited experience but over a long time. Until you've worn many hats in various parts of (many) organizations, you really aren't going to be a very effective (CB) auditor, experience shows.
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2019
    Jennifer Kirley, tony s and qmr1976 like this.
  18. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Audit evidence
     
  19. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,350
    Likes Received:
    1,054
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Audit evidence is defined as "records, statements of fact or other information, which are relevant to the audit criteria and verifiable" Proof is not always a document. One example given by ISO/TS 9002:2016 in demonstrating how organizations "determine the sequence and interaction of these processes" (see 4.4.1b) is provided below:

    "the methods for providing details of the sequence and interaction of the processes depends on the nature of the organization; different methods can be used, such as retaining or maintaining documented information (e.g. process maps or flow diagrams), or a more simple approach, such as a verbal explanation of the sequence and interaction of the processes"

    The Auditing Practices Group Guidance by the International Accreditation Forum for "Evidence Collection" mentioned this statement:

    "Auditors should be aware that objective evidence does not necessarily depend on the existence of documented information, except where specifically mentioned in ISO 9001".

    Here's the link for reference.

    Since there's no requirement in ISO 9001:2015 that specifically require documented proof of review of the management review inputs, auditors cannot just create a requirement out of their interpretation and raise nonconformities for failing to present documented proof.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  20. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    5,086
    Likes Received:
    2,553
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    One point that's often (completely) overlooked with many ISO 9001:2015 requirements is the purpose of the specific requirement - Management review, in this case. I firmly believe, as evidence by discussions here and at other forums, that this all-important purpose is missing from the discussions. We must refer back to the 9.3.1 "General" requirement to gain insight, instead of launching into 9.3.2 and debating the inputs. It's almost as if 9.3.1 doesn't exist!

    The purpose of the review is "to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy, effectiveness and alignment with the strategic direction of the organization". We must be clear what these criteria mean and how to address them, before we can debate the inclusion or absence of "inputs" to the process, surely? Indeed, this lies at the heart of doing a review and engaging management in the first place, if the review is ever going to be more than something done "because ISO-Says-So".

    It also drives the "planned intervals" and NOT an arbitrary calendar such as monthly, quarterly or annually. If we contemplate, for a few moments those words: "continuing suitability, adequacy, effectiveness and alignment" it becomes a different discussion, which then will assist in the "taking into consideration..." discussion.
     
    tony s likes this.