Top Management Review but Not Plan?

Interesting thought @Andy Nichols
From my professional experience I would offer that it depends on the organization. I have been fortunate to sit in relatively high position(s) through part of my career (and at low ones as well !). In those "higher" roles, there were situations in larger organizations where I did not WISH to set the goals for the teams, ...establish plans, ....etc... In those situations I depended on the teams (dare I say allowed, encouraged) to set the goals and then establish the plans to meet those goals. I simply required that the goals considered the context of the organization and were consistent with the company mission.

However, I DID wish to review the progress [i.e. management review] and the successes, challenges towards those goals for the following reasons ...
1- I (we/Top Management) had ultimate responsibility.
2- I (we/Top Management) held the purse strings and resources in order to provide when needed/appropriate.
3- I (we/Top Management) often had the experience needed to mentor and give direction specific to any challenges.
4- I (we/Top Management) consistent with item 1 (responsibility) needed to ensure accountability.

Since Top Management has and should have responsibility, "we" must then be aware of the goals, plans, and the performance towards those (i.e. management review), but would not (should not?) always need to dictate what and how in regard to the setting of goals and subsequent planning.

My thoughts.

Be well.

 

That was going to me my thoughts, as well. Upper management most generally has the resources and authority to implement and achieve certain activities. Sometimes there are obstacles in the way, whether it be financial or otherwise that the team members might not be aware of.

 

If it's a given that Top Management is accountable to their QMS and must take the lead role (for example, in planning for the QMS), why does the statement in 9.3 need to mention "Top management shall review...". Isn't it enough to say, just to be consistent with the other clauses, "The organization shall review..."?

Maybe if the standard change the title of 6.1 to "Management Planning" instead of just "Planning", then it will be clearer to many organizations that the top management must be "at the helm" in both planning and review of the QMS.

 

And many certified organizations just conduct this "management review", with tick boxes to demonstrate all the "inputs to be considered" are covered, just to comply with the standard. There's no value in doing it like this. However, this approach is the one being expected by CB auditors.

 

Don't see why you can't tick boxes but also do it in a manner that is useful and beneficial. I get the box-ticking out of the way then cover the more interesting / useful / relevant stuff

 

Can't also see why you can't do it without the tick boxes. CB auditors who can't comprehend whether the organization has covered the inputs specified in clause 9.3.2 of the standard without the tick boxes are providing non-value adding services to the organization. If both of them (organization and CB auditors) can't comprehend without the tick boxes and agree that this works for them, then they deserve each other.

 

In my humble opinion the Top management’s role in QMS planning is mentioned clearly enough. To plan the QMS one needs to have quality objectives which shall be consistent with the quality policy (6.2.1a). Top management establishes, implements and maintains a quality policy that a) is appropriate to the purpose and context (4.2) of the organization and supports its strategic direction; b) provides a framework for setting quality objectives (5.2). Top management ensures that the quality policy and quality objectives are established for the quality management system and are compatible with the context (4.2) and strategic direction of the organization (5.1.1b).