Where to put audit results in Management Review agenda?

Is there a most effective place, in dealing with the Review Inputs, to place the results of audits? How do Management derive the most value from the placement of them, as a discussion point?

 

The most effective place is that which the Top Management decides. Audit results could be informative for many purposes. The results of those audits belong in the subject where they originated.

 

So, typically, where does that happen? I mean, where in the agenda or points to be discussed?
FWIW - rarely do management have a clue, beyond "ISO-says-so", for the reasons behind performing audits - so maybe the logic doesn't quite follow that it's down to them. Indeed, when management "suffer" one internal audit and management review a year (and CB auditors don't apparently find anything non-conforming there) I'd suggest that they have no clue about the purpose of either requirement...

 

Considering I'm not a fan of the "once-a-year" management review approach, not sure I'm in a position to answer your question - if that's the format you're basing the question upon.

I also look at reviewing the audit results as doable at two perspectives:

1. The detailed results - the good, the bad, the ugly - including why these findings can help address gaps/risks.
2. The summary and trends - a higher level review that can trigger planning for future actions and resources

Where to put these discussions and the audience really does depend on the organization (size, structure, etc.). For larger organizations, as an example, the President and C-Suite personnel perhaps don't need/want/benefit from the detailed results. They care more about summaries and trends and what's needed to course correct as this can impact their strategy.

 

I usually see them included in the agenda during each management review because they assume that each review must include everything in the clause.

Since no frequency is cited in any of the standards I operate to, there is no nonconformity if internal audits and management reviews are done annually.

Like RoxaneB, I believe one per year isn't enough to be meaningful. When I see this type of practice (usually in less mature system and/or less committed top management) it has been my habit to point out to them that they have choices: that the standard doesn't say how often, or that every input must be included in every Review, or that the reviews must be done in person, and that the idea of the Review is to provide top management with a forum in which to review their business conditions and operations. It isn't just because the standard says so.

 

I guess it depends on what people see is the purpose of reviewing (internal) audits (we'll ignore CB audits for the moment).