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.

Conclusions Resulting from Management Reviews

Discussion in 'ISO 14001:2015 - Environmental Management Systems' started by tony s, Apr 18, 2016.

  1. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    I have a discussion before with a CB that there should be an "annual" management review to satisfy the statement in ISO 14001:2015 Clause 9.3 which states that "The outputs of the management review shall include...conclusions on the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the environmental management system". What's your take on this?

    (I'm not a fan of "annual" management reviews where all the required inputs are covered in one meeting. I believe having more frequent reviews covering only those that are relevant and timely to be tackled is more effective.)
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  2. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    867
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    USA
    I agree that some of the agenda items can more effectively be looked at in a more frequent, tactical-level meeting so as to make the data more actionable. I don't know about an annual meeting to cover 9.3, but it makes sense to have that high-level agenda point included somewhere. Many times it's done at the same time as policy review. It has occurred to me that a SWOT would fit nicely in an annual management review. I would welcome such a strategic-level review once a year to satisfy 9.3. It can also help show risk-based thinking in management processes...
     
    MCW8888 likes this.
  3. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,719
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    So, we should ask what's the purpose of a review? I see it as a "navigational exercise" for the business: Where are we going and as things progress, are we getting there then did we arrive as planned, sort of thing. So, yes, I agree Tony. Once a year isn't sufficient. I'm thinking that 3 or 4 are necessary. The purpose is to look at the performance of the QMS in achieving goals and objectives, balanced by the confirmation of the QMS being followed as reported on by the internal audits.

    Clearly, the CB auditor doesn't understand the "big picture" but knows the individual requirements, not how they are supposed to work together.
     
    tony s likes this.
  4. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Since most auditors are asking if we have covered all the required inputs in our management reviews, we present to them a matrix indicating the summary of all the inputs covered for a twelve-month period. Minutes of meetings are numbered so we can trace when did we cover such input. Below is the sample of the matrix.
    upload_2016-4-22_8-50-39.png
     
  5. David Graham

    David Graham Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta. Canada
    Agreed, once a year is insufficient but that is what my managers have decreed, so, I have now got them doing weekly manager meetings, monthly program reviews, Quarterly reviews and the Annual MRM. I have found the most important issue at hand is that you can prove you meet the input requirements as set out by standard and that you document your outputs, and any Action items that arise from said meeting. Secondly that input comes from all functional areas of your business. My registrar checks this every year, every year, every year. The most important thing they are looking for is discussion on the Quality Policy and Quality Objectives, specifically the outcome of the discussion and any resulting change.
     
  6. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,719
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Really? That would worry me!
     
  7. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,719
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Surely, the most important thing is that the organization takes a long, hard look at the way it operates and makes the required improvements and/or corrections? Doing things to satisfy the letter of the standard and what AS auditors "like" is missing the point, surely? Where's the customer in all this work?
     
    Jennifer Kirley likes this.
  8. David Graham

    David Graham Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta. Canada
    The customer is the military (air force) and our airworthiness regulator decides if we met their expectations and are set up and organized in a way that follows their rules. We not only have to satisfy the requirements of the standard, but meet the requirements of the contract and the airworthiness authority as well, these are not always easy to balance. The airworthiness authority does dictate how some of our processes will look like, and how they function. Our QMS is built to how we operate, but the military does reach in at times and dictates how something will look, feel or run, specifically with respect to training and authorizations. Now to the second part, while our auditor is very strict, this person has been of most benefit to us, our previous auditor had other things they felt were important, the next auditor (the new one) will arrive this fall and what they feel is important is anyone's guess. Our embedded Government Quality Assurance agent and the regulator and the auditor all expect the MRM to address the seven required inputs and the outputs as per the standard.
     
  9. David Graham

    David Graham Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2016
    Messages:
    15
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Location:
    Calgary, Alberta. Canada
    Sorry about that some of my answer got clipped... the Quarterly PMR meetings are always with the military customer and they dictate format, so they are heavily involved. We also have Corporate to answer too as well and they have imposed their own rules wrt to retention of records that is above and beyond (most times but not always) the requirements of the customer, the contract, regulation and or the standard. So I have chosen to use the longest retention time that falls out of any of the people who have a hand in this one aspect. As I said, it make my life very difficult, but in the last eight years, the MRM records were always examine, to ensure we met everyone's expectations.

    Andy, I am open to any suggestions that could make all interested parties happy and my life easier, so please suggest away.
     
  10. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,172
    Likes Received:
    867
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    In a client-commissioned audit, most of the time, you have to concede. All battles maybe worth fighting for, but some of them aren't worth winning.
     
  11. V.BABU

    V.BABU New Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2016
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Chennai
    hello,
    can any one Guide What are changes to be done to switchover ISO14001-2015.& Also share what are key changes in MRM review
     
  12. steve gill

    steve gill Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2017
    Messages:
    16
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Not sure if it helps, but I generally conduct remote laboratory management reviews to ISO 17025, I present all the necessary items in a presentation and seek feedback from upper management. UKAS have noticed my strategy and cant say too much because 17025 does not say that the relevant partners need to be in attendance. I have decided to reduce attended meetings to every 3 years.
    I was finding it difficult to get directors to have same days off!!
     
  13. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,719
    Likes Received:
    1,886
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Steve: Why do you do this? Don't your leadership "own" the various lab processes?
     
  14. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    867
    Likes Received:
    608
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    USA
    ISO/TC 207/SC 1 has a number of links to guidance documents you could start with.
     
  15. MCW8888

    MCW8888 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2015
    Messages:
    642
    Likes Received:
    197
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Can you send this as an editable document? Thank you.
     

Share This Page