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.

Management Reviews

Discussion in 'IATF 16949:2016 - Automotive Quality Systems' started by bkirch, Nov 30, 2018.

  1. bkirch

    bkirch Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    7
    We are a company that originally set up our Management Review meetings to occur on a quarterly basis, and they now occur on an annual basis. This annual meeting is the meeting which we make sure all of the ISO and IATF required inputs are covered and our Management Review evidence during audits.

    My issue with this meeting is that much of this same information is covered in other meetings throughout the year that we call Operations Review Meetings. So, by the time we get to the ISO/IATF Management Review meeting, the audience has seen much of the same information in other meetings. One exception is that our President attends the annual meeting and I don't believe he attends the Operations Review Meetings.

    My question, is would it be acceptable to get rid of our annual meeting where all required inputs are covered if I could show evidence that the required inputs are covered in various meetings through out the year?
     
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Basically, yes. I've encountered this situation commonly. I'd suggest going back to quarterly, remembering that the purpose of management review is to review performance to goal compared to audit results/customer feedback etc. Don't fall into the trap of thinking it should be done monthly, because that's too much and you won't be looking at trend lines - which is the theme of MR.
     
  3. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    584
    Likes Received:
    267
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Yes, we went from the annual management review, to "continuous" management review. Meaning, where the input/output comes up during our regular in the course of doing business meetings we hit it then. We keep a checklist to review to make sure we hit everything during the year.

    In your case, maybe providing an annual summary for the President to review might be helpful as well.
     
  4. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    255
    Likes Received:
    149
    Trophy Points:
    42
    Good day @bkirch;
    As you have been counciled by others, YES indeed you can do that. Holding a singled "annual" management review can often be an overwhelming all-day rehash of what has already taken place throughout the course of the year.

    Additionally, in regards to an annual Management Review, what's the point? An annual review does not allow for results to be analyzed and action to be taken throughout the year. For those who choose to hold a single/comprehensive annual management review, it is essentially "too late" to respond to the inputs.

    Hope this helps.
    Be well.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Great points, John! I liken MR to a budget review. Many organizations, having established their budget gather and track information on what's being spent in each "account". They don't wait until the end of the year to look in the cash box to see how much is/isn't left over...
     
    John C. Abnet likes this.
  6. ShaneChase

    ShaneChase New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2017
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I also agree with the opinion that management review meetings may be less then annually. We have set up a monthly meeting where each of the required issues are discussed, but not at each meeting. For example, Product conformance is covered each month but the maintenance objectives are covered every quarter. The thought is that this will minimize the meeting length, cover all needed items, and allow for some analysis of trends in data. It has worked very well so far and the IATF auditor really liked it so there should be no issue with compliance.
     
  7. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    which isn't any criterion in and of its own right...
     
  8. Serious Man

    Serious Man Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    17
    It was discussed in ISO9001:2015 forum.
    http://www.qualityforumonline.com/f...-acc-to-iso9001-2015-example.2026/#post-14167
    I put there my comments so maybe someone would find them valuable.

    Coming from that, I wouldn't combine monthly performance review meeting with management review.
    Short time perspective and "detail-focused" activities versus long term perspective and "general-organizational" actions.
    There are different inputs and different outputs in both cases.
     
    judegu likes this.
  9. bkirch

    bkirch Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Another question that I had in regards to Management Review requirements is with 9.3.2 e) - the effectiveness of actions taken to address risks and opportunities. Could I get some input on the types of information that is used to meet this input requirement?
     
  10. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    So, let's say that as a result of a SWOT analysis, finding skilled workers is a risk to meeting customers' needs (interested parties and all that). Your organization decides to create an apprenticeship program. As this is implemented, it makes sense to review progress at the Management Review.
     
    bkirch likes this.
  11. bkirch

    bkirch Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2016
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    7
    Thank you Andy.
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.
  12. judegu

    judegu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    China
    So based on your thinking, management rewiew should be looking at the big picture, on the strategic level, not much focusing on the detailed matter which means the frequency of the MR should also not be too high? Is quarterly and annually OK? Though it seems that IATF 16949 has said nothing about the more frequent review meeting such as the monthly performance review meeting.
     
  13. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Annually is too late. If you think about the famous PDCA cycle, setting objectives, monitoring process performance, checking through internal audits etc and then taking action, fits a quarterly schedule.
     
  14. Jennifer Kirley

    Jennifer Kirley Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2015
    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    582
    Trophy Points:
    92
    Location:
    USA
    No standard I have ever worked to prescribes frequency of management reviews. Nor do any of the standards prescribe that all inputs be in the same review. If you want to review process and product performance on a monthly bases for a tactical level review, so be it. If you want to look at your data on a higher level quarterly for strategic reviews, that makes sense too. An annual review might be suitable for changes in internal and external issues, as well as other things one would associate with an annual business planning session. That is, of course unless your business environment is so dynamic that issues change more quickly.

    In short, the management review is supposed to suit your business needs and not some preconceived notion in the auditor.
     
    judegu likes this.
  15. Serious Man

    Serious Man Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Dear judegu, it is for me rather review of management (methods) than review by management.
    It should be organizational shake up, so that's why it should not be performed too often.
    Inputs are trends, so in my opinion quarterly perspective is misleading.

    As a student I made presentation of top 10 car model sales for a period of last 3 years.
    Year-to-year comparison was very informative and repetitive peaks could be observed.

    Monthly performance review has separate purpose and different kind of actions form its outputs.
    Even half of year wont be perfect, as there are two main sources of fluctuations - summer holidays and Christmas.
    Finally, 9.3.1.1 says that frequency might be increased, when required.
     
  16. judegu

    judegu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    China
    @Serious Man

    Hi sir. Thanks for your insight on this matter. In my daily life, I am just a QE, a small screw of a big machine. Thus I dont have the opportunity to get involved in such shack up like event. Based on what I leaned in this forum(BTW quite happy to be part of it.), people`s personal definitions of management review are a bit different from each other`s. Perhaps it is the beuaty of the diversity.
     
  17. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    2,751
    Likes Received:
    1,416
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I would suggest that the diversity comes from NOT understanding what management review is about...
     
  18. Serious Man

    Serious Man Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2017
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    27
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Another third party auditor I met, asked about management reviews he has seen during audits told me, that generally organizations do not understand what management review is really about. Organizations are focused only on keeping evidence of inputs and outputs, therefore there is no reason to issue a nonconformity for that.
    They do it in a manner, which does not give them any profits, but auditors are "happy".

    Generally, keep focus on short-term performance monitoring and remember there is a separate meeting for business plan.
    System and business are not related and even more system has negative impact on profits, some say.
    After e.g. 40 years in business, not a reason to be proud.
    Fortunately, I am not.
     
  19. judegu

    judegu Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    17
    Location:
    China
    I got myself dragged into manufacturing right after my graduation. It is not because I love Manufacturing so much or something alike. The reason is simple. Among the offers I got, the manufacturing one paid me highest. And the reason for me to become a QE, it was the back-then fanscinating six-sigma theroy. Back in 2010, it looked just so beautiful to me, a universal tool COULD be used in all the areas of manufacturing.
    And after I became a QE, I have become obsessed with all the quality tools, MSA, SPC, FMEA, DOE, Process Audit, Quality System (ISO 9000, IATF) etc.
    They are said to be powerful tools to solve real problems in the real manufacturing site, however based on my real experience, they are not THAT powerful. Maybe they are not used in the right manner in which they should be used. (The Plant where I works belongs to one Top 100.) In the most cases, they are just a bunch of paper work which do nothing good in term of improvement. Though they do have their undeniable value when handling the 2nd or 3rd Audits.
     

Share This Page