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.

Question on Management Review Meeting

Discussion in 'ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Systems' started by AndyO24, May 20, 2020.

  1. AndyO24

    AndyO24 New Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2020
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Hello,

    New user here and newly appointed quality supervisor to an already existing QMS system. With our external ISO audit (will be virtual) coming up shortly (in a few weeks), the question came up from upper management is whether a management review meeting is required to be held before the external ISO audit is held. For one, we don't have most of our top management still at home due to COVID and others out on the production floor trying to make up for lost revenue over the past few months. We would consider holding one on a screen-sharing platform and doing it remotely, but with my lack of knowledge on this subject, I was hoping to see if maybe I can get some advice on how to approach this. Our last management review meeting was in August 2019. We also considered the fact that the meeting may not be as productive if it is held remotely. Is it required for me to hold the management review meeting before the external audit?

    Please go easy on me, still a newbie!
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2020
  2. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,484
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Andy! Welcome! We're going to get on fabulously...:)

    OK, so let's dispel a huge myth. A review by top management of the QMS performance etc does NOT have to be a meeting. Working remotely doesn't preclude holding a review and there are no issues with the information being compiled, it being reviewed and in a brief on-line discussion (or not) conclusions being drawn, actions assigned and so on. If you have a procedure which indicates a meeting IS the mechanism, change the procedure to allow other means to be used, too (formal change due to Covid-19)

    Secondly, your management don't understand why they are doing a review, except that ISO requires it. That needs to change. If you didn't have a management review since last August, you have a non-functioning QMS. That alone demonstrates it was being done because ISO-Says-So. I'd wager tomorrow's lunch that it was conducted by your predecessor and didn't involve your top management other than they thought they needed to show up. No wonder they worry about it not being productive! Working remotely isn't being unproductive. If you've shut down, that's the reason it won't be productive - so it should become a planning for return/start-up, instead.

    Thirdly, if your procedure states you'll do an annual review, then yes, you will likely get an nc for not doing one. It's a simple gotcha. If your auditor is very astute, they may ask why, since things have changed, you haven't held another, but that's a long shot.

    Let me know if you'd like some help in preparing for your virtual audit. Here's a link to a blog I wrote: https://www.the-center.org/Blog/May-2020/When-the-Pandemic-is-Over-Using-ISO-to-Plan-Prepar
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2020
    etorresg and tony s like this.
  3. John C. Abnet

    John C. Abnet Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2017
    Messages:
    380
    Likes Received:
    254
    Trophy Points:
    62
    Location:
    Upper Midwest- USA
    Good day @AndyO24 ;
    The council you received from @Andy Nichols is SPOT ON!

    As you move into your new role, remember, an effective QMS serves first and foremost, your organization and its members. It sounds like you can possibly be the hero here and educate your leadership on this fact. It sounds as if you can also be the hero by educating your leadership on the fact that "Management Review" does not need to be (should not be) that once a year, dark room, stale pizza, blah blah blah blah...that I assume your leadership is currently submitted to. ISO 9001 does not even specify a frequency (instead simply states "planned intervals").

    I would council that prior to your 3rd party audit, you get your leadership on the phone and let them know that you are....
    1- removing the aforementioned assumed once per year cumbersome "management review meeting" from their workload.
    2- review the ISO 9001 required inputs and outputs of management review and work with them to determine if/when/how those inputs and outputs may already
    be reviewed via the aggregate of weekly team meetings, quarterly operational reviews, annual business planning, etc..etc..etc..
    (Most organizations I have worked with for establishing an ISO 9001 QMS were already holding these type of reviews and meeting the requirements of
    "Management Review" well before they ever decided to become ISO 9001 certified).

    3- assuming "2" has indeed fulfilled the management review requirements, have leadership provide you the required documented evidence of same.

    Presto!...management review requirement fulfilled.

    As you move in to your new role, instead of looking at your organization through the lens of ISO 9001, instead, reverse engineer and look at ISO 9001 through the lens of your organization. You may find other areas where you can eliminate extra workload just because of the standard or the auditor, and instead, understand if what your organization does on a daily basis as part of simply fulfilling its business function may already address many of the ISO requirements.

    Hope this helps.
    Be well.

    (By the way, I HIGHLY recommend you review the "preparing for virtual audit" webinar via the link that @Andy Nichols provided. Maybe get your leadership to watch it also. Good stuff).
     
    tony s and etorresg like this.
  4. Mike S.

    Mike S. Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2020
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Hi Andy024,

    Some good advice above.

    What do your procedures say about management review? Do you comply with them? Do you need to revise them to better serve you (while still meeting the standard's requirements)? If so, revise them!

    It is highly likely you have had meetings over the last several months in the normal course of business that covered many of the requirements of management review, but maybe not all of the requirements. But, with auditors being auditors, make sure you can show the auditor where you covered every requirement in 9.3, including the required documented information.
     
  5. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,484
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    Or not. It says "taking into consideration" - to clarify what's meant by "covered every requirement"...
     
  6. Golfman25

    Golfman25 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2015
    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    341
    Trophy Points:
    62
    As other have basically stated, management review is an ongoing process. Double check your management review procedures and change if necessary to get rid of the "annual meeting." Then compile that which is needed to cover the MR requirement. Good luck.
     
  7. Mike S.

    Mike S. Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2020
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    Uh huh. Semantics. If you don't show where you at least "considered" everything listed in 9.3.2 you will be deemed to have not "covered" (my word) every requirement. So you may be able to say "we considered including trends in customer satisfaction in our MR and decided not to" if you don't mention customer satisfaction at all you will likely get dinged.
     
  8. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,484
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    That would depend on the auditor...
     
  9. Mike S.

    Mike S. Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2020
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
  10. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    849
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Does "showing" to the auditor means presenting a documented information?
     
  11. Mike S.

    Mike S. Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2020
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    It could.

    Documented information is required "as evidence of the results of management reviews" as noted in 9.3.3.

    We cover most of the things in management review inputs monthly and we find it easiest to do this in meetings where presentations are made, so documents naturally exist.

    You could do it more informally and as long as you can provide objective evidence to the auditor that it actually happened you would be okay.
     
  12. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,484
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    I see this as simply results, not that I'd have to show that I'd considered a. through f. I'd happily record that an item was considered but not included, since no actions were necessary and we'd made a decision not to change anything.
     
    tony s likes this.
  13. Mike S.

    Mike S. Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2020
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    4
    Trophy Points:
    2
    I'm not sure of your point.

    "documented information" is required as evidence of the results of management reviews as noted in 9.3.3

    I advised the OP to "make sure you can show the auditor where you covered every requirement in 9.3, including the required documented information" because I have had 2 different registrar auditors go line by line through the MR section and ask for objective evidence of each item - that it was either covered or considered. Whether or not that was a good thing for an auditor to do or not is irrelevant, the fact is they did it. Maybe his/her auditor would, maybe they wouldn't.
     
  14. Andy Nichols

    Andy Nichols Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    3,484
    Likes Received:
    1,757
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    In the "Rust Belt"
    At which point, you call a halt to the audit. Let's NOT forget - for our readers looking for sage advice here and who never comment - no-one should be doing this to please auditors. They come in too many shades of grey to be able to do this. Organizations should do what is effective and having a looooong list of stuff which wasn't discussed as an "agenda item" because it was considered however there was "no change", "no need to improve" and "no additional resources were necessary" is undesirable and unnecessary. You may wish to pander to auditors' needs, but that's your choice, not what's required by the ISO standard and wouldn't be supported by management if they knew they could operate as "management by exception"...
     
  15. tony s

    tony s Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2015
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    849
    Trophy Points:
    112
    Location:
    Laguna Philippines
    Is "evidence of management review" different from "evidence of the results of management reviews"? I believe so.

    Previous versions of ISO 9001 has the following statements in the main or general paragraph under the management review clause:
    • 1994 - "Records of such reviews shall be maintained";
    • 2000 - "Records from management reviews shall be maintained";
    • 2008 - "Records from management reviews shall be maintained".
    Since then auditors are expecting records as "evidence of management reviews" and, consequently, look for records on whether the activity has covered the inputs specified in the management review clause.

    The 2015 version is more result-oriented and rightly placed the requirements for retaining documented information at the output section of the management review clause which says "The organization shall retain documented information as evidence of the results of management reviews".

    According to Auditing Practices Guidance by the IAF, "Auditors should be aware that objective evidence does not necessarily depend on the existence of documented information, except where specifically mentioned in ISO 9001". So auditors should not concern themselves in asking for documented evidence/s of what were covered. Auditors should look into the "results" instead (e.g. action plans on the improvement initiatives that were raised, plans on the necessary changes and resources, monitoring of accomplishment of the plans).
     
    Andy Nichols likes this.

Share This Page