Communication - 5.5.3

I think clause 5.5.3 Internal communication requirement are so weak in ISO 9001 and TS 16949 standards. Communication is one of the biggest problem for lots of compaines but i never saw that an auditor stuck on this requirement.

An effective management system already has to supply good communication for everey processes. In that case 5.5.3 is an unnecessary clause with the current situation or it has to be more clarified and detailed or they have to find a way to measure effectiveness of the communication.

Every company use e-mail, phone, meetings, communication boards. So ? What is the difference between a certified company and non-certified company ? Is there any best practice in your company ? What is your opinion ?

 

If I'm going to use your logic, then it would seem that clauses below are unnecessary:

5.2 Customer focus - you can't satisfy your customer, if you don't know their requirements;
5.5.1 Responsibility and authority - normally people know who's responsible for a particular task;
6.1 Provision of resources - it's plain obvious that you can't produce without resources;
6.2.1 Human resources-general - why would an organization assign a task to an incompetent person;
6.3 Infrastructure - can't imagine an organization without this;
etc., etc., etc.​

 

I do understand your reasoning however as Tony showed in his answer, this type of reasoning makes the complete standard useless.

It is more about what you communicate. At some of the companies we work with the planned regular meetings for all kind of QHSE related activities. The topics of these meeting did vary a lot from: Changes in Labour laws till product deviations that occurred more often than it should.

In my opinion the difference between a certified company is that a certified company really thinks about all these things and how to effectively communicate. Though, there are a lot of non-certified companies which have all these processes in place.

 

Its not what i mention about. The communication requirements are so important but none of certification compaines deeply questioning that requirements.

its like "We use phone, meetings etc and than ok no problem, we can continue other clauses for audit".

But this has to be change, especialy speed and communication skills are so important than ever before. There is a CIO task now and there wasn't a position like that before. In the nearly future the companies which applies an effective process management and communication management via some applications, softwares... will be one step ahead from other compaines.

 

CBs may probe further but they can never go beyond the body and the spirit of a specific clause of the standard. Companies who are comfortable with the use of conventional methods of communication should not expect that CBs will raise concerns, or NCs, if they don't use software applications. The standard requires "appropriate" communication process. Determining what is appropriate is not the business of the CB. Manual handing of prescription by physicians to nurses is still effective for some hospitals than electronic medical transcriptions.

 

I agree with you that 5.5.3 clause appears to be rather weak. But the new ISO9001:2015 has a more proactive structured approach to communication. The use of a daily stand-up meetings with visual boards has been effective in improving work flow efficiency. Stand-up meetings only lasts for a maximum of 20 minutes following a structured communication plan.

 

Our plan was having max.20 minutes meetings but i takes 60 minutes every day I guess its another sign for unsufficent communication

 

Once again the communication must be structured in order to make it very effective. 2 minutes is too short. 15 minutes should be the ideal one to make these very effective.

 

We now transition into the topic of "Conducting Effective Meetings".

Almost nobody does, it seems to be a dying art. But it's beautiful to watch one in progress.

Everybody comes in having read the previously shared agenda, or clueless if they chose not to.

Topics are discussed in order, and if something is either too complex to solve in the time slot allotted or off topic then it goes on the list to address in another meeting or different communication format.

The person running the meeting has to be informed, polite, and strict. That's a tough combination to find in one person who actually cares.

I pride myself on my meetings ending on schedule. I will let them run astray of the agenda if the communications are adding value, but once they turn into whining or get too far off topic it's back to the agenda.

 

I can guarantee that your auditor would like to see evidence f a proactive meeting.

 

Call it whatever you want. A 15 minute stand up meeting to review the plan for the day, who's going to do what and when and changes to days work can be very effective in reducing the risk of not accomplishing the day's work plan.

 

Toyota has a structured stand up meetings with only 5 questions like: What is that is the target condition? What is the actual condition? What obstacles do you think are preventing you from reaching the target condition? Which one are you addressing now? What is your next step (PDCA cycle) What do you expect? When can we go and see what we have learned from taking that step? You can make any 5 questions. The meeting must be attended by the critical process owners. Perhaps there should also be a white board where each process owner can write his/her notes. Sorry if my short response was not favorable to you RoxanneB. I just want to be a part of the solution.