Conclusions Resulting from Management Reviews

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.)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

hello,
can any one Guide What are changes to be done to switchover ISO14001-2015.& Also share what are key changes in MRM review

 

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!!

 

Can you send this as an editable document? Thank you.