Iso9001 and Management Review

In the context of ISO9001 Management Review hasand outcome. They achieve this through a process of
a particular meaning that is continued into the newestabdicating responsibility. The responsibility of
2008 variant of the standard. It directly relates tounderstanding the real purpose of the review; of
the review of management systems performanceadequately preparing for the review; and by
and the chances for developing long termdelegating responsibility for the outcome to those
improvement. But this review is just one of severalthey see as their nominee for both the process, and
other review requirements documented in thethe system at large. Consequently within those
standard, with additional review activities being aorganisations we find a 'Head of Quality' being the
natural extension of the business managementdriver to set up and manage the inputs and outputs
process.for the review, and the same individual continually at
Reviews are conducted routinely by businessodds with the management of the company
managers for all manner of purposes, and have theregarding their commitment to 'quality'.
common characteristic of being purposeful andDesign reviews - and similar review activities within
structured with clear decision making as an outcome,the Operations area, are markedly different. In the
based on the review objectives.first place they take place because managers believe
All too often auditors perceive that the ISO9001the review to be a necessary part of successful
Management Review has been conducted as aproject planning. Next the staff who participate have
formality with the only clear objective being to keepan interest in a successful outcome to the process,
the record of the review straight and visible for audit.and make a contribution that is recognized and
A clear lack of what the standard calls 'commitment'.valued.
A similar requirement, to inspect product designClearly for any review to be useful and successful a
activity, taken up at the beginning (or even prior tocombination of ability - (whether managerial or
beginning) of a project, and then at specificallytechnical) - and interest is essential. The actual parties
planned stages throughout the design process has aninvolved have to be convinced of the benefits
totally different response. These reviews are typicallycoming from their efforts and there has to be some
conducted in a manner designed to minimize the risk'additional value' from conducting the inspection. In
of failure through the identification and categorisationmost situations the ISO management inspection is
of risk elements, leading to the development of anot perceived as a useful utilisation of management
robust design strategy. Contributions to the reviewtime, beyond the required retention of registration
process are generally widely sought, and the reviewobjectives.
output well documented, with subsequent actionsIs there a solution to this problem, or is there indeed
being similarly reviewed.a problem? For the purist, who sees the
We have therefore two reviews, both forming partimplementation of the ISO standard as an adoption
of the ISO9001 system requirement, eachof both the letter and the spirit of the standard as
supposedly conducted by managers having thethe only way, then clearly there is a problem. For
authority and competence to assess and decide, butthose who would say that business managers should
markedly different in content and application.decide how they wish to implement and manage the
Admittedly the above is a generalized assessment,standard, as they can and do for other aspects and
but is so frequently typical as to be worthy ofrequirements, there is no problem provided the same
further assessment. For those who care about thesemanagers actually understand what they can but
issues the question must be - what is different aboutdon't do, and the implications of their decision. Key to
the method and content of the two inspectionthis understanding in many if not most organisations
scenarios?is the Head of Quality/Quality Manager (which they
I believe the 'secret' of their difference lies in thearen't) who implicitly connive with management to
nature of the participants. For the mandated ISOachieve a review process that could with little extra
Management Review the participants almosteffort actually have some value. It is this
inevitably see this review as a hurdle to be jumped inorganizational position that adds little real value and
the cause of registration. Consequently thecould with advantage be eliminated.
participants - if they can't avoid the review willQuality means doing things well.
attempt to minimize the pain of preparation conduct