Qualityworld

• Knowledge portal
• FAQs
• Information
• Qualityworld
  • Current issue
  • Editorial comment
  • Free Qualityworld
  • Past articles
  • Advertisers
  • Subscribe to Qualityworld
  • Advertise in Qualityworld
• Journal of Quality
• Jobs
• Press
• Links

Helpdesk

The problem

In most other major functions within companies they are obliged to give progress, financial and taxation reports at least on an annual basis. This is not so with internal audits or management reviews for systems compliance. Should there be a stipulated minimum frequency for implementation?

Over to the expert

The quality of the product or service comes out of the quality management system (QMS) and therefore should be of paramount importance to top management as any expected cash flow – and any deviation from target – would be dependent on the customer being satisfied with its conformance and functional performance.

The first question to ask: 'How does this company measure the quality performance and is it prescribed in the QMS?' If there are any adverse trends or the performance is not being measured effectively then it is a deficiency under ISO 9001, clause 8.2.3 which states: 'The organisation shall apply suitable methods for monitoring and measuring the QMS processes.

'These methods shall demonstrate the ability of the processes to achieve planned results. When planned results are not achieved, corrective action shall be taken, as appropriate, to ensure conformity of the service.'

Secondly, the audit frequency and management review are not held frequently enough and need a corrective action request and a review with top management to understand the level of commitment, quality policy and objectives.

I have always believed in the annual management review, with a monthly quality meeting with middle management to deal with the operational issues and the quality deployment plans. The full board should attend as a sign of commitment, along with the MD and any board members.

If they cannot manage to sit down for an hour once a year to review the performance of their QMS, then there is a serious problem with their understanding, policy and commitment. Not all enterprises agree to that frequency, which is why it is not explicitly mandated in the standard. Some like to hold the management review monthly, some three-monthly. All are acceptable providing they produce the results in terms of the quality policy, objectives, performance and customer satisfaction. Extending the frequency shows a negative commitment and should be dealt with as above.

Planned QMS audit frequencies are based on the criticality and status of the company's process as well as the results of previous audits. The simple rule is that a company has to earn the right to sample and not arbitrarily drop to sampling to meet costs or resource considerations. Again, it's a management issue and should be dealt with under ISO 9001, clause 5.1e, which states: 'Top management must provide evidence of its commitment to develop and implement the QMS and continually improve its effectiveness. To achieve this, they must ensure the availability of resources.'

I don't believe there should be prescribed minimum frequencies for either the management review or for QMS audits and there is no public, professional or international call for changing the standard.

The management of any company needs to be encouraged to use the internal audit results to ensure the company's processes are under control (to the operating procedures) and, what's more, to use the audit to add value, eliminate waste and create continual improvement of the QMS.

As Ishikawa famously said: 'If standards and regulations are not revised every six months, it's proof that no one is using them seriously'

Tony Brown runs a quality consultancy, ABA Tony Brown Associates Ltd, and is a UK expert on ISO 9000. He is chairman of the Standards Development Group and sits on the Policy Development Board.