In the context of ISO9001 Management Review has a particular connotation that is continued into the latest 2008 variant of the standard. It specifically relates to the review of management systems performance and the opportunities for developing further improvement. But this review is just one of several review requirements documented in the standard, with further review activities being a natural part of the business management process.



Inspections are done routinely by business managers for all sorts of purposes, and have the usual characteristic of being purposeful and structured with clear decision making as an end result, based on the inspection objectives.

All too often auditors perceive that the ISO9001 Management Review has been conducted as a formality with the only clear objective being to keep the record of the review straight and visible for audit. A clear lack of what the standard calls 'commitment'.

A similar requirement, to inspect product design activity, taken up at the beginning (or even prior to beginning) of a project, and then at specifically planned stages throughout the design process has an totally different response. These inspections are typically conducted in a way designed to limit the risk of failure through the identification and categorisation of risk factors, leading to the development of a strong design strategy. Contributions to the review process are generally widely sought, and the review output well documented, with subsequent actions being similarly reviewed.

We have therefore two reviews, both forming part of the ISO9001 system requirement, each supposedly conducted by managers having the authority and competence to assess and decide, but markedly different in content and application. Admittedly the above is a generalized assessment, but is so frequently typical as to be worthy of further assessment. For those who care about these issues the question must be - what is different about the manner and content of the two review scenarios?

I believe the 'secret' of their difference lies in the nature of the participants. For the mandated ISO Management Review the participants almost inevitably see this review as a hurdle to be jumped in the cause of registration. Consequently the participants - if they can't avoid the review will attempt to minimize the pain of preparation conduct and outcome. They achieve this through a process of abdicating responsibility. The responsibility of understanding the real purpose of the review; of adequately preparing for the review; and by delegating responsibility for the outcome to those they see as their nominee for both the process, and the system at large. Consequently within those organisations we find a 'Head of Quality' being the driver to set up and manage the inputs and outputs for the review, and the same individual continually at odds with the management of the company regarding their commitment to 'quality'.

Design reviews - and similar review activities within the Operations area, are markedly different. In the first place they take place because managers believe the review to be a necessary part of successful project planning. Next the staff who participate have an interest in a successful outcome to the process, and make a contribution that is recognized and valued.

Clearly for any review to be useful and successful a combination of ability - (whether managerial or technical) - and interest is essential. The actual participants have to be convinced of the benefits arising from their efforts and there has to be some 'added value' from conducting the review. In most situations the ISO management inspection is not perceived as a useful utilisation of management time, beyond the required retention of registration objectives.

Is there a solution to this problem, or is there indeed a problem? For the purist, who sees the implementation of the ISO standard as an adoption of both the letter and the spirit of the standard as the only way, then clearly there is a problem. For those who would state that business managers should decide how they want to implement and manage this standard, as they can and usually do for other aspects and requirements, there is no difficulty provided those same managers actually understand what they can but don't do, and the consequences of their decision. Key to this understanding in many if not most organisations is the Head of Quality/Quality Manager (which they aren't) who implicitly connive with management to achieve a review process that could with little extra effort actually have some value. It is this organizational position that adds little real value and could with advantage be eliminated.

Quality means doing things well.