| name | quality-manager-qmr |
| description | Senior Quality Manager Responsible Person (QMR) for HealthTech and MedTech companies. Use when conducting management reviews, setting quality objectives, tracking quality KPIs, assessing quality culture, overseeing regulatory compliance across jurisdictions, or preparing for Notified Body and FDA inspections. Provides quality system governance and performance monitoring per ISO 13485 Clause 5.5.2.
|
| license | MIT + Commons Clause |
| metadata | {"version":"1.0.0","author":"borghei","category":"compliance","domain":"quality-management","updated":"2026-03-31T00:00:00.000Z","tags":["quality-management","qms","kpi","management-review","compliance"]} |
Senior Quality Manager Responsible Person (QMR)
Quality system accountability, management review leadership, and regulatory compliance oversight per ISO 13485 Clause 5.5.2 requirements.
QMR Responsibilities
ISO 13485 Clause 5.5.2 Requirements
| Responsibility | Scope | Evidence |
|---|
| QMS effectiveness | Monitor system performance and suitability | Management review records |
| Reporting to management | Communicate QMS performance to top management | Quality reports, dashboards |
| Quality awareness | Promote regulatory and quality requirements | Training records, communications |
| Liaison with external parties | Interface with regulators, Notified Bodies | Meeting records, correspondence |
QMR Accountability Matrix
| Domain | Accountable For | Reports To | Frequency |
|---|
| Quality Policy | Policy adequacy and communication | CEO/Board | Annual review |
| Quality Objectives | Objective achievement and relevance | Executive Team | Quarterly |
| QMS Performance | System effectiveness metrics | Management | Monthly |
| Regulatory Compliance | Compliance status across jurisdictions | CEO | Quarterly |
| Audit Program | Audit schedule completion, findings closure | Management | Per audit |
| CAPA Oversight | CAPA effectiveness and timeliness | Executive Team | Monthly |
Authority Boundaries
| Decision Type | QMR Authority | Escalation Required |
|---|
| Process changes within QMS | Approve with owner | Major process redesign |
| Document approval | Final QA approval | Policy-level changes |
| Nonconformity disposition | Accept/reject with MRB | Product release decisions |
| Supplier quality actions | Quality holds, audits | Supplier termination |
| Audit scheduling | Adjust internal audit schedule | External audit timing |
| Training requirements | Define quality training needs | Organization-wide training budget |
Management Review Workflow
The agent conducts management reviews per ISO 13485 Clause 5.6 requirements.
Workflow: Prepare and Execute Management Review
- Schedule management review -- minimum annually per ISO 13485; quarterly or semi-annual cadence recommended for active QMS.
- Notify required attendees minimum 2 weeks prior -- CEO/GM, department heads, RA Manager, Production Manager, Customer Quality lead.
- Collect required inputs from process owners:
- Audit results (internal and external)
- Customer feedback (complaints, satisfaction, returns)
- Process performance and product conformity
- CAPA status and effectiveness
- Previous review action items
- Changes affecting QMS (regulatory, organizational)
- Recommendations for improvement
- Compile input summary report with trend analysis covering the review period.
- Prepare presentation materials with supporting data and visualizations.
- Distribute agenda and input package 1 week prior to the meeting.
- Conduct review meeting per agenda -- ensure all required inputs are discussed.
- Validation checkpoint: All ISO 13485 Clause 5.6.2 inputs reviewed; decisions documented with owners and due dates; outputs satisfy Clause 5.6.3 requirements.
Example: Management Review Input Summary
MANAGEMENT REVIEW INPUT SUMMARY
Review Period: 2025-Q3 to 2025-Q4
Review Date: 2026-01-20
Prepared By: J. Mueller, QMR
1. AUDIT RESULTS
Internal audits completed: 4 of 4 planned
External audits completed: 1 (Notified Body surveillance)
Total findings: 0 major / 3 minor
Open findings: 1 (ISMS-2025-012, due 2026-02-15)
Trend: Minor findings decreased 40% YoY
2. CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
Complaints received: 12
Complaint rate: 0.08 per 1000 units (target: <0.1)
Customer satisfaction score: 4.2/5.0 (target: >4.0)
Returns: 3 units (0.02%)
Top issues: Labeling clarity (5), packaging damage (3)
3. CAPA STATUS
Open CAPAs: 6
Overdue: 0
Effectiveness rate: 91% (target: >85%)
Average age: 42 days
4. PREVIOUS ACTIONS
Total from last review: 8
Completed: 7 | In progress: 1 | Overdue: 0
RECOMMENDED OUTPUTS:
- Approve updated quality objectives for 2026
- Allocate 0.5 FTE for labeling improvement project
- Schedule supplier re-qualification for packaging vendor
Management Review Output Requirements
| Output | Documentation | Owner |
|---|
| QMS improvement decisions | Action items with due dates | Assigned per item |
| Resource needs | Resource plan updates | Department heads |
| Quality objectives changes | Updated objectives document | QMR |
| Process improvement needs | Improvement project charters | Process owners |
See: references/management-review-guide.md
Quality KPI Management Workflow
The agent establishes, monitors, and reports quality performance indicators.
Workflow: Establish Quality KPI Framework
- Identify quality objectives requiring measurement -- align each KPI to a specific objective.
- Select KPIs per objective using SMART criteria: Specific (clear calculation), Measurable (quantifiable), Actionable (team can influence), Relevant (aligned to objectives), Time-bound (defined frequency).
- Define target values based on baseline data and industry benchmarks.
- Assign data source and collection responsibility for each KPI.
- Establish reporting frequency per KPI category (see table below).
- Configure dashboard displays and trend analysis views.
- Define escalation thresholds and alert triggers for each KPI.
- Validation checkpoint: Each KPI has an assigned owner, measurable target, identified data source, and documented escalation criteria.
Core Quality KPIs
| Category | KPI | Target | Calculation |
|---|
| Process | First Pass Yield | >95% | (Units passed first time / Total units) x 100 |
| Process | Nonconformance Rate | <1% | (NC count / Total units) x 100 |
| CAPA | CAPA Closure Rate | >90% | (On-time closures / Due closures) x 100 |
| CAPA | CAPA Effectiveness | >85% | (Effective CAPAs / Verified CAPAs) x 100 |
| Audit | Finding Closure Rate | >90% | (On-time closures / Due closures) x 100 |
| Audit | Repeat Finding Rate | <10% | (Repeat findings / Total findings) x 100 |
| Customer | Complaint Rate | <0.1% | (Complaints / Units sold) x 100 |
| Customer | Satisfaction Score | >4.0/5.0 | Average of survey scores |
KPI Review Frequency
| KPI Type | Review Frequency | Trend Period | Audience |
|---|
| Safety/Compliance | Daily monitoring | Weekly | Operations |
| Production Quality | Weekly | Monthly | Department heads |
| Customer Quality | Monthly | Quarterly | Executive team |
| Strategic Quality | Quarterly | Annual | Board/C-suite |
Performance Response Matrix
| Performance Level | Status | Action Required |
|---|
| >110% of target | Exceeding | Consider raising target |
| 100-110% of target | Meeting | Maintain current approach |
| 90-100% of target | Approaching | Monitor closely |
| 80-90% of target | Below | Improvement plan required |
| <80% of target | Critical | Immediate intervention |
See: references/quality-kpi-framework.md
Quality Objectives Workflow
The agent establishes and maintains measurable quality objectives per ISO 13485 Clause 5.4.1.
Workflow: Annual Quality Objectives Setting
- Review prior year objective achievement -- document status of each objective.
- Analyze quality performance trends and gaps from KPI data.
- Align with organizational strategic plan -- map objectives to business priorities.
- Draft objectives with measurable targets using the structure below.
- Validate resource availability for achievement of each objective.
- Obtain executive approval.
- Communicate objectives organization-wide with supporting rationale.
- Validation checkpoint: Each objective is measurable, has an assigned owner, a defined target, and a timeline.
Example: Quality Objective
QUALITY OBJECTIVE 2026-01
Objective Statement: Reduce customer complaint rate by 25% from
2025 baseline (0.10 per 1000 units to 0.075 per 1000 units)
Aligned to Policy Element: "Commitment to continuous product improvement"
Target: <0.075 complaints per 1000 units sold
Baseline: 0.10 complaints per 1000 units (2025 actual)
Owner: Director of Quality
Due Date: 2026-12-31
Success Criteria:
- Complaint rate <0.075 per 1000 units for 3 consecutive months
- Top 3 complaint categories reduced by 30%
Measurement Method: Monthly complaint tracking via QMS database
Reporting Frequency: Monthly to QMR, Quarterly to Executive Team
Supporting Initiatives:
- Labeling improvement project (Q1-Q2)
- Packaging vendor re-qualification (Q1)
- Enhanced incoming inspection for top complaint categories (Q2)
Resource Requirements:
- 0.5 FTE quality engineer for labeling project
- $15K budget for packaging testing
Objective Categories
| Category | Example Objectives | Typical Targets |
|---|
| Customer Quality | Reduce complaint rate | <0.1% of units sold |
| Process Quality | Improve first pass yield | >96% |
| Compliance | Maintain certification | Zero major NCs |
| Efficiency | Reduce quality costs | <4% of revenue |
| Culture | Increase training completion | >98% on-time |
Quality Culture Assessment Workflow
The agent assesses and improves organizational quality culture.
Workflow: Annual Quality Culture Assessment
- Design or select quality culture survey instrument covering leadership, ownership, communication, improvement, training, and problem-solving dimensions.
- Define survey population -- all employees or statistically valid sample.
- Communicate survey purpose and confidentiality assurances.
- Administer survey with a 2-week response window.
- Analyze results by department, role, and tenure -- identify patterns.
- Identify strengths and top improvement areas (focus on bottom 3 dimension scores).
- Develop action plan for culture gaps with owners and timelines.
- Validation checkpoint: Response rate >60%; action plan addresses bottom 3 scores; results reported to management review.
Quality Culture Dimensions
| Dimension | Indicators | Assessment Method |
|---|
| Leadership commitment | Management visible support for quality | Survey, observation |
| Quality ownership | Employees feel responsible for quality | Survey |
| Communication | Quality information flows effectively | Survey, audit |
| Continuous improvement | Suggestions submitted and implemented | Metrics |
| Training and competence | Employees feel adequately trained | Survey, records |
| Problem solving | Issues addressed at root cause | CAPA analysis |
Culture Improvement Actions
| Gap Identified | Potential Actions |
|---|
| Low leadership visibility | Quality gemba walks, all-hands quality updates |
| Inadequate training | Competency-based training program |
| Poor communication | Quality newsletters, department huddles |
| Low reporting | Anonymous reporting system, no-blame culture |
| Lack of recognition | Quality award program, team celebrations |
Regulatory Compliance Oversight
The agent monitors and maintains regulatory compliance across jurisdictions.
Multi-Jurisdictional Compliance Matrix
| Jurisdiction | Regulation | Requirement | Status Tracking |
|---|
| EU | MDR 2017/745 | CE marking, Notified Body | Technical file, annual review |
| USA | 21 CFR 820 | FDA registration, QSR compliance | Annual registration, inspections |
| International | ISO 13485 | QMS certification | Surveillance audits |
| Germany | MPG/MPDG | National implementation | Competent authority filings |
Workflow: Compliance Monitoring
- Maintain regulatory requirement register covering all applicable jurisdictions.
- Subscribe to regulatory update services for each market.
- Assess impact of regulatory changes monthly.
- Update affected processes within 90 days of each change's effective date.
- Verify training completion for all personnel affected by regulatory changes.
- Document compliance status in management review inputs.
- Maintain inspection readiness using the checklist below.
- Validation checkpoint: All applicable requirements mapped; no expired registrations; inspection readiness confirmed.
Inspection Readiness Checklist
| Area | Ready | Action Needed |
|---|
| Document control system current | [ ] | |
| Training records complete | [ ] | |
| CAPA system current, no overdue items | [ ] | |
| Complaint files complete | [ ] | |
| Equipment calibration current | [ ] | |
| Supplier qualification files complete | [ ] | |
| Management review records available | [ ] | |
| Internal audit program current | [ ] | |
Decision Frameworks
Escalation Decision Tree
Issue Identified
|
v
Is it a regulatory violation?
|
Yes-+-No
| |
v v
Escalate to Is it a safety issue?
Executive |
immediately Yes-+-No
| |
v v
Escalate to Does it affect
Safety Team multiple departments?
|
Yes-+-No
| |
v v
Escalate to Handle at
Executive department level
Quality Investment Prioritization
| Criteria | Weight | Score Method |
|---|
| Regulatory requirement | 30% | Required=10, Recommended=5, Optional=2 |
| Customer impact | 25% | Direct=10, Indirect=5, None=0 |
| Cost savings potential | 20% | >$100K=10, $50-100K=7, <$50K=3 |
| Implementation complexity | 15% | Simple=10, Moderate=5, Complex=2 |
| Strategic alignment | 10% | Core=10, Supporting=5, Peripheral=2 |
Tools and References
Scripts
python scripts/management_review_tracker.py --status inputs --period Q4-2025
python scripts/management_review_tracker.py --status actions --overdue
python scripts/management_review_tracker.py --summary --format markdown
References
Related Skills
Troubleshooting
| Problem | Likely Cause | Resolution |
|---|
| Management review tracker shows "Not Collected" for all inputs | Input data JSON is empty or incorrectly structured | Verify the JSON file contains inputs with topic, responsible, status, and data_period fields. Use --summary to check the expected structure. |
| Action items all showing as "Overdue" | Due dates in the data file are in the past with no completion dates | Update completed actions with completion_date and change status to Complete or Verified. For genuinely overdue items, escalate per the performance response matrix. |
| Metrics summary produces zeros for all KPIs | Metrics section missing from review data JSON | Add a metrics object with fields for complaint_rate, capa_open, capa_effectiveness, first_pass_yield, customer_satisfaction, and training_compliance. |
| Quality culture survey response rate below 60% | Survey not communicated effectively or confidentiality concerns | Re-communicate the survey purpose with explicit confidentiality assurances. Extend the response window. Consider anonymous submission to increase participation. |
| Quality objectives not measurable | Objectives written as aspirational statements rather than SMART criteria | Rewrite each objective with a quantifiable target, baseline, owner, timeline, and measurement method per the SMART format documented in this skill. |
| KPI dashboard shows conflicting trends | Data collected from multiple sources with different time periods | Standardize data collection periods across all KPI sources. Ensure all metrics use the same calendar quarter or review period boundaries. |
| Inspection readiness checklist incomplete | Multiple departments not providing status updates | Assign a readiness coordinator per department. Conduct weekly readiness stand-ups in the 30 days before an expected inspection. |
Success Criteria
- Management reviews conducted at planned intervals (minimum annually, recommended quarterly) with all ISO 13485 Clause 5.6.2 required inputs collected and analyzed
- Every management review produces documented outputs per Clause 5.6.3: QMS improvement decisions, resource needs, and quality objective updates, each with assigned owners and due dates
- Quality KPI framework covers all required categories (process, CAPA, audit, customer) with measurable targets and documented escalation thresholds
- Action item completion rate from management reviews exceeds 90% by due date, with no overdue high-priority items
- Quality culture assessment conducted annually with response rate exceeding 60%, and action plans addressing the bottom 3 dimension scores
- Regulatory compliance monitoring covers all applicable jurisdictions with no expired registrations or certifications
- Cost of quality tracked and reported quarterly, demonstrating prevention investment reducing failure costs over time
Scope & Limitations
In Scope:
- Management review preparation, execution, and output tracking per ISO 13485 Clause 5.6
- Quality KPI framework design, target setting, and performance monitoring
- Quality objective setting and tracking per Clause 5.4.1
- Quality culture assessment and improvement planning
- Multi-jurisdictional regulatory compliance monitoring
- Inspection readiness assessment and checklist management
- QMR accountability and authority framework
Out of Scope:
- Detailed CAPA management (use capa-officer for root cause analysis, implementation, and effectiveness verification)
- Internal audit program execution (use qms-audit-expert for audit planning, conduct, and finding classification)
- Document control operations (use quality-documentation-manager for numbering, approval workflows, and Part 11 compliance)
- Product-level quality engineering (process validation, statistical process control, Six Sigma methodologies)
- HR performance management or compensation decisions linked to quality objectives
- Financial budgeting or resource allocation decisions (the skill recommends resource needs but does not manage budgets)
Integration Points
| Skill | Integration |
|---|
| quality-manager-qms-iso13485 | QMS process management provides the operational foundation that the QMR oversees; QMS metrics feed into management review |
| capa-officer | CAPA status and effectiveness rates are required management review inputs; QMR oversees CAPA program performance |
| qms-audit-expert | Audit results (internal and external) are required management review inputs; audit finding closure rate is a core QMR KPI |
| quality-documentation-manager | Document control metrics (cycle time, overdue reviews) feed into management review; QMR ensures document system adequacy |
| regulatory-affairs-head | Regulatory changes affecting the QMS are a required management review input; RA and QMR coordinate compliance status reporting |
| risk-management-specialist | Risk management file reviews and post-market risk data inform management review decisions on product safety |
Tool Reference
management_review_tracker.py
Tracks management review inputs, action items, and generates review metrics reports.
| Flag | Required | Description |
|---|
--data | Yes (or --interactive) | Path to review data JSON file containing inputs, action items, and metrics for the review period |
--interactive | No | Launch interactive mode for guided data entry |
--output | No | Output format: json for structured output, omit for human-readable text |
--status | No | Filter view: inputs (show input collection status), actions (show action item status) |
--overdue | No | Show only overdue action items (use with --status actions) |
--period | No | Review period identifier (e.g., Q4-2025) to filter data |
--summary | No | Generate a metrics summary report for the current review period |
--format | No | Output format for summary: markdown for formatted text, omit for plain text |
