The Individuals dealing with the management system development and improvement of the frequently asked about the relative merits of independent as opposed of the combination system of the two standard - and other possibilities as well.
Avoiding the trap of siding with a particular faction within the organisation posing the question, the logical solution is to integrate the systems from the outset. Much of the required material for the environmental standard already exists as part of the quality management system, and the advantage of having one overall management task is surely a real benefit.
The inspection status of the two standards at the present time (2008) introduces a credible reason for splitting the systems, specifically with regard to the distinct difference in the focus on statutory and legal obligations made necessary by the documents. The soon to be appearing revision of ISO 9001, supposedly more similar to the recent ISO14001, should take away this seemingly anomalous condition, although it should still be kept in mind that a company is regulated by legal requirements with respect to the environment, regardless of whether or not it utilises the environmental standard.
The expense of creating a new Environmental management system for registration requirements wouldn't be much different to the expense of a corresponding Quality management system, where as the expense of combining an environmental piece to a current quality system would most likely be much less. This is simply because of a similar basic document framework with compatible requirements. A certain amount of training would be required, both for management and the employees, although any internal auditors may need a great deal of training and mentoring.
There is an additional financial benefit to putting the two systems together - particularly if both don't initially exist at the beginning of the task - the good fortune to not include any of the bureaucracy that so often results from retaining a management system with a formal registration, particularly the anomalous Quality Manager appointment. This post is a throwback to the application of Quality Assurance within manufacturing, when Chief Inspectors became managers of quality, and business continued in the way it always had. With the introduction of a combined quality and environmental management system the way is clear to dispense with the management post, redistribute responsibilities to those able to deliver results against those responsibilities, and recognize control and development of the management system to be one of Systems Integrity, with little to do with product or service delivery performance.
Avoiding the trap of siding with a particular faction within the organisation posing the question, the logical solution is to integrate the systems from the outset. Much of the required material for the environmental standard already exists as part of the quality management system, and the advantage of having one overall management task is surely a real benefit.
The inspection status of the two standards at the present time (2008) introduces a credible reason for splitting the systems, specifically with regard to the distinct difference in the focus on statutory and legal obligations made necessary by the documents. The soon to be appearing revision of ISO 9001, supposedly more similar to the recent ISO14001, should take away this seemingly anomalous condition, although it should still be kept in mind that a company is regulated by legal requirements with respect to the environment, regardless of whether or not it utilises the environmental standard.
The expense of creating a new Environmental management system for registration requirements wouldn't be much different to the expense of a corresponding Quality management system, where as the expense of combining an environmental piece to a current quality system would most likely be much less. This is simply because of a similar basic document framework with compatible requirements. A certain amount of training would be required, both for management and the employees, although any internal auditors may need a great deal of training and mentoring.
There is an additional financial benefit to putting the two systems together - particularly if both don't initially exist at the beginning of the task - the good fortune to not include any of the bureaucracy that so often results from retaining a management system with a formal registration, particularly the anomalous Quality Manager appointment. This post is a throwback to the application of Quality Assurance within manufacturing, when Chief Inspectors became managers of quality, and business continued in the way it always had. With the introduction of a combined quality and environmental management system the way is clear to dispense with the management post, redistribute responsibilities to those able to deliver results against those responsibilities, and recognize control and development of the management system to be one of Systems Integrity, with little to do with product or service delivery performance.
I too accept the two systems do good not only to the environment but also to the organizations implementing that.
ReplyDeleteCertification ISO 14001