Looking Ahead at ISO 9001

ISO 9001 has proactively kept up with various industry expectations, over the years, to allow

application by a broad spectrum of industry including the defense forces. The 2015 revision was

a thoughtfully planned giant step. It defined risk (ISO 9001 Clause 6.1) in the context of the

organization (ISO 9001 Clause 4.1 & 4.2) and removed exclusions provision from certification by

redefining what an organization does not do or outsources in the scope (ISO 9001 Clause 4.3). It

also removed preventive action, a reactive concept, and introduced proactive risk appreciation

(Clause 6.1 of ISO 9001 & Clause 8.1 in industry specific standards as AS9100).

This took preventive action from the delayed “Act” stage of the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) stage

to the more logical sensible “Plan” stage. After all, “look before you leap”, as the historical

fundamental, could not be left as a preventive action decision. It had to be at the look – plan

stage! Risk also needed not just mitigation, but also acted as an input, to be used to bring in

innovation in terms of OFI (opportunity for improvement).

These were all positive steps in keeping with technical advancements and computerization and

AI (artificial intelligence) tools. The HLS (high level structure), later updated to HS (harmonized

structure), recognized the need to enable ease of implementation of integrated management

systems. This in turn leading to efficiency, ROI (return on investment) and where applicable

environmental protection, security of the global supply chain, business continuity, cyber

security and health and safety.

The differentiating of knowledge (ISO 9001 Clause 7.6) from competence (ISO 9001 Clause 7.2)

was also a clever needed change. Organizations needed to define their corporate knowledge

aspects and differentiate it from the individual knowledge of personnel. Knowledge and

competence needed merging and a healthy marriage but needed recognition that they were

different. Removal of the reference to Quality Manager (QM) and Quality Manual from the

standard, took away the narrowness of thinking in quality, and brought the clarity to leadership

to remain accountable and to differentiate authority delegation from retaining the

accountability.

I am a member of the TAG-176 group, and yet have not really contributed much to the next

expected changes to ISO 9001. I am sure the TC-176 is working on this. Nevertheless, it is time

to debate and consider updating the standard.

Since the 2015 version was a major fundamental change, I doubt there would be a significant

departure from this 2015 version in the next major update. Unlikely that the next version may

have revolutionary updates. The emphasis, I think would be to clarify and strengthen the

present thoughts in the 2015 version. I would consider the following:

1. Two Standard Concept: I have over the years thought about the two prongs:

manufacturing and service, approach. Both the service and the manufacturing industry

have been using the standard. Some may consider the need for a separate

manufacturing and a service standard as the next step. However, over the years I have

feared too much bureaucracy which the two standards approach brings. I think the two

standard approaches may actually cause more issues than to resolve them. Might I

opine that Clauses under 8.3 for D&D can, if needed, be strengthened, clarified or more

useful notes as applicable to service version incorporated to assist implementers,

consultants and auditors?

2. Risk be better defined and OFI be clarified, to avoid auditors using it as a tool to sneak in

recommendations. OFI is the outcome of considering risk as an input for innovation. It is

not a recommendation.

3. The knowledge clause needs meat to strengthen it, and to better make it inclusive to

systematizing the requirements for organizations to systematize lessons learnt.

4. An annex added to bring clarity and ease to designing and implementing a combined

management system for an organization.

5. Clause 4.3 Scope, in defining scope requires consideration of the context of the

organization, which is based on Clauses 4.1 and 4.2. However, while the scope has to be

available as documented, 4.1 and 4.2 do not require documentation. I would suggest

both clauses 4.1 & 4.2 to have context as a documented requirement.

In conclusion, I think, updating the standard ground up is not a wise idea at this stage. Perhaps

slight tweaking to include some minor changes would give stability in implementation of an

already robust standard.

Maritime Leadership – Beyond Designated Person Ashore (DPA)

It appears the maritime leadership is limited to the DPA/DP (Designated Person Ashore). The worst is when senior leadership of a company, washes its hands off, of the leadership role, by assuming a DP will do all that needs to be done! The ISM (International Safety Management) Code, in clause 4 defines the role of the DP (designated person).  It is to be remembered that the DP is indeed the link between the company and those on board, to the extent decided by the leadership/ ownership of the maritime company. The DP with clause 4 of the ISM Code has his/ her role defined as the link. However, there is much more to it. There is a kind of upstream and downstream relationship between the safe operations of a vessel, and the leadership exercised by the shipping company. The DP can represent and do his best in meeting objectives if he/she is resourced and supported by the leaders. Maritime leadership is strengthened by the contribution of the DP. This is particularly true when a tragedy occurs, and the crisis management team is called to minimize the aftermath of the tragedy and hands-on dealing with the tragedy. The DP as part of the crisis management team and must play a lead role in providing his/ her experience, expertise to ensure the situation does not worsen. DP should be competent, involved and participate in designing the safe operations of the vessel as also to predict the risks and trends from the available company and industry data and make timely recommendations, to ensure tragedies do not occur. But once they occur the same detailed knowledge has to be used to meticulously plan the response actions.

The leadership of the company, particularly when not from the marine background, should orient itself to matters maritime during good times. It is in normal good times that the relationship of confidence has to build with the DP. Regular access to the TM (top management) of the company by the Designated Person Ashore, makes teamwork smooth in a crisis situation. The leadership working together with DP and the team is able to ensure the company’s safety objectives, environmental policy implementation and functional requirements are met. Regular drills and exercises and analysis of situations ensure that the lessons learnt thereof, are used as input for further planning and resourcing.  Clause 4 of ISM Code is not just a job description basis for the DP, but also an input to the leadership to see where they fit in so that the support when required can be provided in a crisis without delays in a crisis. Building trust is a responsibility both the DP and the organization must build. There is much more to this dynamic leadership role. Meeting the safety, prevention of human injury or loss of life, and avoidance of damage to the environmental objectives of the company given in clause 1.2 of the ISM Code are the DP’s responsibilities. He/ she is the implementer of safety and environmental policy as given in clause 2 of the ISM Code. This however cannot be achieved without resources and support from the company top leadership.

Emergency preparedness is a requirement of the ISM Code. Clause 8 of the ISM Code requires implementation on board, with office support lead by the Designated Person Ashore and resourcing provided by the top management of the company. The DP with his/her team brings the considered opinion as input to the organizational decision-making body. Making preparations for being able to respond to emergency situations at sea needs forethought in appreciating the risks, and preparations in advance. It starts with recognizing the hazardous situations, creating the procedures, conducting drills and exercises, and learning lessons from exercises conducted, other industry inputs, similar occurrences anywhere. Data drives risk appreciation and trend recognition. Managements have to look ahead at possible crisis and be prepared with timely quick response.

Crisis if handling well, requires and brings out clearly that not just competence, but motivation and leadership are all of the utmost importance. As primary consultants in the field of maritime work,  QMII (www.qmii.com ) has worked on crisis management, handling media, and building teams for over 30 plus years now. Our experience shows clearly that a leadership team working with not just the Designated Person Ashore, but all departments in a participatory manner determines the success of addressing a crisis.

Safe operation of ships and prevention of pollution requires dynamic leadership at the company level with the involvement of the DP using the expertise in the ISM Code and SOLAS as also other relevant IMO conventions, as also Flag State advises to formulate robust, well thought out plans for crisis management.  A process-based management system approach is most important. “If an organization can do not describe what they do as a process, then they do not know what they are doing,” it is to be remembered that behind every casualty at sea are many detentions, and behind them indicators like Major NCs (non-conformities) and near misses. The maritime leadership with Designated Person Ashore included must lead to prevent a crisis.

ISO 45001 Transition: Change is coming to health and safety

Organizations currently certified to BS OHSAS 18001 have until March 21, 2021 for their ISO 45001 transition. Those who are currently implementing management system conforming to BS OHSAS 18001 will notice some similarities and some differences. Those who are certified to other ISO standards such as ISO 9001 will notice the similarities in the standard owing the use of the High-Level Structure in the new ISO 45001 transition standard. This article discussed the key changes to the standard over the BS OHSAS 18001 requirements. It also highlights certain key aspects for those undertaking an ISO 45001 transition.

Keeping with the High-Level Structure, ISO 45001 in clause 4.1 and 4.2 asks organization to consider the context of their organization or the aspects of their business environment that may impact their operations. The business environment includes both internal and external issues such as new regulatory requirements, new technologies, cultural issues and company values to name a few. Companies need to consider the needs of different relevant stakeholders that may impact their system including the needs of their workers. Organizations are asked to have workers participate in the system development as they complete their ISO 45001 transition.

ISO under the high-level structure has removed the need for preventive action as now the entire standard is designed as a preventive tool. Further to support this is the introduction of risk-based thinking’ both from a strategic perspective and from an operational health and safety perspective. Risk-based thinking and the awareness of personnel of this is key to ISO 45001 transition. There is now a stronger stress of leadership’s role in the system. Leaders must take accountability for the effectiveness of the system and cannot wash their hands of the system. Leaders must not only engage in the system themselves but also engage others as the ISO 45001 transition takes place.. The Clauses under 5 also have a requirement for the consultation and participation of workers. They have to remove the barriers to participation and include even non-managerial workers.

Documents and records are not controlled under the common clause for control of documented information and based on the risk-based thinking there is more freedom allowed with the documentation. Outsources contractors will also need to be controlled within the scope of the system.

Organizations undergoing an ISO 45001 transition, will need to incorporate all these aspects into their system. Care must be exercised when setting up the system to design it around the user and not around the auditor or certification body for the system to be useful in the long run and to drive continual improvement.

Obtaining Top Management Commitment

Who cares about the system? 

Management systems need top management commitment to work well, and yet many systems lack the necessary commitment. You may recognize some symptoms.  Policy – ignored.  Objectives  are barely alive. Corrective actions remain open. Managers seem not to appreciate the value of the requirements.  Employees are unsure about the system’s requirements. Proactive identification and addressing of risks/opportunities is rare. Root causes of failure remain in the system. Consequently, the system is not improved. Employees are unaware of what the system should do for them. Management reviews are embarrassing. Leaders either do not show or do not contribute. Top Management Commitment is lacking. Audits may temporarily energize the players. Management representatives ask, “Am I the only person who really cares?” 

Who trained the leaders? 

Many leaders do not explain their management systems. They may know the importance of certification, but they rarely explain why their system is vital for survival and growth. Why is this? Examine your internal audit program; is it driven by top management’s objectives?  Audit your training records. Do they show that leaders are competent and confident to show their top management commitment? Who trained the leaders in their organizational management system?  Competent leaders take responsibility for their system. They explain how their system works and why its requirements are so important to them. Unaware leaders blame employees for mistakes caused by their system. 

Your system, is it perceived as worthy? 

Even if your system is certified, do not expect leaders to support it.  Every organization is a system. Does the documented part of this system describe how it converts stakeholder needs into cash (or continued funding)?  Is this the management system that was certified or was it some new ISO system built on templates?  

Is your system irresistible to the leaders?  If not, show how your system converts needs into cash so top managers would not want to lead without it. Try our methodology to appreciate how others have developed systems and gained top management commitment beyond certification. Everyone should fulfill their objectives and earn their bonuses by using and improving  the system.  

Awareness Leaders Workshop™ 

Engage us to design and facilitate your one-day Awareness Leaders Workshop™. Select attendees who are leaders by job title and those who are leaders by personality. Include the skeptics! 

We listen to your objectives and design your workshop to fulfill your required outcomes. This may need  system analysis to result in a diagram that explains how the system converts needs into cash. This  workshop is facilitated by our senior management system consultant and auditor, who for over 20 years  has helped many willing and reluctant managers to understand and commit to their systems. 

Prepare for action 

Remove the root causes of what ails many management systems. You want your top management commitment  to the requirements of their management system. Clear the backlog of stale CARs  and pending actions on identified risks to prepare for the surge of improvements flowing from the renewed leadership of your system.  

When you are ready, please email IJ Arora or call 888.357.9001 with your requirements.