From Quality Digest:

The Scoop on ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 Compatibility

Earlier this year, the International Organization for Standardization endorsed creating common elements in ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 to ensure greater compatibility between the two standards. To better understand developments currently underway, Quality Digest spoke with Oswald A. Dodds, chairman of ISO/TC 207 SC1, the subcommittee responsible for producing ISO 14001. Dodds also belongs to ISO's Joint Coordination Group and co-chairs ISO's Joint Task Group, the subcommittee-level body coordinating review and revision of ISO 9000 and ISO 14001.

QD: What prompted ISO's decision to make ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 more compatible?

Dodds: There are several drivers. Users of either or both ISO 9000 and ISO 14001, and the standards writers themselves, see the logic in a consistent approach: It will help them as well as potential users. ISO itself has formed the same view. TC 207 SC1 created its standards using TC 176's [the committee responsible for ISO 9000] standards as a model, and the two sets already are considerably compatible.


QD: Why not merge the two standards?

Dodds: Because the stakeholders are different. The ISO 14000 series also requires consideration of, and compliance with, legislation. Users expressed concern that a merged document would prove complicated. Some users don't want a merged document at all; others want the option to choose either or both, which isn't possible with a combined standard.


QD: Who is guiding this project?

Dodds: At a strategy level, the ISO Technical Management Board. At a TC policy level, both TCs and SCs. At a standards-writing level, the SCs, and at the detailed-writing level, any working groups or panels created by the SCs.

To ensure that things actually happen, the two TCs and three pairs of subcommittees have created coordinating mechanisms -- the Joint Coordinating Group, Joint Task Group, Common Study Group and Joint Advisory Group. The latter three will draft the jointly developed words, which will be forwarded to the groups redrafting the ISO 9000 standards.

The joint group meetings keep progress under review, while the J6 -- the leaders of the other subcommittees and joint coordinating groups -- pick up any problem issues and try to find ways of dealing with them.


QD: Have the committees established a deadline for completing this project?

Dodds: All involved are working toward publishing any improved standards by the year 2000. TC 176 has a published timeline that we're using to guide our discussions.



QD: What are the biggest obstacles to achieving compatibility between ISO 14000 and ISO 9000?

Dodds: I'm not sure. Drafting standards takes considerable time, but all involved know this. They also know users' needs and interest in seeing any new versions agreed upon and in print as soon as possible. We're therefore trying to meet these apparently opposing aspects.

Time is needed to ensure that the many experts involved in the revision and review processes are equally up-to-date and understand each others' positions and views.



QD: Will making the two standards compatible result in any major changes to either ISO 9000 or ISO 14000?

Dodds: From an ISO 9000 standpoint, that committee is better qualified to respond. From TC 207 SC1's perspective, it's too soon to be certain, but it looks like the process will adjust some of ISO 14000's existing language to improve the current edition. From the TC 176 documents I have seen, some changes are likely.

Has anyone compared the recent 14001 DIS with ISO 9001:2000?

Has anyone compared the recent 14001 DIS with ISO 9001:2000?
I'm working on it, but I have been quite busy for a while, so I'm not done yet.

As a preliminary conclusion, my general feeling thus far is that the changes to ISO 14001 adds up to a pretty limited update. It's nothing like the way ISO9001 was turned inside out last time, but it's easy to recognize passages from ISO9001 in the new text and it should simplify matters for those who want to integrate their systems.

/Claes

We just went through a similar discussion here, regarding integrating ISO14 and QS or TS. Someone was under the erroneous impression that if you integrated the two programs there would be time/$$$ savings for an organization. There clearly ISN'T, because the audit day requirements stay the same for each program. My opinion is NONE of these programs will ever integrate, not because as suggested above, "the stakeholders are different" but because it is distinctly to the advantage of the registrars to keep them separate - if you achieve true integration you reduce the number of audit days, and thereby reduce the amount of $$$ they take in.

I think you are overestimating the power of Registrars. We do not make rules such as these. The Accreditation Bodies, or similar agencies, such as the IATF, do.

Registrars follow the rules we are imposed on.

Integration of management systems, such as the QMS, EMS and OSHMS is advisable, in the vast majority of cases

Provided that the Accreditation Schemes allow for, integration of external audits are also beneficial. Check http://www.dnv.com/certification/managementsystems/combinedcertification/whatandwhy.asp

Integration of management systems, such as the QMS, EMS and OSHMS is advisable, in the vast majority of cases.

I've talked about our sister facility in Chile before. They've integrated their 9K, 14K, and 18K programme into one true Operations System. Within our group, they are at a level I aim for.

Next year, one of the hot topics on my timeline is to merge the EMS and QMS manuals into one. Rumblings have been heard about compliance to 18K, so that may also come into the fold.

No point in having 3 parallel systems running here. We are one business, with one main process...makes good sense to have one true Business Management System, as well.

Awwww...this was my 200th post...my eyes are getting all misty-like! ;)

I've been looking at the DIS 14001 and it's not too bad. Much of the confusing language has been cleaned up and there are some very evident changes to the clauses....

* a totally new clause specifically addressing evaluation of compliance

* the emphasis is now on Preventive and not Corrective action..and these are defined in the standard

* the Management Review clause (still 4.6) specifically addresses items that should be included

and many others.....

Will it require a bunch of retraining and organization adaption like the 9K2K caused? Not in my opinion. In fact I think the major impact will be on the training providers and registration bodies to make the appropriate changes.

Give me another day or 2 to digest this thing some more.

Anybody got a simple example of a 9K/14K integrated manual? I've got both a 9K, thanks to Richard Olsen & Marc and I have got a couple of 14K ones, but I don't have a combined one.

I'm talking real generic and vanilla flavored here, just the basics as they can be integrated.

Thanks :thanx:

Yeah,
I would like to get a look at a combined manual.
Anyone got one for posting and viewing at the Cove? ;)
Wallace.

Anybody got a simple example of a 9K/14K integrated manual?

I'm talking real generic and vanilla flavored here, just the basics as they can be integrated.

Thanks :thanx:
Wow! Just saw this. I have this (see attached). I copuld have sworn this was posted in another thread or somewhere. I have to get control of what all is here on the site.

Cool, got it.

I just picked one up last week too. I need to sanitize it before I can share it though.

Hello. I'm new and the reason I signed into Elsmar Cove was that I found it in a search while I was looking for information on QMS/EMS integration. My Quality Manager wants to merge them. I was looking for the proper ways to do this and the way it was proceding, I wasn't comfortable with. Anyway, I have printed the Integrated manual so we can review here and I was wondering if anyone had any insights that they would love to share...events that happened during thir company's integration. :thanx: paul

Paul,

Give us a little more information. The two systems should integrate will. The system I developed includes TS 16949, ISO 14001, and ISO 17025. 9000 is easier than TS and should be easier. In respect to Quality and Environmental, they are ment to align. Controlling processes also includes the effect on the environment.

Do you have a sample of your concerns?

Welcome to the Cove.

Cindy

Anyway, I have printed the Integrated manual so we can review here and I was wondering if anyone had any insights that they would love to share...events that happened during thir company's integration.
Hullo Paul, and welcome to the Cove :bigwave: Ok, here's (very) abbreviated versionof our route to integration:

From the outset we had ISO9002:1994 up and running. We then went for ISO14001:1996, taking care not to duplicate anyting already present in our QMS. While doing so we also made certain that new or updated procedures were ok for ISO9001:2000. With the ISO14001 hurdle cleared we went for the upgrade to ISO9001:2000, and found that very little work remained. We did what was left to do and then we wrote the Manual, keeping it short and sweet: The binder we used to have disappeared, and gave place to a nine page document.

I suggest a look at the following threads:
Integrating Environment/H&S/Quality/Energy (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4310&highlight=integrated)
Integrating ISO 14001 into QS-9000 w T/E or ISO 9001 (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1524&highlight=combined+system)
More ISO 14001 and ISO 9001 Integration Questions (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=4406&highlight=integrating)
Integration of ISO 14001 with ISO 9001 for a 'single' system (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=3729&highlight=integrating)
What is acceptable quality manual content? How much detail to put in here? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6490&highlight=manual)
How BIG is Your Quality Manual? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6908&highlight=manual)

/Claes

Thanks for the welcome Cindy,

First, our Environmental Health & Safety (ESHA) department has always been part of ISO 9001 since 1996 It has always been internally audited and always been in good shape. But the type of integration we're talking about is adding 14000 to the Quality Systems manual and merging into a QEMS Document. It is not the intention of our ESHA department to become certified or have a 3rd party audit, but just be compliant to the standard. I have, since my last posting, looked at a Ghant Chart of timelines for implementation and a detailed action plan that includes what looks like a beginning of a Environmental Manual which can be pointed to in the Company Quality Manual. This relieved some of the fears I has like, Will ESHA take hits on System documentation that is in process during our Surveillence audit in May.....Has there been enough time to pass and do we have enough information in Management Review meetings to present? and do these things have any effect in the audit if the auditor is auditing to ISO 9001:2000?

Thank you Claes for the warm welcome,

I will look over these links, thank you, they will be very helpful :)

and do these things have any effect in the audit if the auditor is auditing to ISO 9001:2000?
Nope... Not unless it affects the QMS in a negative way. If the auditor is auditing acc. to ISO 9001:2000, he is auditing acc. to ISO 9001:2000.... Nothing else.

One question: Ok... Two questions... Why an Environmental Manual which can be pointed to in the Company Quality Manual??? How about one manual, period? A business manual.

/Claes

Merging the two systems will not mean that both systems will be audited. The 9000 auditor will only be looking for 9000 specific compliance. OPS looks like Claes beat me to it.

Either way, Claes is right, merge them. Maintaining two manuals offers a lot of redundant tasks. Since I manage all of ours, it is much easier and less time consuming to manage one system. Much of our processes overlap, and again it makes it easier to audit and maintain. EX: When I audit a manufacturing process, I also audit the EHS specific inclusion. I include all machinery, chemicals, etc. I have done this for over a year now and our accident rate has reduced since we have included Job Safety Analysis with work instructions. Not because of a piece of paper but because the analysis is developed for every job and then reviewed with the employee. Just one example, but you get the point.

Cindy

Either way, merge them.
Cindy

I think "generally" that might be true, but I don't think it's across the board true. For instance, we have a very tiny division with a single production process and very few employees - for them it made sense to merge TS and ISO14, and doing so was easy for them especially because their QS/TS management rep also had a significant background in Environmental. However, at this division, with over 240 employees and multiple different processes, it is all the poor management representative to QS/TS can do to stay on top of that program. We have an Environmental Engineer on staff who had plenty o'time to dedicate to ISO14, so here it made the most sense to make that his baby rather than try to merge the two programs, especially considering that each program still has distinct audit days requirements.

It depends on who you are, what you do, what resources you do or do not have, etc. That same tiny division I spoke of at first was advocating that ALL the divisions could/should do the exact same thing. Again, just 'cause it works in one place doesn't mean it will work in another.

Hi Mongo and Welcome :bigwave:

1st....Let's get the phrase "Comply with requirements" out of our vocabulary. We are going to "Conform to requirements" and "comply with applicable/relevant regulatory requirements" It is important that we get this straight, or everyone....especially EHS clunks (like me) will think that ISO 14001 is primarily about compliance...which it ain't..

2nd...If you guys are already 9K2K then a majority of your issues are already addressed, you may only need to do some fine tuning of your existing documentation. Have someone, or do it yourself, look in the back of ISO 9001:2000 at Tables A.1 & A.2. match everything up that matches and then make the remaining stuff happen

3rd....Don't get all wrapped around the axel thinking that tons of documents need to be generated (there are only 3 places in 14K where documented procedures are required)

4th....Have the boss send someone to a good understanding and implementation course (like the ones I teach..hint-hint...)

5th....Use the "SEARCH" function of this site to the max....

Piece-of-Cake ;)

Good Morning All,

Randy, Thanks for your warm welcome and advise....

You all gave me quite a bit to look through so I have that to do this morning....

There was talk about Merging the QMS/EMS manuals and why we weren't doing that, we are, it's just that the ESHA Superviser had a viable plan for merging...his documentation and outline is a basis for merging the 2 docs

I hope everyone is well today..... :biglaugh:

Hi All,

I am new to this chain of discussions.

I have looked at the combined Q&E manual. Even before looking at an example combined manual, I believe it is the best interest of my compnay to go in the direction of a combined manual (TS and ISO). At this time, my company is trying to come up with a standard list of processes for our entire division (4 facilities under auto division). We will either have 10 or 11 processes - that's if we determine if environmental is a separtate process. Should environmental be a separate process under the Quality System or does the 10 processes fit underneath the Quality and Environmental System?

If anyone has a environmental process map, please share it with me?

Thanks :thanx:

I am new to this chain of discussions.

First off, hi and welcome to the Cove! :bigwave: You've found what is, in my opinion, one of the best resources for discussions and brainstorming on Management Systems! :agree1:

I have looked at the combined Q&E manual. Even before looking at an example combined manual, I believe it is the best interest of my compnay to go in the direction of a combined manual (TS and ISO).

:yes: Combine them now not later. I don't know how mature your systems are...are you currently registered? We put in our 9K system many back in 1997 and 14K came into effect about 2 years ago. Biggest mistake was letting 14K develop its own manual, etc...should have merged it into the 9K programme. Hopefully we won't make the mistake with 18K.

At this time, my company is trying to come up with a standard list of processes for our entire division (4 facilities under auto division). We will either have 10 or 11 processes - that's if we determine if environmental is a separtate process. Should environmental be a separate process under the Quality System or does the 10 processes fit underneath the Quality and Environmental System?

We have 16 main processes, including the Environment. The Environment process falls into our System Process Map...it is part of our Business Management System and we wished to show how it connected/related to the other processes. I believe you can email me if you select my profile (if not, PM me) - if you would like to see how we have fit the Environment into our BMS, let me know and I'll send you a copy.

Wow! Just saw this. I have this (see attached). I copuld have sworn this was posted in another thread or somewhere. I have to get control of what all is here on the site.
Marc,

Thanks for the Manual. I will look at it in more detail over the coming weeks. It looks very detailed and I am trying to get away from this type of manual with my QM but I am hoping that we can soon combine our QMS/EMS and Safety System next year and this is the first combined manual I have seen. I am going to undertake a Graduate Certificate or Diploma in Environmental Management hopefully later this year. It is a new course at our local university. The main lecturer actually talked to me about our QM and document control system and it is now a part of the course. So hopefully I will get easy credits for the documentation side of it as I'm in the acknowledgments of the curriculum. :lol:

Greg B

I found this combined ISO 9000/14000 manual with a Google search. Since it was available via a public search, I assume it's for all to see. Hope it helps those looking for a sample. Unfortunatly, I don't remember where I found it . . .

Please support your local Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

Bob in Virginia, USA

:magic:

I found this combined ISO 9000/14000 manual with a Google search. Since it was available via a public search, I assume it's for all to see. Hope it helps those looking for a sample. Unfortunatly, I don't remember where I found it . . .

Please support your local Manufacturing Extension Partnership.

Bob in Virginia, USA

Thanks for the link, Bob! I see you've been part of our family for many months now. Congratulations, though, on your first post!...hope to see more from you! :)

My opinion is NONE of these programs will ever integrate, not because as suggested above, "the stakeholders are different" but because it is distinctly to the advantage of the registrars to keep them separate - if you achieve true integration you reduce the number of audit days, and thereby reduce the amount of $$$ they take in.

Understand the viewpoint above but have to say I am involved with some companies where there has been a saving in assessment time - the problem is it isn't simple.

Firstly there are few companies where the systems are truly integrated - some share document control and records but still have separate procedures.

Secondly there are typically many people protecting their own functional areas rather than "give them up" to the quality person (for example)

Thirdly there are many examples where the certification body / registrar is unable to field people with both skills and

Fourthly the accreditation bodies generally require certification body / registrars to jump through hoops to justify any reduction in days (e.g. ISO 14001 / ISO TS both have minimum days on site and won't "give up" their days for another standard.

From a personal point of view the best systems I have seen have been Business Management Systems (not quality or environment or health and safety) where a person wanting to know what he / she should do looks in one place.

I stumbled on these forums through a search, and this has been the most helpful site I've yet to find. Thank you for sharing, and we will be pleased to do the same. :thanks:

That's what Marc opened the site up for....welcome to it :bigwave:

Randy,

Did you receive our Combined Manual. (9K+14K+18K).

Yes I did, thanks. It has be extremely useful...

Didn't my email come through?

Somehow, I have been charged with combining our current 9001 system and the 14001 system. I read the QM attached to the post from Marc. The manual looks just like what I would do (when I get to that point). What I am having issues with, is that we hired a summer intern and he wrote a entire manual, L2's and forms, copied from a canned program. So, now I have 2 sets of (everything) procedures and I am not sure what to keep and what to get rid of. For instance, he as written a document for Identificatoin of Environmental Aspects and another titled Environment Aspects. I think they can be combined - but again, I am not famuliar enough with the 14001 standard to know what to keep and what to ditch. Also, as far as my current L2 Procedures, I will incorporate what is already the same (such as Document Control), in my current L2's and the one like I listed here, wil be additions to my L2's. OK - the long and short of it...does anyone have any combined procedures or just a few from 14001 that I can look at to be sure I am on the right track? It would really help me out. Thanks.

Mindy,
I am an intern for my company charged with developing the documentation for our EMS which will be integrated into our existing QMS (9001). I think I understand your situation quite well; maybe I can help. My understanding is that you are satisfied with the integrated manual, but are concerned with the duplication of the L2 procedures.
In order to satisfy the requirements of 14K, I created 6 procedures (1 WI) in addition to our existing quality procedures. (I realize not all were required by the standard, but we felt it was better to document than not).
These consisted of
1. ID of Aspects and Impacts.
2. Significance Determination (Work Instruction)
3. Legal Requirements
4. Obj. Targ. & Management Program
5. Emergency Preparedness & Response
6. Monitoring & Measurment of Env. Performance
7. Communicating Env. Matters.

In addition to the 6 L2's that I created, I modified many existing COP's ranging from Organization, Mgt. Responsibility, Mgt Review (WI), Control Nonconformities, Cor/Prev Action, Doc Control, Control of Records, Quality System, Purchasing, and Control of Suppliers & Subcontractors to name a few. - (OK most).

Again, just to reiterate, the standard doesn't require that all of these been written L2 documents. Some companies have more , some have less, but this worked well with with our existing mgt system.

At this point, I've avoiding providing the actual documents, but maybe future circumstances might lead me to change my mind. Hope this helps.

OK - the long and short of it...does anyone have any combined procedures or just a few from 14001 that I can look at to be sure I am on the right track? It would really help me out. Thanks.

Mindy, while I would love to share some of our documentation, I am unable to for proprietary reasons. What I will say...and is potentially more helpful than reading my documentation...is do you really need to be an expert on 14001 to determine if you want one document or two?

What does the Customer/User of the document require?

How will the document be used?

These kinds of questions will help you determine if you want to leave a document as an individual or if you wish to merge it with another.

As an example, SEA's may change at rate different to the process by which we identify SEA's. So, we opted to keep them as separate documents to minimize the size of the documents being changed. SEA's are also posted and if they were part of the documentation on identifying them, we'd be walking around a lot updating controlled hard copies.

Pick the solution that works best for you, the organization and the Users of the documentation. :)

Somehow, I have been charged with combining our current 9001 system and the 14001 system. I read the QM attached to the post from Marc. The manual looks just like what I would do (when I get to that point). What I am having issues with, is that we hired a summer intern and he wrote a entire manual, L2's and forms, copied from a canned program. So, now I have 2 sets of (everything) procedures and I am not sure what to keep and what to get rid of. For instance, he as written a document for Identificatoin of Environmental Aspects and another titled Environment Aspects. I think they can be combined - but again, I am not famuliar enough with the 14001 standard to know what to keep and what to ditch. Also, as far as my current L2 Procedures, I will incorporate what is already the same (such as Document Control), in my current L2's and the one like I listed here, wil be additions to my L2's. OK - the long and short of it...does anyone have any combined procedures or just a few from 14001 that I can look at to be sure I am on the right track? It would really help me out. Thanks.


If you're in charge, take charge!!!

Approach your EMS as you would a QMS and look upon it as a process. Identify necessary inputs, desired outputs, and what needs to be accomplished to make the later happen.

Keep it as simple as possible, as you indicated you want to do, and use what you have in place to reduce the need to have people get familiar with something new.

Also, get a bit of training to help.

Thanks for the input. I think the best advice is to see out some training...since I am in charge - I think I will "order" myself to some fabulous training in...Florida! - But really, thanks for the suggestions and help. This is a great forum to help each other. Thanks again.

thanx for information