Please let me know if you have any experience with integrating ISO 14001 & 9001 into OHSAS. I have heard about all the positive reasons to do this: save time & money, more efficient auditing, etc. What is the down side of integrating these three management systems?

It may be safe to say that I have some small experience in the area.

Downside? Primarily de-ephasizing the importance of one for the other...focusing more on one system than the other systems.

The expectation is for a transparent "business management" process managing quality,OH&S and environmental "risk" and improvement of total systems performance.

What is the down side of integrating these three management systems?Chances are, if you integrate the 3 management systems, some jobs might become redundant. The down side might be the loss of a few jobs. But the pros should outnumber the cons by a large margin.

If you are considering this move and have a few dollars to spare, consider investing in the purchase of PAS 99. Actually, do a search on PAS 99. It might be of benefit to you.

Integrating ISO9001, OHSAS18001 & ISO14001 would be a very good moved from the organization… since these standards are compatible with each other…

I have experienced in developing these 3 standards in one system development… not only it saved a lot of required documentations, but it gave your organization a one-overall direction…

...and it is more challenging complying with these 3 standards…

...the cons?... triple effort to meet them all... that is why it is more challenging... :cool:

Hi

I am not sure if any publicly available data points to the positives that you mention. One can argue for both the integrated system and individual systems; I believe that there is no universal answer to this debate. Each organization has to study the situation and take appropriate decision. In general in a large organization I would expect a deterioration of effectiveness of systems if the systems are integrated, basically due to human factors invovled (including those related to recognizing the expertise needed for handling certain subjects). In a small organization, one may find advantages through integration.

We should recognize that the management systems are indeed formulated, established and maintained by human beings. It is not just procedures and policies alone.

With best regards,

Ramakrishnan

Actually because of the common elements between the 3 systems (14001 and 18001 being almost identical except for a couple of buzz words) you wind up with a formula that can look something like this when you intergrate them all.

1+1+1=1.50 +/- 0.?? (Each #1 represents a system and all its elements....9001 because of section 7 stuff adds a bit of extra gotta do items)

I just made this up, but it's kinda what you get:lol:

Please let me know if you have any experience with integrating ISO 14001 & 9001 into OHSAS. I have heard about all the positive reasons to do this: save time & money, more efficient auditing, etc. What is the down side of integrating these three management systems?

I have done many audits at companies which had all three standards. Some companies had OHSAS 18001 officially, and some had a modified version.)

Some of these clients had integrated the three systems, some had not. My audit team always recommends integrating them in each situation. I have not ever seen any downsde, and heartily recommend it. It could have downsides if done badly, but does not need to have any. And, while it could cost jobs, it does not have to. Good people can be reassigned to other important tasks.

Go for it. I have a paper on the topic of integrating these somewhere at the forum.

Dear friend,

I am also undergoing the same process of integrating QMS, and EHS. pls. make sure that the section responsible personnels are reporting to the single MR. Otherwise it becomes a tedious task if the QMS MR and EHS MR are separate platforms.


Regards
Aditya singh
:agree:

Dear friend,

I am also undergoing the same process of integrating QMS, and EHS. pls. make sure that the section responsible personnels are reporting to the single MR. Otherwise it becomes a tedious task if the QMS MR and EHS MR are separate platforms.


Regards
Aditya singh
:agree:


Actually, many of my clients have integrated their systems, but most have kept separate the EMS MR and QMS MR. There is significant technical knowledge in both disciplines, and not always easy for one person to be expert in both.

However, it is still easy to merge the systems and procedures, primarily by looking at EMS as several more processes to be added to the list of QMS processes. I had posted a paper on this forum some time ago on this topic, but I cannot find it now.

While I would not necessarily consider this a "downside" to integration, the largest obstacle that my organization faced was resistance.

Resistance to change.

Resistance to a perceived loss of responsibility and authority...thus "power".

Resistance to knocking down the silos or walls between departments.

Our organization had many departments and people that were "old school". Their areas were their territory. There was a lot of resistance to sharing ideas, communicating, merging systems/tools/methodologies.

We applied the formula C + V + D > R, where if C, V and D are done properly, R (Resistance) can be overcome.

C = Current state - convince the people that the current state is inadequate, does not meet their needs and must change.

V = Vision - how the future system will be better, make lives easier, and help the organization.

D = Do it - a detailed plan and strong support to help people move from C to V.

Another issue that we discovered, was that while integrating merged much of what we used, it did create a large, all-encompassing system. This allowed those people who wanted to keep their "silo world" intact to create tools / standards / documents...a larger system created some hiding spaces for these people.

To resolve this situation, we adopted an integrated, layered audit process. Several levels of personnel are involved in different types of audits, while maintaining a focus on quality, environment, safety, financial, etc.

We also took those people who were desparate to hang on to their "silo" and moved them into positions that promoted coaching and facilitation instead of old school supervision / management. This gave those individuals more exposure to the system and promoted understanding.

You could refer this related thread on conducting a common MR Meeting for an Integrated system - ISO 9001, 14001 and OHSAS 18001 - Integrated (ISO 9001 & 14001 and OHSAS 18001) Management Review Meetings (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=25873)

If you go through the various posts, you could get some valuable info.:)

Thank you for your advice. We will take it into consideration when we combine the EMS & EHS together.

I have only 3years working in a bottling operation that makes it mandatory to have all three management systems operating, along with HACCP. 14000 and 0SHAS are perfectly integratable and are easy to implement at the sametime. i honestly think the pro's are plenty. when Company auditors come the audit checklists cover all systems.

Heh he...i've been trolling for ideas and I'm going to steal your post and ideas RC.

Been getting a lot of resistance here. Bit like trying to turna ship around.

:thanks:

It may be safe to say that I have some small experience in the area.

Downside? Primarily de-ephasizing the importance of one for the other...focusing more on one system than the other systems.

The expectation is for a transparent "business management" process managing quality,OH&S and environmental "risk" and improvement of total systems performance.

I think you're spot on Randy.

A QMS is driven by "cost effectiveness" and relies heavily on "business management". OHS&E are legislative systems that generally end up costing companies a great deal of money...particularly if they're ill prepared. Therefore the systems can come into conflict. As a resort, many companies will de-emphasize specific areas and only spruce them at auditing time.

Personally, if you haven't had much experience with each system, I'd erode at them separately until they were operable and well and truly embedded. Then perhaps try to wed them to suit your operations.

My POV only...I'm still trying to get over the Federal Safety Commission accreditation in Canberra. Now that'll make you weep blood. :frust:

Heh he...i've been trolling for ideas and I'm going to steal your post and ideas RC.

Been getting a lot of resistance here. Bit like trying to turna ship around.

:thanks:

Thank you...I think.

If you would like to discuss them in more detail, feel free to PM me.

I have just finished co-leading a successful:) effort to integrate 14001 and 18001 into our existing 9001 Quality Management System, now called our Integrated Management System.

I would highly recommend integration because of the overlap of the three systems. Hey - document control is document control is document control...

To integrate, we made most of the updates right in the Quality Manual, and renamed it the Integrated Management Systems Manual. (Our Level 1 document.) As it is an integrated way of doing business, and I want to continue to stress that, we combined in as many areas as possible, including our management reviewss. I did create a few extra Level 2 documents, and then some specific Level 3 work instructions.

For us, the bulk of the work was in analyzing our processes for environmental impacts and health & safety risks.

Going forward, I will be providing 14001 and 18001 content training to our 9001 internal QMS auditors, and 9001 and 18001 content training to a few who had EMS audit training.

We just completed our successful external registration audit for 14001 and 18001, with no non-conformities.:D Just a few "areas of concern" that we have a year to address.

(OK, 18001 wasn't technically a "registration" audit, but that's splitting hairs...)

Ironically, I found out during our registration audit that I have until June 09 to also comply with a european railroad standard. (IRIS - it is basically ISO 9001 with additional requirements.) Well, that's a little job security, I suppose...

'Bye for now!

Roxane -

As for resistance to change, your formula reminded me of on a powerpoint slide from a while back; I don't recall the source. It's kind of an interesting way of looking at change.

Managing Complex Change
Vision + Skill + Incentive + Resources + Action Plan = Change
+ Skill + Incentive + Resources + Action Plan = Confusion
Vision + + Incentive + Resources + Action Plan = Anxiety
Vision + Skill + + Resources + Action Plan = Gradual Change
Vision + Skill + Incentive + + Action Plan = Frustration
Vision + Skill + Incentive + Resources + = False Start

I have just finished co-leading a successful:) effort to integrate 14001 and 18001 into our existing 9001 Quality Management System, now called our Integrated Management System.

I would highly recommend integration because of the overlap of the three systems. Hey - document control is document control is document control...

To integrate, we made most of the updates right in the Quality Manual, and renamed it the Integrated Management Systems Manual. (Our Level 1 document.) As it is an integrated way of doing business, and I want to continue to stress that, we combined in as many areas as possible, including our management reviewss. I did create a few extra Level 2 documents, and then some specific Level 3 work instructions.

For us, the bulk of the work was in analyzing our processes for environmental impacts and health & safety risks.

Going forward, I will be providing 14001 and 18001 content training to our 9001 internal QMS auditors, and 9001 and 18001 content training to a few who had EMS audit training.

We just completed our successful external registration audit for 14001 and 18001, with no non-conformities.:D Just a few "areas of concern" that we have a year to address.

(OK, 18001 wasn't technically a "registration" audit, but that's splitting hairs...)

Ironically, I found out during our registration audit that I have until June 09 to also comply with a european railroad standard. (IRIS - it is basically ISO 9001 with additional requirements.) Well, that's a little job security, I suppose...

'Bye for now!

Good for you. Sounds like an excellent approach.

Folks,

Not long ago we audited a pretty large compnay registered to all three standards. The compnay maintaned three separate independent (and somewhat confronting) systems. There were 3 management review procedures, 3 CAPA peocedures, 3 Documentationjn Management procedures and so on..., you know what I mean...

When I complimented VP of Operations for great job in preparing Doc. Management procedure for ISO 9001, I asked him how much time it took them to develop this document. After a short while, he answered: "...between writing..., meetings..., discussing..., correcting..., ECNs..., etc... may be 2 to 3 weeks..." "For how many people?" I asked. " "Hard to say... may be 2 or 3" he answred.

What does it mean for business? If somebody invested some 2 (employees) x 5 (days in a week) x 2 (weeks) x 8 hours a day at some $100 per hour (it is $16,000 by the way), why in the world would one need to re-invent the wheel and spend this kind of money again developing the same procedure in the same compnay?

The moral? It is more economical it spend $16 G than 32 or 48!

Cheers,
Mark
:applause:

Please let me know if you have any experience with integrating ISO 14001 & 9001 into OHSAS. I have heard about all the positive reasons to do this: save time & money, more efficient auditing, etc. What is the down side of integrating these three management systems?

These standards are kept separate by little more than turf wars fought by two of the three professions. I would argue that quality professionals would love also to improve the quality of health and safety management and the quality of environmental management; not to mention security management!

Organizations already are run by their systems. Of course, we should not add another system or three! Instead we analyze our system to understand it and list its key processes for further analysis/design, documentation, use and improvement.

One benefit of the proliferating system standards is their differences. From these differences we can learn, for example, adopting the risk assessment requirements from 14001 and 18001 to improve risk assessment for preventing nonconformity generally. Other examples would be the wider application of employee consultation requirements of 18001 and the wider deployment of legal and regulatory requirements to the management system.

Perhaps quality professionals are really systems professionals and our colleagues in health, safety, environmental and security are scared of us taking their jobs? :argue:

I have just finished co-leading a successful:) effort to integrate 14001 and 18001 into our existing 9001 Quality Management System, now called our Integrated Management System.

I would highly recommend integration because of the overlap of the three systems. Hey - document control is document control is document control...

To integrate, we made most of the updates right in the Quality Manual, and renamed it the Integrated Management Systems Manual. (Our Level 1 document.) As it is an integrated way of doing business, and I want to continue to stress that, we combined in as many areas as possible, including our management reviewss. I did create a few extra Level 2 documents, and then some specific Level 3 work instructions.

For us, the bulk of the work was in analyzing our processes for environmental impacts and health & safety risks.

Going forward, I will be providing 14001 and 18001 content training to our 9001 internal QMS auditors, and 9001 and 18001 content training to a few who had EMS audit training.

We just completed our successful external registration audit for 14001 and 18001, with no non-conformities.:D Just a few "areas of concern" that we have a year to address.

(OK, 18001 wasn't technically a "registration" audit, but that's splitting hairs...)

Ironically, I found out during our registration audit that I have until June 09 to also comply with a european railroad standard. (IRIS - it is basically ISO 9001 with additional requirements.) Well, that's a little job security, I suppose...

'Bye for now!

Congratulations on developing your Combined Management System (to use terminology from ISO 19011). Actually IRIS specifies requirements for a Business Management System. :read: It promises a management system truly integrated with the company's financial controls and plenty of job security!

Perhaps quality professionals are really systems professionals and our colleagues in health, safety, environmental and security are scared of us taking their jobs? :argue:

You really think that? I'm an EHS professional and I haven't met a quality guy yet that has made me so much as blink.:lol: I learned systems thinking putting together and managing EHS programs for little companies like Lockheed and ITT. You had to do PDCA or risk failure, and failure meant injured/dead people or a damaged environment.

From what I've seen and experienced it is far easier for an EHS professional to transition to Quality than a Quality person to transfer to EHS.....In fact ISO 19011 recommends a more technical and varied background for EMS auditors than it does for QMS folks.........the same would hold true for the Safety auditors.

In fact, I'd venture that very few quality practitioners would actually bet their life and the life of another on the "quality" of their work. I have and I did it a few thousand times. When I inspected the work performed on an aircraft from the day we washed it, disassembled it, and put it back together I knew I was putting my life on the line. As the QA/QC Inspection who signed off aircraft as Safe-For-Flight I was required to participate in the test flight as a crew member. Normally the flight crew consisted of the Maintenance Test Pilot and me........My signature basically said "I trust my work so much that I will take the 1st flights to verify/validate that this sucker really works". I've got over 3,000 hours of 15 minute to 1 hours test flights. After that, looking at charts, graphs amd diagrams really ain't that hard.

I agree with you about the "turf wars", but I'm sure not worried about some old quality professional trying to push me aside........:nope:

You really think that? I'm an EHS professional and I haven't met a quality guy yet that has made me so much as blink.:lol: I learned systems thinking putting together and managing EHS programs for little companies like Lockheed and ITT. You had to do PDCA or risk failure, and failure meant injured/dead people or a damaged environment.

From what I've seen and experienced it is far easier for an EHS professional to transition to Quality than a Quality person to transfer to EHS.....In fact ISO 19011 recommends a more technical and varied background for EMS auditors than it does for QMS folks.........the same would hold true for the Safety auditors.

In fact, I'd venture that very few quality practitioners would actually bet their life and the life of another on the "quality" of their work. I have and I did it a few thousand times. When I inspected the work performed on an aircraft from the day we washed it, disassembled it, and put it back together I knew I was putting my life on the line. As the QA/QC Inspection who signed off aircraft as Safe-For-Flight I was required to participate in the test flight as a crew member. Normally the flight crew consisted of the Maintenance Test Pilot and me........My signature basically said "I trust my work so much that I will take the 1st flights to verify/validate that this sucker really works". I've got over 3,000 hours of 15 minute to 1 hours test flights. After that, looking at charts, graphs amd diagrams really ain't that hard.

I agree with you about the "turf wars", but I'm sure not worried about some old quality professional trying to push me aside........:nope:


Randy,

Thanks for answering my question. As you suggest quality may be delivered by sorting good product from the bad but surely this approach to "QA/QC" is too expensive for most companies? :yes:

How about relying on product design, process design and process control with just a little inspection of the product (a la 7.5.2)? This is more akin to the result of packing a parachute (first inspected by the jumper hanging beneath it).

Delivering confidence that requirements will be met is QA. Quality controlled by inspection alone is just too expensive. Process control (of design, manufacture and assembly) supported by a process-based management system is a much better investment to be confident that all requirements (including those for preventing pollution and preventing accidents) will be met.

So, what is causing the turf wars if it is not job protection?

John

This is more akin to the result of packing a parachute (first inspected by the jumper hanging beneath it). Tell me about it! I have 125 jumps:D and an ejection from a broken airplane:mg:

So, what is causing the turf wars if it is not job protection? Ignorance.

Oh, by the way, I don't think I've welcomed you here to the Cove. We ran into each other a few times in another internet forum a few years back. Many of the folks here will appreciate your insight, experience and perspective:bigwave: