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:

Hi all,
I did join this forum today :):)
Integration of QHSE (ISO 9001/ISO14001/OHSAS 18001) is to make different things as one ... example: "Erecting a car seat belt in a cars is not an integration of this safety control into the car system because the car engine can be started without fastening the belt, there will be an integration only if car engine can be started unless the belt is on."

I am HSE professional & i did design HS & E integrated management systems (ISO based), what i am trying to do is to integrate QHSE.
Ideas:


The corner stone for HS-MS is the hazard identification (if hazard are not identified their risks will not be assess/eliminated or controlled;
The corner stone for E-MS is the aspect identification (same as 1);
What is the corner stone for QMS? I am supposing it to be processes identification - please correct me if this wrong

The best way to cover all these basics is to go from processes to aspects to hazards ... example:
Process = production;
Aspect = use of energy;
Hazard = Machineries;
This means the integration should be under the QMS umbrella-- QHSE (as one of the responders mentioned that we can talk about the quality of HS & E).

It is not an easy job to integrate QHSE (but it is very easy to put different stuff within one manual under one policy)

Factors need to be considered before take the integration decision:


Nature of business (some ones need very complicate QMS but very simple HSMS or EMS);
HSE are law-based whilst QMS based on customer satisfaction;
Cost implication (design, implementation & monitoring);
Human factor;
Change Impact;

If QHSE are properly integrated then it doesn’t matter who is going to be the big boss (HSE or Quality professional) because Q/HS/E will be become one thing & there will be no room for a part of it to be neglected … but I prefer the big boss to be HSE professional –basically- who knows quality.;)


Regards

Note:
I am not so fluent in English, please expect many English language related issues ... Thanks

Hi all,
I did join this forum today :):)
Integration of QHSE (ISO 9001/ISO14001/OHSAS 18001) is to make different things as one ... example: "Erecting a car seat belt in a cars is not an integration of this safety control into the car system because the car engine can be started without fastening the belt, there will be an integration only if car engine can be started unless the belt is on."

I am HSE professional & i did design HS & E integrated management systems (ISO based), what i am trying to do is to integrate QHSE.
Ideas:


The corner stone for HS-MS is the hazard identification (if hazard are not identified their risks will not be assess/eliminated or controlled;
The corner stone for E-MS is the aspect identification (same as 1);
What is the corner stone for QMS? I am supposing it to be processes identification - please correct me if this wrong
The best way to cover all these basics is to go from processes to aspects to hazards ... example:
Process = production;
Aspect = use of energy;
Hazard = Machineries;
This means the integration should be under the QMS umbrella-- QHSE (as one of the responders mentioned that we can talk about the quality of HS & E).

It is not an easy job to integrate QHSE (but it is very easy to put different stuff within one manual under one policy)

Factors need to be considered before take the integration decision:


Nature of business (some ones need very complicate QMS but very simple HSMS or EMS);
HSE are law-based whilst QMS based on customer satisfaction;
Cost implication (design, implementation & monitoring);
Human factor;
Change Impact;
If QHSE are properly integrated then it doesn’t matter who is going to be the big boss (HSE or Quality professional) because Q/HS/E will be become one thing & there will be no room for a part of it to be neglected … but I prefer the big boss to be HSE professional –basically- who knows quality.;)


Regards

Note:
I am not so fluent in English, please expect many English language related issues ... Thanks


You did it perfectly. Begin with the QMS, defien the processes, then add a few more processes to handle the primary E and H&S activities. Then, write whatever procedures you need (I recommend on procedure per process).

Good Luck!

Hi all,
I did join this forum today :):)
Integration of QHSE (ISO 9001/ISO14001/OHSAS 18001) is to make different things as one ... example: "Erecting a car seat belt in a cars is not an integration of this safety control into the car system because the car engine can be started without fastening the belt, there will be an integration only if car engine can be started unless the belt is on."

I am HSE professional & i did design HS & E integrated management systems (ISO based), what i am trying to do is to integrate QHSE.
Ideas:


The corner stone for HS-MS is the hazard identification (if hazard are not identified their risks will not be assess/eliminated or controlled;
The corner stone for E-MS is the aspect identification (same as 1);
What is the corner stone for QMS? I am supposing it to be processes identification - please correct me if this wrong

The best way to cover all these basics is to go from processes to aspects to hazards ... example:
Process = production;
Aspect = use of energy;
Hazard = Machineries;
This means the integration should be under the QMS umbrella-- QHSE (as one of the responders mentioned that we can talk about the quality of HS & E).

It is not an easy job to integrate QHSE (but it is very easy to put different stuff within one manual under one policy)

Factors need to be considered before take the integration decision:


Nature of business (some ones need very complicate QMS but very simple HSMS or EMS);
HSE are law-based whilst QMS based on customer satisfaction;
Cost implication (design, implementation & monitoring);
Human factor;
Change Impact;

If QHSE are properly integrated then it doesn’t matter who is going to be the big boss (HSE or Quality professional) because Q/HS/E will be become one thing & there will be no room for a part of it to be neglected … but I prefer the big boss to be HSE professional –basically- who knows quality.;)


Regards

Note:
I am not so fluent in English, please expect many English language related issues ... Thanks

Haneen,

Instead of combining documented QESH subsystems it is better to make the system that runs the business conform to all three standards.

You can achieve this by analyzing the system that runs the business starting with the core process for converting customer needs into cash in the bank ($ per millisecond indicates that rate at which the core process adds value). Conversion is slowed by failures to prevent pollution and accidents, therefore it makes business sense to prevent both while working to convert customer needs into cash. :D

Once you have a good understanding of the core process and its key processes you can integrate the key processes necessary to resource and continually improve the core process. Most of these key support processes come from the system standards. You will also have to use your common sense. For example, even though none of the system standards mention "recruiting and hiring" you must have this key process as part of your management system because training alone cannot deliver competence. :bonk:

Deploying regulations to the management system and evaluating compliance to these regulations is a key support process but not the primary driving force for effective health, safety and environmental management. Much more noble reasons exist, such as involving the employees in managing risk, and these reasons keep the organization competitive and well within the law. :agree1:

If you want more information, to help you to develop and document your management system, we can communicate privately.

I wish you well,

John

Haneen,

Instead of combining documented QESH subsystems it is better to make the system that runs the business conform to all three standards.


John,
100% agreed ... what i was trying to say that it is easy to collect the different systems of Q/HS/E in one manual, make some make ups & consider it as integration while it is not ... integration is one system to cover all

I will PM you soon

Regards

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:

Really glad to see some aviation talk on this thread.:bigwave:

I am following studies in Integrated Management Systems, and this is mainly because my area of concern is in aviation. As you know, Safety Management Systems (SMS) is now mandated by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) for all of aviation enterprises, which includes airlines, airports, air traffic control, and maintenance organizations (and services or goods providers for all of them).

I have downloaded the information in a form of a link to a manual that you posted in other thread, that is Canyon Offshore IMSM, and found it really interesting for an example of integration of the management systems. If you or someone on this thread happen to have some further information that could serve the purpose for my studies on Integrated Management Systems, I will greatly appreciate it if you could forward it.

Thanks a lot for your help, keep up the good work !!!!!:thanx:

Best regards,

Raul O. Castillo

If you or someone on this thread happen to have some further information that could serve the purpose for my studies on Integrated Management Systems, I will greatly appreciate it if you could forward it.I had started the FAA Prepares For Safety Management System (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=33115&highlight=Safety) thread the other day, and have been also studying this issue. I spent time at the ICAO SMS website (http://www.icao.int/anb/safetymanagement/index.html) and the ICAO Safety management manual (http://www.icao.int/anb/safetymanagement/DOC_9859_FULL_EN.pdf). I am also involved with the review and revision of the IAQG 9110 document, which latest draft contains requirements for a safety policy, safety objectives, etc...

What deeply concerns me is the fact that all of the above does not clearly establish what "safety" we are referring to. To me, it seems that the ICAO is driving FLIGHT SAFETY via their SMS mandate. The organizations involved and many people might mistakenly understand this as a Occupational Health & Safety issue.

While both flight safety and occupational health & safety are very important, I am concerned that people will get very confused.

At The Cove, we have numerous cases of people mistakenly injecting OHS issues during quality audits. I can foresee many AS auditors misunderstanding the requirements for "safety objectives", when conducting an audit against 9110. I am trying to provide input to the 9110 re-write team about that. Time will tell if I succeed or not.

kwick thanks for the comments but please take heed to what Sidney is saying above, you have to make sure that you don't confuse occupational health & safety with Flight Safety, though there may be some similarities there are more differences.

As Sidney, I forsee some auditors going in the wrong direction with the safetyy thing, I've already found some 9110 auditors that have never held a wrench in their hand, beat tin into shape or bent a cotter pin in a castelated nut.

kwick thanks for the comments but please take heed to what Sidney is saying above, you have to make sure that you don't confuse occupational health & safety with Flight Safety, though there may be some similarities there are more differences.

As Sidney, I forsee some auditors going in the wrong direction with the safetyy thing, I've already found some 9110 auditors that have never held a wrench in their hand, beat tin into shape or bent a cotter pin in a castelated nut.

There are also tens of thousands of obstetricians who've never given birth. :D

Thank you Sidney Viana and Randy for your answers !!!:agree1:

I have made some research in the matter of safety, and the reason to get involved in studies of Occupational Health and Safety is just because I would like to have more tools to deal with the safety issues that arise during aircraft operation and maintenance. Having been around aircraft since I was born, and later becoming an aircraft pilot and technician, my view of safety as related to aviation is clear, but it does not mean I know it all, therefore I consider it very important to grab all the information I can to better serve the aviation community in my area since ICAO references and mandates have placed all the industry in a black hole for compliance.

One question: Is there any way that I can get a copy of the current IAQG 9110 document and maybe the draft for a review?

Thank you again for the help you can provide:agree:, receive my best regards,

Raul O. Castillo

One question: Is there any way that I can get a copy of the current IAQG 9110 document and maybe the draft for a review?You can purchase the current version:http://www.sae.org/technical/standards/AS9110

The draft of next revision is not available for free circulation, unfortunately.

Mark

After successfuly implementing integrated systems in a company I work for at two different sites, this being 9001, 14001 and 18001, there were more positives than negatives. The education of the workforce and management comitment were a challenge. The hardest part was integrating the audits for compliance. We moved away from the old method of auditing sections and used a fully integrated team to carry out the audits. They were all trained under the basic audit process, and then combined as a team of 3-4 to look to look at all areas when carrying out the audit. This prooved very fruitful and the audit team enjoyed this process. External verification was also better for us with no Major NC's a few Minors, overall geat improvement. The Inetgrated manual was also easier to understand, with emphasis on Safety, Environment and Quality, if you need examples let me know I can share the system and procedures.

Mark

After successfuly implementing integrated systems in a company I work for at two different sites, this being 9001, 14001 and 18001, there were more positives than negatives. The education of the workforce and management comitment were a challenge. The hardest part was integrating the audits for compliance. We moved away from the old method of auditing sections and used a fully integrated team to carry out the audits. They were all trained under the basic audit process, and then combined as a team of 3-4 to look to look at all areas when carrying out the audit. This prooved very fruitful and the audit team enjoyed this process. External verification was also better for us with no Major NC's a few Minors, overall geat improvement. The Inetgrated manual was also easier to understand, with emphasis on Safety, Environment and Quality, if you need examples let me know I can share the system and procedures.

megaw,
Would you please send me a copy?
What you said looks very interesting & this is what i used to think about (creative integration that makes the different parts as one so there will be no room for good -say- quality part & not good HSE one).
Thanks in advance
Amjad

There are also tens of thousands of obstetricians who've never given birth. :D

And there are thousands of others that seem to have never done anything.;)

And there are thousands of others that seem to have never done anything.;)

AND thousands of others that have done a lot & still looking - openly - for new ideas :cool:

AND thousands of others that have done a lot & still looking - openly - for new ideas :cool:

Maybe so, but I've always found it best to not run ones mouth about something one does not have personal experience with while trying to proclaim oneself as an expert, and auditors ought to have some competency in the areas they audit (which was the point of the previously suuplied post)

Maybe so, but I've always found it best to not run ones mouth about something one does not have personal experience with while trying to proclaim oneself as an expert, and auditors ought to have some competency in the areas they audit (which was the point of the previously suuplied post)

Yes, 100% agreed Randy

Dear Megaw,
I would like to see your integrated manual and procedures, if you are still willing to share them. I too am working on integrating management systems (ISO/RC14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO9001) at several sites. The key procedures (doc control, auditing, etc) are fairly straight forward, but I would like to see how you did this at a policy/manual level of documentation.

Thank you in advance!
Paula

Dear Megaw,
I would like to see your integrated manual and procedures, if you are still willing to share them. I too am working on integrating management systems (ISO/RC14001, OHSAS 18001 and ISO9001) at several sites. The key procedures (doc control, auditing, etc) are fairly straight forward, but I would like to see how you did this at a policy/manual level of documentation.

Thank you in advance!
Paula

While I don't have any samples to share, the writing for the basic administrative or support processes is no different whether you write it for quality only, or add environmental or even safety.

please share if possible

please share if possible

As I mentioned, I don't have any ready examples available to share. However, the wording is no different than your existing quality procedures. Just add the term environmental as appropriate.

For example: "This doc control procedure applies to all documents and records related to our quality system."

In an integrated system it would read: "This doc control procedure applies to all documents and records related to our quality and environmental system." You could also add Health & Safety in the same way.

As I mentioned, I don't have any ready examples available to share. However, the wording is no different than your existing quality procedures. Just add the term environmental as appropriate.

For example: "This doc control procedure applies to all documents and records related to our quality system."

In an integrated system it would read: "This doc control procedure applies to all documents and records related to our quality and environmental system." You could also add Health & Safety in the same way.

It's better and more convenient to refer to an integrated management system as "business system."

Stijloor.

It's better and more convenient to refer to an integrated management system as "business system."

Stijloor.


I agree, I do that on all systems, even when they are not integrated. In this case, I wanted to make the concept more clear.

It's better and more convenient to refer to an integrated management system as "business system."

Stijloor.

I do agree also, because the quality umbrella is able to cover all possible management systems, I mean one can talk about the quality of HR, marketing, sales, HSE & the quality of any other management system.

There is the PAS 99 which gives a framework for the integration but i think it does give only the frame not the details. It leaves the details for the creativity of us in relation to the different environments within which every one of us is working.

Regards

Mark

After successfuly implementing integrated systems in a company I work for at two different sites, this being 9001, 14001 and 18001, there were more positives than negatives. The education of the workforce and management comitment were a challenge. The hardest part was integrating the audits for compliance. We moved away from the old method of auditing sections and used a fully integrated team to carry out the audits. They were all trained under the basic audit process, and then combined as a team of 3-4 to look to look at all areas when carrying out the audit. This prooved very fruitful and the audit team enjoyed this process. External verification was also better for us with no Major NC's a few Minors, overall geat improvement. The Inetgrated manual was also easier to understand, with emphasis on Safety, Environment and Quality, if you need examples let me know I can share the system and procedures.

Hi Megaw,

I would be interested in seeing the examples as well if that is possible.

Regards
T.

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.
Dear Mr.Randy,
Could you let us know what benefit the integratiing ISO 14001& 9001, OHSAS 18001 bring to bussiness?

We are currently looking at integrating our 14001 & 18001 MSs. Both are very mature systems and over the last 3- 4 years, in pracitse we have integrated them in many ways, i.e. with management responsibility, mamagement review and auditing .

I now really just need to pull the documentation together and iron out a few areas still un-integrated.

My feeling is that we should have one Policy but I do not want this to be lengthy and wordy. Our EMS/SMS engineer thinks we should have two seperate policies but my feelings are that this is defeating the object of an integrated system.

Has anyone got a sample of an integrated policy. I have done the ground work on the new manual but do not want to go any further until I have a draft policy in place as I feel that this should be a contributing factor, along with compliance to the 2 standards.

All help gratefully received.

TY:agree:

Cxx

Sounds like you've done the bulk of the work with integrating. We completed our 14001 / 18001 registration in Oct 08, and we integrated the HSE systems with our existing quality system. Instead of a quality manual, we have an integrated management systems manual, and also an integrated quality and HSE policy:

<Company Name Here> is dedicated to producing well-engineered, error-free products and services in a manner that safeguards the well-being of our employees and the environment.
We are committed to:

Providing quality products and services that fully satisfy our customers’ requirements
Conservation of resources and the prevention of pollution
Prevention of injury and illness
Compliance with legal requirements
Continual improvement in all that we do
These commitments are the personal responsibility of each employee.

Policy? This isn't rocket science

"We the ABC Company a manufacturer of stuff promise to do our best to control our potential for adverse environmental impact occupational injuries and ill health through the establishement and echievement of EHS related objectives while also complying with applicable EHS legal requirements of other EHS related obligations, all on a continual improving basis"

Took about 45 seconds to write.

We are currently looking at integrating our 14001 & 18001 MSs. Both are very mature systems and over the last 3- 4 years, in pracitse we have integrated them in many ways, i.e. with management responsibility, mamagement review and auditing .

I now really just need to pull the documentation together and iron out a few areas still un-integrated.

My feeling is that we should have one Policy but I do not want this to be lengthy and wordy. Our EMS/SMS engineer thinks we should have two seperate policies but my feelings are that this is defeating the object of an integrated system.

Has anyone got a sample of an integrated policy. I have done the ground work on the new manual but do not want to go any further until I have a draft policy in place as I feel that this should be a contributing factor, along with compliance to the 2 standards.

All help gratefully received.

TY:agree:

Cxx

It should be very easy for you to finish this. I'm curious, though, most parts of the 14001 and 18001 standards are almost identical, word for word. What effort do you see will be required to combine those?

In case of Transport management business , Following may be the key benefits :

ISO 14001 :

a) You may decide the Objectives and targets pertaining to Pollution reduction by improving the Emission Quality from vehicles hence benefitting the environment and increasing the mileage of your owned vehicles .
b) Timely maintenance of the fleet not only improves the mileage but also reduces wear and tear hence helping in cost reduction and eliminating overheads.

OHSAS 18001 :

a) Trainings may be imparted to the fleet employees (drivers / attendants) hence maintaining high safety standards awareness which shall result in reducing the accident rate.
b) Trainings regarding first aid shall also help
c) Routine Health Check ups shall improve the morale of the employees.

You may drop mail to me for further inputs also.

Regards
Aditya Singh (India)


Dear Mr.Randy,
Could you let us know what benefit the integratiing ISO 14001& 9001, OHSAS 18001 bring to bussiness?

Can anyone pick any holes in this or do you think it will surfice:-


The continuous improvement of the Environment, Health, Safety and Welfare of the people associated with (company name) is the Company’s number one priority.

This will be achieved by:

•complying with the (parent company name) Environmental, Health & Safety Policies

•meeting or exceeding the standards set by UK or European legislation, the (parent company name) and the Warehousing and Transportation Industry
•putting into practice the (company name) EHS Principles and Responsibilities.

• conservation of resources and the prevention of pollution

• prevention of injury and illness


In support of this policy, we will recognise significant contributions of individuals and teams in making quantifiable improvements to the environment, health & safety, and gain recognition for our improvements through accredited bodies.

Cxx

Can anyone pick any holes in this or do you think it will surfice:-


The continuous improvement of the Environment, Health, Safety and Welfare of the people associated with (company name) is the Company’s number one priority.

This will be achieved by:

•complying with the (parent company name) Environmental, Health & Safety Policies

•meeting or exceeding the standards set by UK or European legislation, the (parent company name) and the Warehousing and Transportation Industry
•putting into practice the (company name) EHS Principles and Responsibilities.

• conservation of resources and the prevention of pollution

• prevention of injury and illness


In support of this policy, we will recognise significant contributions of individuals and teams in making quantifiable improvements to the environment, health & safety, and gain recognition for our improvements through accredited bodies.

Cxx

Chrissie,

If the leaders require the employees (and other team members) to use and improve their system to fulfill this policy then I would say so in the policy (likewise in the documented objectives).

Jon

Hello!
I believe behind this kind of discussion there is a fundamental difference in trade point of view of or professional culture between ones and others.

I explain: does we consider the systems of management (and their possible integration) like a tool for such or such field of action or responsibility of the company? Or in contrary does we regards quality, environment or health & safety as simple raw material for a system of management. What is our objective our finality : the system for the system or for example the health and the safety of our employers?

From this alternative rises many different analysis, divergences and choices. Integrated or not we can write a policy in few minutes. But does it be relevant and significative for the entity considered and its action in such management field (OHS, E, Q…)? Does it meet really requirements of such standard (international or national) applied in a way to such entity?

A small test: take a policy, remove the name and the logo of the entity and read again it by forgetting its origin… Do you guess in which sector of industry you are? Do you identify current probematics which arising in the entity? If you do not success this policy is not significant of the entity. This "impersonal" policy quotes general concepts but don't expresses particular and current wills and axes of the entity manager.

This risk ("empty" policy) seems even greater to me with an integrated policy… Bye.

... Integrated or not we can write a policy in few minutes. But does it be relevant and significative for the entity considered and its action in such management field (OHS, E, Q…)? Does it meet really requirements of such standard (international or national) applied in a way to such entity?

A small test: take a policy, remove the name and the logo of the entity and read again it by forgetting its origin… Do you guess in which sector of industry you are? Do you identify current probematics which arising in the entity? If you do not success this policy is not significant of the entity. This "impersonal" policy quotes general concepts but don't expresses particular and current wills and axes of the entity manager.

...

I have perfomed 1000+ audits. I do not recall ever seeing a policy that was industry specific, for any of these 3 standards. Policies typically are broad - Continual Improvement, Reduce Pollution, Create a Safe Shop, etc... The more industry-specific policies tend to be stated in the Objectives and Targets. Now, it is compliant if you wish to make the policy specific, but I would not say it is empty or hollow. These are very good companies but their policies are broadly stated.

Hello!
I believe behind this kind of discussion there is a fundamental difference in trade point of view of or professional culture between ones and others.

I explain: does we consider the systems of management (and their possible integration) like a tool for such or such field of action or responsibility of the company? Or in contrary does we regards quality, environment or health & safety as simple raw material for a system of management. What is our objective our finality : the system for the system or for example the health and the safety of our employers?

From this alternative rises many different analysis, divergences and choices. Integrated or not we can write a policy in few minutes. But does it be relevant and significative for the entity considered and its action in such management field (OHS, E, Q…)? Does it meet really requirements of such standard (international or national) applied in a way to such entity?

A small test: take a policy, remove the name and the logo of the entity and read again it by forgetting its origin… Do you guess in which sector of industry you are? Do you identify current probematics which arising in the entity? If you do not success this policy is not significant of the entity. This "impersonal" policy quotes general concepts but don't expresses particular and current wills and axes of the entity manager.

This risk ("empty" policy) seems even greater to me with an integrated policy… Bye.

Henria,

I see two types of system:


The system used to run the business conforms to the standards
Discrete sub-systems conform to the standard but are not used to run the business

In my experience 1 is better than 2 because top management is engaged.

Too often 2 is run as a job for quality, environmental, and/or health and safety professionals.

Are you saying that 2 is better than 1?

Hi John !

Helmutt, concerning Q, S ou E policies I wanted to say that often policies are so general (only general information expressed) that integration QSE was likely to make still more them “impersonal”. My small “test” shows that removing the name, the address and the logo of the group, we obtain the policy of any company ! Without logo we could often exchange our policies because they say all the same general ideas ! Whereas our MS standard also invites us to put in our policy some more specific things concerning our actual project company about Q S or E (in this case even without name us should be able “to recognize” our company, or at least for examples the principal problems Q S or E of topicality in the company for the moment… ).

I think as you John that your proposition 1 is better (I often say that it's not the H&S officer which produces H&S but each function of the company threw its own missions).

Bye.