Integration of ISO 14001 with ISO 9001 - Seeking Example Manual

[Marc]

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.

[Marc]

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

[Claes Gefvenberg]

Originally Posted by Marc

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

[SteelWoman]

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.

[Sidney Vianna]

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/man...whatandwhy.asp

[RCBeyette]

Originally Posted by Sidney Vianna

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!

[Randy]

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.

[Randy]

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