x-files
Involved In Discussions
Hi,
At first we had an EMS procedure to identify "Aspects, Impacts and Risks" with appropriate methodologies for evaluation (we've separated methodology for "everyday" scenarios, and methodology for potential (risk) scenarios). Generally, for significant Risks we make Plans for reactions, and for significant "everyday" scenarios we make goals/targets.
Then, we (obviously) find out that OH&S has the very similar requirements, and that many EMS "Aspects, Impacts and Risks" are directly related to OH&S (what is a risk to environment, many times could be a risk to humans safety also, etc).
Finally, with PAS 99 in mind, we want to have ONE procedure to cover "Identification and evaluation of Aspects, Impacts and Risks", with QMS included, besides EMS and OH&S.
Basically, in the draft working version of "Aspects, Impacts and Risks" form, we've created a new column "Management system", where we want to highlight to what managements system is "Aspect, Impact or Risk" related to. Sometimes, its only EMS, sometimes it's only OH&S, and sometimes it's a combination of all three integrated systems.
First question is, are we on a good track with decision to integrate "Aspects, Impacts and Risks" for all our management systems? Are there any side-effects we should be aware of?
Second question is, what is a good direction to think of "QMS aspects/impacts/risks"?
For example, we have many purchasing in a year. Maybe few thousands. Some of purchasing failures are not significant, but some of purchasing failures could have enormous negative impacts. Further, poor maintenance of some devices is not so relevant, but on the other side, poor maintenance of some other devices could have immense impacts to business.
As you probably know, we in Serbia had epic floods these days. Fortunately, the dam managed to stop the high river level, which is literally near the powerplant. But (on hard way) we've discovered another risk. The dam is not of appropriate height and capacity 10 km far from our powerplant, and the river could in one day or two, soak electric field.
Could all that be QMS aspect/impact/risk?
Best Regards,
Vladimir Stefanovic
At first we had an EMS procedure to identify "Aspects, Impacts and Risks" with appropriate methodologies for evaluation (we've separated methodology for "everyday" scenarios, and methodology for potential (risk) scenarios). Generally, for significant Risks we make Plans for reactions, and for significant "everyday" scenarios we make goals/targets.
Then, we (obviously) find out that OH&S has the very similar requirements, and that many EMS "Aspects, Impacts and Risks" are directly related to OH&S (what is a risk to environment, many times could be a risk to humans safety also, etc).
Finally, with PAS 99 in mind, we want to have ONE procedure to cover "Identification and evaluation of Aspects, Impacts and Risks", with QMS included, besides EMS and OH&S.
Basically, in the draft working version of "Aspects, Impacts and Risks" form, we've created a new column "Management system", where we want to highlight to what managements system is "Aspect, Impact or Risk" related to. Sometimes, its only EMS, sometimes it's only OH&S, and sometimes it's a combination of all three integrated systems.
First question is, are we on a good track with decision to integrate "Aspects, Impacts and Risks" for all our management systems? Are there any side-effects we should be aware of?
Second question is, what is a good direction to think of "QMS aspects/impacts/risks"?
For example, we have many purchasing in a year. Maybe few thousands. Some of purchasing failures are not significant, but some of purchasing failures could have enormous negative impacts. Further, poor maintenance of some devices is not so relevant, but on the other side, poor maintenance of some other devices could have immense impacts to business.
As you probably know, we in Serbia had epic floods these days. Fortunately, the dam managed to stop the high river level, which is literally near the powerplant. But (on hard way) we've discovered another risk. The dam is not of appropriate height and capacity 10 km far from our powerplant, and the river could in one day or two, soak electric field.
Could all that be QMS aspect/impact/risk?
Best Regards,
Vladimir Stefanovic
