What's the logical difference between maintaining & retaining records of review?

[samsung]

Is there any logical difference between these two apparently similar requirement:

5.6 ISO 9001 - Records from management reviews shall be maintained

and

4.6 ISO 14001 - Records of the management reviews shall be retained.

and also what one has to do differently if these aren't similar?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Stijloor]

Is there any logical difference between these two apparently similar requirement:


and


and also what one has to do differently if these aren't similar?

Thanks in advance.

Intent is the same: Keep records. That's it.

Stijloor.

 

[Marc]

Well, yes. Keep records, but the implication is that records will be protected from deterioration (or in the case of electronic records, protected from corruption/loss) as well.

If I was writing it, both clauses would read: "Management Review records shall be retained and maintained".

 

[Duke Okes]

As Stijloor has said, intent is the same. Semantic differences might be that retain means to keep (for some stated amount of time) while maintain is the process that retains them (including who is responsible, locations of storage, etc.). I'm sure an attorney would find a way to make distinctions, but for normal folks likely not worth it.

 

[samsung]

Well, yes. Keep records, but the implication is that records will be protected from deterioration (or in the case of electronic records, protected from corruption/loss) as well.

If I was writing it, both clauses would read: "Management Review records shall be retained and maintained".

This certainly seems logical. If records are generated and need to be maintained, they are meant to be retained albeit for a limited or short time period.

Since 14001 (& OHSAS as well) deals with much of the legal aspects, possibly the term 'retention' might have been considered more relevant/ appropriate but I'm just not sure. But I do agree with your logic that the records, when retained, must be protected (maintained) from corruption/ abuse/ misuse etc.

Thanks.

 

[Jen Kirley]

Good answers. It seems like a trifling piece of semantics, but there's a word of caution to be said in maintaining electronic records. A site called The History of Backups goes into some comparative detail about methods.

It doesn't talk much about data corruption though - I have read sob stories about people trying to view photos on their CD disks after years have gone by, and found the disks had deteriorated and the files were unreadable. Visit a site like Amazon.com's shopping area for USB hard drives and you'll find a list of people complaining about their hard drive's failure. Data can be retrieved from failed hard drives in some cases, but it's expensive.

 

[BradM]

Good question.


Marc is right. I think they need to let us author those standards.


To me, they are the same, but happen at different times.

5.6 ISO 9001 - Records from management reviews shall be maintained

When you have a management review meeting, records should be made; record it.

4.6 ISO 14001 - Records of the management reviews shall be retained.

The records you made from the review meetings need to be retained; keep the records you made for future review purposes.


It could easily be one sentence.

 

[Jim Wynne]

Good question.


Marc is right. I think they need to let us author those standards.


To me, they are the same, but happen at different times.



When you have a management review meeting, records should be made; record it.

The records you made from the review meetings need to be retained; keep the records you made for future review purposes.


It could easily be one sentence.

I think just using "maintained" is enough; you can't maintain something that doesn't exist.

 

[Duke Okes]

I think just using "maintained" is enough; you can't maintain something that doesn't exist.

Good point!

 

[BradM]

I think just using "maintained" is enough; you can't maintain something that doesn't exist.