Inclusion of company safety manual and procedures in QMS

[qwetwo]

We are an AS9100 and NADCAP certified company. I have always been of the school that says not to mix these two programs. My logic lies in (1) the fact that OSHA and its state derivatives have enough structure in and of themselves, and, (2) inclusion of the safety program goes beyond the intent of AS9100, although safety could be interpreted as part of work environment. Inclusion also makes the entire safety program auditable.

I would be curious to learn how others feel about blending the two efforts, and from anyone who has such a blended system regarding its value to the company.

Thanks in advance

 

[RoxaneB]

We blend where I am...you'll find many people in the Cove who are strong advocates of an integrated system or BMS (Business Management System).

My company has, where possible, integrated Operational/Quality, Health & Safety and Environment into our standards (documentation) and training. Why?

Because while it is easier to understand a concept when it is isolated (sometimes referred to as silo thinking...you study electrons and I'll study neutrons and then we get together later and compare notes), when it comes to training and developing a system that provides value to an organization, one-stop shopping may be the way to go.

I'm not saying that it works for all organizations...some cultures may not be aligned with an integrated system...but for us, it worked because of how we communicate.

We don't welcome someone on their first day and say "Here, let us show you how to do your job." And on the 2nd day, "Here, let us show you how to be safe." And on the 3rd day, "Here, let us show you how to protect the environment."

We actually say, "Welcome! Let us show you how to do your job so that you're safe, the environment is safe and the requirements are met." We show them how to do their job properly in all aspects...not one aspect at a time.

But like I said above...just because it works for us does not mean that it will work for every organization.

 

[crendfrey]

I agree with RCBeyette.
Our Safety Manual is attached as an addendum (along with our Employee Handbook) to our policy procedures and work instructions as it is referred to in our work instructions routinely.
I would have integrated it fully but I am required to send it to certain customers for approval to be allowed on site.
We are 17025:2005 calibration lab. As REBeyette says, it is truly very difficult to teach someone how to maneuver a 2000Lb weight (or 15 of them at a time) without safety as a primary issue.
Also having them attached as such, basically requires me to review and revise during annual internal audits. This is a good thing I think.

hope this helps a little bit

 

[ScottK]

I'm also of the school that they should be in one system and have always designed my systems as such.

One reason is because in more than one job QA and Compliance were both under my unbrella.
But even if they were not, why have two (or more) document control systems? OSHA definately requires some written procedures. Just separate them into a subsection or supplement or something of your Quality (or Business) Management System but don't create more work for yourself by running multiple systems.
And there are crossovers. OSHA and any QMS require training systems.

And I think that "inclusion makes it auditable" is somewhat faulty logic...
I've had a system that was audited by customers and the FDA and neither even so much as glanced at the safety procedures even thought they all had access to the full index. Just as OSHA and EPA didn't give a hoot about our quality policy when they popped in for a surprise visit.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

Don't let the auditor wander out of their scope.

And I think that "inclusion makes it auditable" is somewhat faulty logic...
I've had a system that was audited by customers and the FDA and neither even so much as glanced at the safety procedures even thought they all had access to the full index. Just as OSHA and EPA didn't give a hoot about our quality policy when they popped in for a surprise visit.

Exactly. Audits have "scope of coverage". I had made a similar point (as it pertains to 3rd party auditors) in this post.

 

[spomagnum]

I am the Safety and Quality Manager and keep them seperate and note or refer to appendixes or rules when needed. Because the safety of the employees is paramount, the quality of the job is based on how safely it can be done. OSHA does not care about Quality when they come in and vice versa. They can tell when a company is putting one over the other OSHA or state osha, don't say it but hey need to know your company is putting the employees safety above all else.

If you can convince a safety auditor your safety is paramount you are much less likey to get any fines at all. IF you can show the auditor your 100% involved in anything they find as a Serious violation the odds of getting it dropped to a general or written off completely are much higher.

You can combine them and that's easy but they should be seperate.

I keep seperate. When the quality auditors come in whoever it may be, assume already that safety is over quality and do pay attention to procedures regarding safety within the operation or process. Auditors for quality or customers all understand safety should come first so far all understand what work is safety orientated and things are done the way the are so work can proceeed as scheduled.

If a quality auditor comes in and does not ask why things are done the way they are. It's not a quality audit it's a productivity audit.

 

[kgott]

I am the Safety and Quality Manager and keep them seperate and note or refer to appendixes or rules when needed. Because the safety of the employees is paramount, the quality of the job is based on how safely it can be done. OSHA does not care about Quality when they come in and vice versa. They can tell when a company is putting one over the other OSHA or state osha, don't say it but hey need to know your company is putting the employees safety above all else.

If you can convince a safety auditor your safety is paramount you are much less likey to get any fines at all. IF you can show the auditor your 100% involved in anything they find as a Serious violation the odds of getting it dropped to a general or written off completely are much higher.

You can combine them and that's easy but they should be seperate.

I keep seperate. When the quality auditors come in whoever it may be, assume already that safety is over quality and do pay attention to procedures regarding safety within the operation or process. Auditors for quality or customers all understand safety should come first so far all understand what work is safety orientated and things are done the way the are so work can proceeed as scheduled.

If a quality auditor comes in and does not ask why things are done the way they are. It's not a quality audit it's a productivity audit.

To take up RcBeyette's point, the process of transforming customer inputs into customer deliverables involves people doing work and consuming finite resources. It makes sense that the safety of people is safeguared when they they do the work thats required to be done and the minimum amount of finite resources are used and so make the product realisation process as efficient as possible.

You can seperate safety, quality and environmental issues on paper but you can't do that when it comes creating goods and services. To try and do so indicates that there is a missalignment between how work get done and an how the busienss management systems are percieved to work on as depicted on paper.

 

[somashekar]

Each of these standards have their own specific focus area. When we embrace a standard, we commit to meet the requirements of that standard by mapping our operations with that standard's requirements.
But beyond this we can also see that all these standards embrace the same methodology for application of that management system ...
To Plan -- Do -- Check -- and Act, in a way to maintain and continually improve that system.
In the normal working, it seems highly false to embrace each of these separately. The thinking, processing and doing activities must be done with all the focus areas in tandem. The key is integration, and the essence is to operate as an integrated management system.
Our worry always crops up from the audit view point and this drives all activities to be kept separate and managed, thinking that the organization is operating towards audit requirement.
No.
Organization operate towards meeting business requirements, and these can be quality, environmental, safety, and anything more. Just like the various spices cooked together gives the flavor and taste, we must blend and cook them together to be effective and enjoy the organization working.
Such a dimension thinking has to be inculcated into the organization and this is the top management area. When this is lacking, the directions down gets unclear and compartments become strong, only running behind successfully completing audits rather than seeing success and progress.
Leave the audit to auditors. They will know the scope of audit and keep within that. As an organization we must focus on good understanding and integration of scope to work in harmony. Integrated management is way to go ~~~~~

 

[Randy]

I hate agreeing with Sidney, but, Scope of coverage is absolutely correct. Right now, this week, I have done 3 seperate "audits" of different types of the same organization using the same documentation and identical activities (Manual, Policy, level 1 and some level 2 procedures, internal audit, management review, etc..)

Audits
1...QMS recertification
2...EMS surveillance
3...OHS Stage 1

Each audit was conducted on specific and seperate dates (actually the OHS Stage 1 is tomorrow) and had different objectives & scopes

Each had or will have had individual opening & closing meetings

Each had a seperate audit plan

Each will have a seperate audit report

Now next year (of course fully dependant upon success in OHS Stage 1 & 2) all 3 systems will be audited concurrrently as integrated systems...1 plan, 1 report