Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

Intention of Planned Arrangments term in ISO 14001 2004 vs 2015

#1
I am just wondering why the term "planned arrangements" found in ISO 14001:2004 4.5.5 a.1 was removed
and its equivalent statement in ISO 14001:2015 9.2.1 a.1 or a.2 was stated differently. Or does it mean the same thing as stated in both ISO 14001:2015 9.2.1 a & b. Since even up to now, external auditors always love to use the term "deviation from planned arrangements" in nonconformity statements.

As per my understanding, "planned arrangements" refer to all the things that the organization said it was going to do. So failure to execute any planned activity( ex. drill plan, monitoring plan, etc.) would definitely lead to a nonconformity.
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#2
Your management system is effective when it helps your organization to fulfill its objectives. This includes planning to determine the resources required to fulfill the objectives. Normally authority is delegated from top management sufficient for individuals to fulfill their responsibilities when aided by the management system.

The term planned arrangements may have been removed because it was vague when translated into other languages.

Auditors continue to seek evidence of effectiveness and this includes evidence of conformity with the plans for control and improvement.

So, your interpretation is correct. Why are you concerned about a term no longer specified in the standard?
 
#3
Your management system is effective when it helps your organization to fulfill its objectives. This includes planning to determine the resources required to fulfill the objectives. Normally authority is delegated from top management sufficient for individuals to fulfill their responsibilities when aided by the management system.

The term planned arrangements may have been removed because it was vague when translated into other languages.

Auditors continue to seek evidence of effectiveness and this includes evidence of conformity with the plans for control and improvement.

So, your interpretation is correct. Why are you concerned about a term no longer specified in the standard?
Thanks John! In relation to this I would like to give an example regarding our internal audit program and plan. Usually, we are very specific in the month where internal audits should be performed. Am I correct that this would regularly result to unnecessary nonconformities where one requirement of the standard is to include only the frequency of audits. I think it is not even stated to have it once a year but depending on "planned internals" and based on the need. As an organization that is just starting with ISO certification, I want us to take it slowly and focus on things that would actually help us improve.
 

John Broomfield

Staff member
Super Moderator
#4
Auditing once a year is probably a nonconformity. The standard expects you to vary the frequency according to:

A. Riskiness or criticality of the process
B. Problems and corrective actions
C. Results of previous audits

You may come up with different reasons for varying the frequency of internal audit.

I've not seen a good reason for keeping the frequency static.
 
Top Bottom