ISO 9001 QMS VS ISO 41001 FMS

lifehealer

Registered
As a Facility Management Department and support with Museum Operations which is having an ISO 9001 Management System. In my observation with the ISO 41001 FMS requirements, it has similar guidelines and clauses. Do we need to migrate in ISO 41001? so we could have a guidelines for our service provider? or Integrate the 2 standard?
 

John Broomfield

Leader
Super Moderator
Integrate.

Use your influence to quietly make sure that the museum’s business management system conforms to both standards.

Do not create a separate subsystem or bother with ISO 41001 certification until your customers or insurers seek such certification.

Likewise for other standards that may also apply to the museum’s security and social responsibility.
 

John Broomfield

Leader
Super Moderator
I'm sure we agree that benefits flow from developing, using and improving your business management system to create loyal customers while eliminating causes of waste.

Some potential customers may have criteria for selecting bidders which include certification to any of these standards as the standards become known and respected.

Of course, it would be wise to anticipate this change in procurement habit/policy so your company is among the first to benefit from accredited certification of its management system. As you imply it may be wiser to lead the way.

But we both seem to see certification more as a strategic or marketing decision (than a reactive one) to provide potential customers with confidence that their requirements will be fulfilled.
 

John Broomfield

Leader
Super Moderator
Our OP was first and last seen here on Oct 28, 2019.

Hopefully they will revisit to learn from our discussion.

Stay well.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
However, the real question behind this all is WHY would one desire to implement ISO 41001 in the first place and ultimately get certified? In many cases the reason for this is to achieve competitive advantage, grow as a business, evolve from a cost-center to a profit driver or finally earn that coveted influence in the C-suite. So if the FM-organization's ambition is to become an asset to the demand organization by improving effectiveness and effciency (thus reducing operational costs), the choice is suddenly clear.
I don't know what "demand organization" means, even though ISO has defined it for me:
A demand organization is an entity which has a need and the authority to incur costs to have requirements met. It is typically an authorized representative within a functional unit of the organization.
This seems to indicate that "demand" is intrinsic to the organization rather than extrinsic, which makes no sense to me.

Your extolling of the alleged benefits of certification to this standard reminds me very much of the early "promise" of ISO 9001 (I did my first implementation nearly 30 years ago), practically none of which was realized in any significant way. I'm reminded of a very old joke about a man who was traveling in a rural area and stopped in a little country general store. He was amazed to see that there were bags of salt stacked everywhere--hundreds of them. He said to the proprietor, "Wow, you must sell a lot of salt here!" The proprietor answered, "No sir, we don't, but there's a salt salesman that comes around here, and he does pretty good with it."
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Hi Jim, I can imagine the issues you find here. Keep in mind that all standards are based on the principle of consensus and applicability in the market. While writing the standard we learned that the term 'client organization' (or anything similar) could not be translated properly in a number of languages (as I recall especially Japanese was an issue). Hence a alternative term was sought and found.
View attachment 26700
Combine this with organization and demand organization and it begins to make sense (I hope)
View attachment 26701
Keep in mind that 'the organization' in ISO41001 refers to the FM-organization, not the 'whole organization' which could include both the demaind and FM-organization when FM is organized inhouse. So demand as stated here is the demand that is related to the realization of the primary process of the core business/client/demand organization.
Does this make sense?

I like your example and agree to it. To be quite honest: I am not precious at all about certification as such. I believe this could be the cherry on the cake if the whole team is craving this document to prove that their efforts and hard work paid of. That's all as far as I am concerned.

Of course there can be commercial incentives to go for certification, but for me the journey itself is more important that the certificate. I am only interested in the robustness and effectiveness of the management system (does it work and do what it is supposed to do).

Are we in alignment again ;-)
I understand the difficulties in translating, but if you need all of that in explication of a two-word phrase, something is seriously wrong. FWIW, I still don't know what it means.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
I understand your struggle...
I'm not sure you do. The reason that I can't understand the phrase isn't that it's a difficult concept. I can't understand it because it's inexplicable because of the way that it's written. Using difficulty in translation as an excuse goes only so far, because what it comes down to is terrible writing on the part of people who seem to know what they want to say but have no idea how to say it.

Witness the phenomenon of sanctioned interpretations as I complained about them 12 years ago:
I seem to recall a set of sanctioned interpretations for the first release of QS9000, and they were all incorporated into the next release, but it wasn't very long before there was a new set of sanctioned interpretations. In fact, iirc, the sanctioned interpretations document contained more pages than the standard itself.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Using difficulty in translation as an excuse goes only so far, because what it comes down to is terrible writing on the part of people who seem to know what they want to say but have no idea how to say it.
Just like any other discipline in the business world, facility management personnel wants to have a seat at the boardroom, meaning they want to be included in the highest level of management. Which reputable organization out there does not have a CFMO? :biglaugh: So, the establishment of an international standard seems appealing in order to make facility management a strategic business aspect. If the standard contains some unclear aspects, even better because we have to engage with expert consultants to guide us.

Many of the ISO Technical Committees deliberating on Management System Standards are disguised attempts in creating job security programs and/or elevation of a discipline in the organizational hierarchy. But, after 30+ years of ISO 9001, how many organizations around the World have a CQO? Even worse, how many ISO 9001 certified organizations see quality management as a strategic aspect of business, deserving a seat in the boardroom? Answer: a very small minority.

As for the work of the ISO/TC 267, it should be noted that, in addition to the 4 standards published to date, they are developing another 3 documents:

ISO/DIS 41014 Facility management — Development of facility management strategy
ISO/CD 41015 Facility management — Influencing organizational behaviours for improved facility outcomes
ISO/WD TR 41016 Technology in facility management — Scope, key concepts and benefits
 
Top Bottom