Opportunity For Improvement vs Opportunity (Positive Risk)

[rogerpenna]

What is a Kool Aid? (edit: hmm, ok, it seems it is some kind of fake powdered instantaneous juice, like Tang). I don´t see how my favorite beverages are related to this thread.

"The blogs and videos are done by snake oil salesmen. "

Consultants?

 

[Bev D]

Search Jim Jones and kool aid

 

[rogerpenna]

I did now. Kool Aid is not sold in my country so I was not familiar with it. And I had heard about this horrible incident, reminds me of the song Stargazer by Rainbow. (album is from 76, 2 years before the Jim Jones events, so not related), but I had no idea about the powdered drink connection.

Seems a bit of an hyperbole to me to use that incident as an analogy to asking a question (I am not blindly following anything here) about "positive risks"... but ok.

 

[qualprod]

Since ISO 9001:2015, all the Risk mentality was incorporated into ISO, including the fact that Risks are not only negative, but also POSITIVE risks, also called Opportunities.


But ISO 9001 already had for a long time used the term Opportunity for Improvement, the OFI.

Is there any REAL, tangible relation between them? Should the identification of a positive risk create an OFI? Or should we not even consider Positive Risks, just create an OFI if a risk is positive?


Without much analysis, it seems to be both are a little different, in that OFIs would be used for smaller things, sometimes almost like "suggestions for improvement".

While a Positive Risk (opportunity) would be more formal, maybe on a more strategic level. With maybe analysis of a trigger of the event, probability, impact, etc.

Any insight into this?

Taken form 0.3.3
Opportunities can arise as a result of a situation favourable to achieving an intended result, for
example, a set of circumstances that allow the organization to attract customers, develop new products
and services, reduce waste or improve productivity. Actions to address opportunities can also include
consideration of associated risks. Risk is the effect of uncertainty and any such uncertainty can have
positive or negative effects. A positive deviation arising from a risk can provide an opportunity, but not
all positive effects of risk result in opportunities

Since ISO 9001:2015, all the Risk mentality was incorporated into ISO, including the fact that Risks are not only negative, but also POSITIVE risks, also called Opportunities.


But ISO 9001 already had for a long time used the term Opportunity for Improvement, the OFI.

Is there any REAL, tangible relation between them? Should the identification of a positive risk create an OFI? Or should we not even consider Positive Risks, just create an OFI if a risk is positive?


Without much analysis, it seems to be both are a little different, in that OFIs would be used for smaller things, sometimes almost like "suggestions for improvement".

While a Positive Risk (opportunity) would be more formal, maybe on a more strategic level. With maybe analysis of a trigger of the event, probability, impact, etc.

Any insight into this?

Roger

I'm doing it very easy in this way:In swot, got negative and positive
For Negative I created a procedure for the management, on where I consider ,Risk value, R= PxI probability and impact, depending of the
value I define action plans. and do the following, the residuaal risk evaluation and the closeout if applicable.
For positive, I manage what I call improvement projects, in this way if an opportunity emerges, this project is shown
to top management and is evaluated if it is convenient or not, giving him data like: cost of investment, benefits, timeframe, etc.
But OFIs not neccessarily are small things, consider 9.3, f Opportunities for improvements, in here, is very common the
need of "Big Things".
But don´t worry too much on this, since the standard is not too clear, just define a simple criteria and put it to run.

Hope this helps
Hurry up to clear up this issue, haven´t you had recent audits, Have the audits detected Nonconformities on this issue?

 

[Mike S.]

I agree with Bev and Jim. ISO continues to add complexity and confusion with newer revisions instead of reduce it. Before ISO started down this "positive risk" road, everyone knew what a risk was and everyone knew what an opportunity was, and everyone knew that opportunities had varying degrees of risk associated with them.

There are other areas of society where commonly used words with clear meaning are being pushed aside for alternate words and terms, and the added complexity and confusion is deliberate. I hate it wherever it shows up.

 

[Jim Wynne]

This is of a piece with the idea that efforts to prevent recurrence of a nonconformity can't be referred to as preventive action.

 

[rogerpenna]

Hi Jim. Isn´t the difference that preventive action is meant to prevent RECURRENCE, which the Risk management process would INCLUDE trying to prevent things that did not happen, and may or may not happen?

Example: supplier did not deliver product. Non conformity, you work after the event to garantee that the supplier will deliver the product next time, or change supplier, etc.

Example 2: Suplier is delivering all products very well. But you get info that they have financial problems and may go bankrupt soon, and if that happens, you have a big problem in your hands. There is no non conformity here. So it would not be a preventive action. But you see there is a risk, so you create a plan B to mitigate the impact (if supplier stops delivering the materials because they went out of business, you immediately change to another supplier, maybe a little more expensive, but the deal is already triggered, so you lose a couple of days of deliveries at most, instead of weeks)

 

[Bev D]

this is gonna be good...

 

[Jim Wynne]

Hi Jim. Isn´t the difference that preventive action is meant to prevent RECURRENCE, which the Risk management process would INCLUDE trying to prevent things that did not happen, and may or may not happen?

Example: supplier did not deliver product. Non conformity, you work after the event to garantee that the supplier will deliver the product next time, or change supplier, etc.

Example 2: Suplier is delivering all products very well. But you get info that they have financial problems and may go bankrupt soon, and if that happens, you have a big problem in your hands. There is no non conformity here. So it would not be a preventive action. But you see there is a risk, so you create a plan B to mitigate the impact (if supplier stops delivering the materials because they went out of business, you immediately change to another supplier, maybe a little more expensive, but the deal is already triggered, so you lose a couple of days of deliveries at most, instead of weeks)

I don't want to shift the focus of this thread, but preventive action is generally limited to actions taken prior to the occurrence of a nonconformity, and corrective action is always post-occurrence. Actions taken to prevent recurrence aren't considered preventive action. Makes no sense, but that was my point vis a vis positive risk.