Any public copies of the DRAFT out there such as with 9001?
What is the status of the next version of ISO 14001?
- Thread starter Timothy1
- Start date
Dr. L. Ramakrishnan
Moderator
Dear Marc,
I downloaded a copy from the IEMA site (www.iema.net); I could access the copy as a Fellow of IEMA. I am not sure if it is available to the public from the site. The document, of course, is copyrighted.
With kind regards,
Ramakrishnan
I downloaded a copy from the IEMA site (www.iema.net); I could access the copy as a Fellow of IEMA. I am not sure if it is available to the public from the site. The document, of course, is copyrighted.
With kind regards,
Ramakrishnan
L
LEJoh
The committee responsible for ISO 14001 is in the middle of the revision process. The last meeting was June/July and the next meeting is set for the beginning of October (2013).
There will be major changes to the standard, both in form and content. There will be new requirements.
How many users are aware of the new structure being pushed by ISO TMB? This structure has been called the HLS (high level structure) and is now captured as Annex SL in the ISO Directives, Part 2. You can download this for free from the ISO site and review it.
For some, the appearance of the HLS (high level structure) is a visual move away from PDCA. For some it means more than just a visual move. How many users have read Annex SL? I would be very interested in hearing from those who have read it. Do you see this structure as adding value? Or not?
There will be major changes to the standard, both in form and content. There will be new requirements.
How many users are aware of the new structure being pushed by ISO TMB? This structure has been called the HLS (high level structure) and is now captured as Annex SL in the ISO Directives, Part 2. You can download this for free from the ISO site and review it.
For some, the appearance of the HLS (high level structure) is a visual move away from PDCA. For some it means more than just a visual move. How many users have read Annex SL? I would be very interested in hearing from those who have read it. Do you see this structure as adding value? Or not?
There are numerous threads here on the Cove that touch on this very subject, some of which are:
The Future Structure of ISO Management System Standards
Annex SL - Format for Future ISO Management System Standards
ISO 9001:2015 Draft - Status
ISO 9001:2008 to ISO 9001:2015 - Changes Discussion
What should be changed in the ISO 9001:2015 Standard?
If anything, the new HLS structure will likely further support the PDCA methodology, not move away from it. That is a major focal point of the harmonization effort. Having said that, I believe that this structure will add tremendous value when implemented properly, even more so over time as people get acclimated to the new requirements. The amount of value it will bring will likely come down to how synchronized the interpretations are between various sectors of industry. Standards have been known to be fallible in that regard, so we shouldn't expect perfection in this release, just less ambiguity, which is always "easier said than done".
Brian
L
LEJoh
Well Brian,
Not everyone shares your enthusiasm for the HLS (high level structure). In fact over 14 multi-nationals in the automotive industry share an entirely different view. There are others who view the HLS as undermining a systems concept. Some even have gone so far as to believe that this will devolve ISO MSS.
However, I am always interested in learning from differing positions. Can you show me how the HLS (high level structure) "will further support the PDCA methodology"? A diagram? An explanation?
Thanks
Not everyone shares your enthusiasm for the HLS (high level structure). In fact over 14 multi-nationals in the automotive industry share an entirely different view. There are others who view the HLS as undermining a systems concept. Some even have gone so far as to believe that this will devolve ISO MSS.
However, I am always interested in learning from differing positions. Can you show me how the HLS (high level structure) "will further support the PDCA methodology"? A diagram? An explanation?
Thanks
B
Boingo-boingo
Would it be possible for you to expand on the automotive OEM's not supporting the ISO HLS? These people obviously have representation at the ISO TC's 176 and 207, responsible, respectively for the ISO 9001, TS 16949 and 14001 standards.
We have yet to hear anything official about the future version of TS 16949, i.e., will it follow the 9001 and HLS lead, or not.
The fact that the ISO TMB allowed the TC 210 to move forward with a (much delayed) ISO 13485 revision NOT FOLLOWING the HLS is worrisome, in my opinion because it shows cracks in the ISO hierarchy and chain of command.
L
LEJoh
TS 16949 will NOT FOLLOW the HLS (high level structure).
My understanding is that the industry has chosen not to comment as an industry on 9001 or 14001, that is for the individual company to decide. Also, it is important to remember that ISO MSS are voluntary standards, an organization may choose to stay with 14001:2004 if it decides this is in its best interest.
I am providing here my own explanation of the message I have seen from the TMB. Annex SL is a "should-all', TMB would like all MSS to follow it, but understands the need for exceptions. Any deviation must include a rationale. It is not clear at the end of the day what TMB will do with these deviations. And, with your data on 13485, that makes TWO standards that will not follow the HLS. I expect there will be more.
In addition, there is some flexibility in how the HLS is applied - some versions I have seen will not make them user friendly documents, another ding in ISO's market. As it stands ISO has less than a 1% adoption globally against the stats for any MSS adoption when compared to the number of legally constituted employer-based entities in the world.
I don't think anyone would argue the logic and potential savings of a 'plug and play' approach where it enabled users of multiple standards, a simple framework on which to build an integrated system, whether it was for EMS, QMS, ENMS, or whatever. However, the extent to which those involved with drafting the HLS, in my personal view, went too far. In the 20 years of my involvement in writing and negotiating MS standards, and helping write guides for users and helping the development of EMS in entities, I have yet to have someone state that they could not integrate other ISO MS standards.
I had not heard about 13485, thanks for that data. Will investigate.
My understanding is that the industry has chosen not to comment as an industry on 9001 or 14001, that is for the individual company to decide. Also, it is important to remember that ISO MSS are voluntary standards, an organization may choose to stay with 14001:2004 if it decides this is in its best interest.
I am providing here my own explanation of the message I have seen from the TMB. Annex SL is a "should-all', TMB would like all MSS to follow it, but understands the need for exceptions. Any deviation must include a rationale. It is not clear at the end of the day what TMB will do with these deviations. And, with your data on 13485, that makes TWO standards that will not follow the HLS. I expect there will be more.
In addition, there is some flexibility in how the HLS is applied - some versions I have seen will not make them user friendly documents, another ding in ISO's market. As it stands ISO has less than a 1% adoption globally against the stats for any MSS adoption when compared to the number of legally constituted employer-based entities in the world.
I don't think anyone would argue the logic and potential savings of a 'plug and play' approach where it enabled users of multiple standards, a simple framework on which to build an integrated system, whether it was for EMS, QMS, ENMS, or whatever. However, the extent to which those involved with drafting the HLS, in my personal view, went too far. In the 20 years of my involvement in writing and negotiating MS standards, and helping write guides for users and helping the development of EMS in entities, I have yet to have someone state that they could not integrate other ISO MS standards.
I had not heard about 13485, thanks for that data. Will investigate.
B
Boingo-boingo
Wow. That is a big blow to ISO. Bigger than the API decision not to use ISO 9001 as the baseline version of the revision to the API Q1 (used to be the same as the ISO TS 29001 {petroleum petrochemical natural gas}) and the new API Q2.
Not all is well on the ISO front.....:mg:
Similar threads
