Marek Bidwell finds out whether the new structure for ISO standards is driving integration of management systems
Ever since organisations started implementing multiple management systems, the subject of integration has been on the agenda. Changes to the environment (ISO 14001) and quality (9001) management standards last year should make integration easier. Both apply the same structure, text and common terms and definitions for management system standards developed by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) in 2012. The forthcoming occupational health and safety management system, 45001, which is due out in October, will follow the same approach.
ISO said the new framework for a generic management system – known as annex SL – would ensure consistency among future and revised management system standards, and make integrated use simpler. So, is harmonisation of standards helping organisations to fuse their management systems?
To answer that, the environmentalist spoke with senior staff from three companies, each at a different stage on their journey to integration.
Starting point
Precision metal fabricator Hydram Engineering, whose clients include Caterpillar and Herman Miller, has certification to 14001 and 9001 as well as OHSAS 18001, the current standard for occupational health and safety. “We are about 25% integrated already,” says health, safety and environment (HSE) manager Andrew Robertson. “This includes integration of common processes, and in some instances sharing procedures between systems such as training, internal audit, document control and management review.”
As well as the integration of high-level system procedures, Hydram includes health, safety, environmental and quality (HSEQ) requirements in standard operating instructions, ranging from the type of protective equipment to be worn for a task to waste disposal arrangements. Staff, therefore, have one key document to refer to during production.
Wood Group Industrial Services, which provides a range of services from protective coatings to asbestos removal, has integrated its policy statements and systems manual, but Mark Glasper, group quality manager, wants to go further: “When I joined the business everyone was referring to our management system as an IMS [integrated management system], but when you dig a bit deeper it is a set of procedures located in the same place. However, some specific processes such as vendor assessment, which lend themselves towards integration, are joined up.”
Project development and construction company Skanska UK is composed of several distinct business streams, including the core disciplines of buildings and infrastructure, as well as more specialist services such as piling. “Historically, each of the business streams in the UK had its own set of management systems,” says Nigel Sagar, senior environmental compliance manager. “So about four years ago we wrote a system for the whole of the UK called ‘Our way of working’. It is structured around how we work [rather than one particular standard]. This was done over the space of a year, and bringing everyone together was quite a big cultural change for the business.”
Skanska’s approach takes the form of a funnel. At the open end it starts with strategic development and marketing; as the funnel narrows there is tendering, contract award and pre-construction; and finally design and build, and an operational phase if applicable. “So, although the group provides a diverse range of services, all use a common process, and that includes common forms,” says Sagar. “Our way of working is as integrated as we can make it, covering all parts of our UK business and across 9001, 14001 and 18001.”
Driving closer integration
The 2015 versions of 14001 and 9001 were restructured around the same 10 sections (see panel, below). Given where the three companies featured are with developing integrated management systems, do they think annex SL will result in more widespread harmonisation?
“Annex SL is an exciting development because it is something we have been wanting to do for a long time, and I believe this is the catalyst that will lead us down this route rather than be forced into it,” says Barry Edgar, quality manager at Hydram Engineering. “Because the same clauses are used in each standard, we will be able to integrate further and make the systems slicker.”
Glasper agrees: “I certainly think it can help. A few years ago integration guidelines were published in the form of PAS 99 [a specification for integrated management systems], but annex SL makes it easier.”
Although Skanska UK has already integrated as much as it can, Sagar says: “Annex SL is fantastic. It is just common sense and it’s good to see standards now coming together like this.”
On the benefits of system integration for Skanska UK, he says: “We have process maps on the intranet where everyone can access system information. Reporting forms are harmonised, making it much easier for the environment department to identify trends in performance across Skanska’s business streams. And because different parts of the business often work together on joint ventures, an integrated approach provides managers with instantly recognisable documents in different parts of the business.”
Glasper recognises that closer integration of assurance activities at Wood Group would bring benefits. “We do a lot of project audits and walk-arounds, and health and safety tends to be the top of most clients’ agendas and takes the lead,” he says. “But we could benefit from dovetailing these with environmental checks along with common requirements such as calibration and competence. This would open up new audit trails.”
The only barriers Glasper foresees to closer integration of systems would be time and resources. “If top management think the systems are working well as they stand, they may say: ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’.”
All of those interviewed agree that there are specific elements of HSEQ that do not readily lend themselves to integration, and remain separate in their systems. Hydram Engineering carries out quality risk assessment for many of its processes, which is known as process failure mode effect analysis (PFMEA). This uses a specific methodology and scoring system but the company sees no benefit in attempting to combine it with HSE risk assessments. Wood Group specialisies in coatings, and employs dedicated technicians who carry out a range of quality controls checks during each application.
New requirements
Many of the requirements in annex SL are new for both 14001 and 9001. These include context of the organisation, interested parties, risk and opportunities, ecodesign and more prescriptive requirements for outsourcing. Is there merit in addressing these new requirements in an integrated way?
Project engineer Peter McAuley has been working on the transition to 14001: 2015 at Hydram Engineering. On understanding the organisation and its context, he says: “The main tool we have used is SWOT [strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats] analysis. The environment, health and safety manager and myself sat down with the managing director and identified a range of issues that are just as applicable to health and safety and quality as they are to environment. For example, there is an opportunity to grow the business into new markets, but this presents potential challenges in terms of assuring quality for things we haven’t worked on before, along with new environmental and health and safety risks. A potential threat is the use of the rare earth element tungsten for tooling. If there was a lack of tungsten available, it would certainly affect quality, but also potentially have safety and environmental implications.”
Robertson adds: “The action plan for mitigating these risks and driving improvements at Hydram is integrated across the three standards and with our business planning process, as we have a continual improvement manager.”
Although Hydram Engineering is not intending to transfer to 9001: 2015 for a year or two, the quality manager expects that this planning process will directly contribute to the 9001 transition, subject to a review and update.
Skanska believes it is in a good position as a result of its five-year business plan. Sagar says: “Over the past 12 months there have been various people working on it, including the environmental team. We carried out PESTLE [political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental] and SWOT analysis that identified a range of environmental risks and opportunities and stakeholders. The identification and management of risks and opportunities is also integrated at a project level using the construction project environmental risk register, which considers issues ranging from the quality of raw materials to the presence of asbestos.”
More generally, Sagar sees 14001: 2015 as an opportunity to engage more with the rest of business, from procurement to design. Before the revised standard for environment management systems was released, Skanska had developed an environmental design tool, called the Skanska “color palette”, to measure and guide the company’s performance on its sustainability strategy (see the environmentalist October 2011 for more details – bit.ly/1Nr7FzL).
The framework is used to guide project teams on integrating environmental sustainability and focuses on four priority areas: energy, carbon, materials and water. The palette informs the procurement process for materials. “To move across the green section of the colour palette, the first stepping stone for sustainable materials is product transparency, and that is asking the product or material supplier a range of questions,” says Sagar. These questions include: What’s in it? Where did it come from? What are the impacts?
The company has prioritised the materials and products that it looks at. These include timber, steel, aggregates, concrete, cement, plasterboard and high-quality stone. To embed the use of sustainable materials throughout the business, Skanska has developed training courses on use of the palette as well as lifecycle costing.
However, for the procurement process as a whole, environment is just one of many considerations that include value and performance. “We can use concrete with a very high recycled content. We take the highest we can source without having an impact on performance and durability,” says Sagar.
Hydram Engineering has identified that the enhanced focus on the control of outsourced processes in the 2015 versions of both the environment and quality standards will require the firm to review and update its process for outsourcing metal preparation and finishing work. “There is a lot of work to do on that, and the changes to 9001 and 14001 will drive us down that route,” says Edgar.
Realignment
The alignment of the ISO management standards received a unanimous welcome from the five professionals the environmentalist interviewed. All of them say the changes will aid their goal of closer integration between HSEQ (and potentially other) systems or reinforce work they have already done.
They reveal encouraging examples of the integration of HSEQ requirements, such as continual improvement, design and purchasing, with core business processes and engagement with non-HSEQ personnel. Perhaps it is a sign that management systems are coming of age and becoming recognised and accepted by directors as a tool for achieving business objectives.
Examples of core text in annex SL
5.1 Leadership and commitment
“Top management shall demonstrate leadership and commitment with respect to the XXX management system by…”
9.2 Internal audit
9.2.1 “The organisation shall conduct internal audits at planned intervals to provide information on whether the XXX management system:…”
Where the text XXX appears the appropriate reference should be inserted, such as quality or environment. Additional text and clauses may be added specific to the discipline.
This text can be downloaded free from ISO’s website and is found on pp.127–37 of ISO/IEC directives, part 1 consolidated ISO supplement – procedures specific to ISO (bit.ly/1lRF1hM).
Annex SL – the 10 common clauses
Clause 1:
Scope
Clause 2:
Normative references
Clause 3:
Terms and definitions
Clause 4:
Context of the organisation
Clause 5:
Leadership
Clause 6:
Planning
Clause 7:
Support
Clause 8:
Operation
Clause 9:
Performance evaluation
Clause 10:
Improvement
Defining integration
In the context of management systems, integration can mean:
- Integration of common processes between systems, such as health and safety, environment and quality.
- Integration of processes between different sites or parts of an organisation.
- Integration of health and safety, environment and quality requirements with core business processes – it is a requirement for top management to do this in clause 5.1 of ISO 14001: 2015 and 9001: 2015.
