There are several opportunities about to be missed, but the most infuriating is the failure to learn specific lessons from the 2004 revision of ISO 14001 and the 2007 revision of OHSAS 18001. There have been a couple of things that have worked well with regard to these two standards that have had a very positive effect on user understanding of the continual improvement process
Point #1: The general structure of the standards
There has been an attempt in each of these standards to structure the clauses in a PDCA sequence. That has got to be a good thing. These standards start with high level aspects of policy and objectives, and end with internal audit and management review. Makes good sense and is particularly useful to new users. Is it right that standards are reviewed by a whole load of dyed in the wool auditors and consultants? Do they truly look at the standards with the new user in mind, and user-friendliness to the fore? Not sure
What is clear is that ISO 9001 has made no attempt to follow this very successful lead
Point #2: Objectives, targets and continual improvement
In point #1 we identified that ISO 9001 does itself no favours with regard to embedding PDCA as a key principle, in point #2 we'll see that it does the same with continual improvement
Here's an observation for you. Whenever we deliver a QMS lead audit training course we ALWAYS find that practicing ISO 14001 auditors have a far better grasp of how the process of continual improvement is driven (I'm talking about people like you, Neil from Liverpool). There's a reason for that. In ISO 14001 there is a clear, unambiguous and unmissable link between the improvement objectives and the management program. The ISO 14001 standard makes it almost impossible to overlook the fact that saying it doesn't make it happen, and emphasises in no uncertain terms that if we don't have a management program, we have a big problem. Clause 4.3.3 Objectives, targets and management program - you need them all, clear as day. Environmental auditors ask for one, then they ask to see the other - every time - and this is excellent practice
OHSAS 18001:2007 recognises this as a good practice (IT WORKS FOR GOD'S SAKE) and has followed the lead more or less to the letter. So we can expect similarly successful results with regard to OHSAS 18001:2007 implementation
So, ISO 9001: 2008? .... Don't be silly. Clause 5.4.2 (a) will remain the most over-looked and under-audited requirement. This critical piece of the continual improvement jigsaw retains the status of a peripheral after-thought in ISO 9001:2008. That will mean that organisations will continue to document the most barely measurable and aspirational "quality objectives" and not be held accountable for taking even half an additional step forward beyond that
There's another reason why this missed opportunity is inexcusable, and that is a failure to consider those many thousands of organisations who seek to integrate or align their QMS, EMS and OHS management systems. There is no good reason why the structure of all three standards could not easily be aligned with a view to making life a hell of a lot easier for those users taking the sensible step of moving towards an IMS
This might not work out quite so well for consultants, on the other hand, but should we care? ... Never mind, there's always 2016 ...
