| |
ABSTRACT |
| |
The success
of management systems depends on the culture that exists
within the organisation. There is a natural tendency for
people to follow rules when they are being observed. The
tendency to slow down when you see a police car or a speed
camera can be noticed daily. Extending this to an industrial
site, employees tend to wear personal protective equipment
when they see a safety inspector as if the protective
equipment was meant to protect the safety inspector rather
than themselves. |
| |
In
order to ensure that there is a good culture within
an organisation, there must be commitment from the top
management. Not only should there be a commitment, this
must also be made evident. Top management has to set
the example for the management systems that they wish
to implement. For example, if there is a requirement
for wearing PPE, top management needs to set an example
that would foster greater attention. Where this is lacking,
the employees quickly get the message that the management
system is mere "lip service".
|
| |
The fact that visible support
by management exists does not by itself guarantee success.
No management system in the world can eliminate incidents.
They can and do contribute significantly to reducing the
probability of failure. Cultural change does not happen
overnight. It takes a long time to establish. However,
it does not take long to destroy a well-established management
system. |
| |
It is a myth that management
systems mean paperwork. But, unfortunately, the way companies
have designed systems and a large part of the auditing
fraternity have gone about its job, has made this myth
into reality. Management systems like ISO 9000/14000 or
OHSAS 18000 are meant to support the business by ensuring
that the business is conducted considering quality, environment,
safety and health. Unfortunately because of the way management
systems have been designed their apparent complexity are
driving rather than supporting the business. The goals
have changed to satisfying auditors and getting a piece
of paper to be hung at the reception area! |
| |
No one can establish a
management system without documentation. But tremendous
care needs to be taken to ensure that the documentation
supports the system, not drive it. It is simple logic.
The more complex the procedures and systems, and the number
of procedures, the less people will follow or implement
them. Simpler procedures and systems create a better chance
of implementation and success. |
| |
There is another myth that
management systems are a systematic method for quality,
environment, health and safety personnel to absolve their
responsibility. These personnel contribute little to the
overall company risk level compared to the production
and maintenance personnel. So it is not a question of
passing the buck, but ensuring accountability of line
managers for risk management. In fact the quality, environment,
health and safety personnel may be working themselves
out of their jobs, if they do a good job! |
| |
Unfortunately management
systems are being used more to apportion the blame rather
than being used as a tool for effective communication.
Consultation and communication are essential elements
of a successful management system. But, the process of
consultation and communication has to be with the intention
of improving performance rather than apportioning blame
if a management system is to be successful. |
| |
Another issue that has
perturbed companies and weaned them away from implementing
management systems is the audit process. Auditors, unfortunately,
have taken pride in the number of non-conformances they
raise as if this demonstrates their capability as auditors.
The fault-finding attitude results in weak programs because
people tend to hide or fudge information. This definitely
does not contribute to the success of management systems.
The objective of the audit should be fact finding and
contribution to improvements in the management system.
|
| |
Management systems are
intended to capture the experience of the company personnel
in constructive and useful procedures. This ensures that
in case employees leave the organisation, the organisation
does not suffer from the loss of experience gained by
those personnel. It also ensures that the management of
risk, whether it is quality, environment, health or safety,
are not dependent on failures or accidents but is kept
at a uniform level to minimise failures and accidents
through operational controls and training. |
| |
However, over the years
the difference between the myths and realities of management
systems has become blurred. What were once considered
as myths have become realities. This trend is quite worrying
as it is unproductive. Companies should not spend time,
money and resources to satisfy a few auditors and obtain
a nice certificate to hang on the wall. Rather the use
of management systems should be justified by the improvements
in the company performance. |
| |
Unless companies arrest
this dangerous trend, the utility value of management
systems is going to remain a myth rather than reality. |
| |
Contributed by Srinivasan
R,
Senior Consultant with NOVO Environmental technology
Services Pte. Ltd.
Phone 7779985. |
| |
|
