Category Archives: Annex SL

Annex SL, Human Resources, Metrics, Quality Tools

Metrics 2 – How To’sday

Leave a comment

Mouse MetricsLast How To’sday we introduced the topic of metrics and half of the Why of it – namely, “because it makes sense”.

This week, the other Why, “because it’s required” is covered – it means putting a little more focus on Objectives, but metrics are at the core of that.

Lastly, we’ll make a good start at examples of metrics by looking at a typical suite of HR measureables.

Where are the Requirements?

Within 9001:2008

Let’s start with ISO 9001:2008 as it is representative of the requirement within several other standards. Mainly, there’s this:

4.2 Documentation requirements
4.2.1 General
The quality management system documentation shall include

a) documented statements of a quality policy and quality objectives,
b) a quality manual…

This section requires that objectives be documented, and by documented this means according to the methods described in 4.2.3 Control of documents.

So, objectives are in the same documentation category as your Quality Manual, the Quality Policy and all of the required procedures as stated in the standard.

I thought we were talking about metrics? As covered in the last installment, metrics are the method by which performance to an objective is measured. Can’t discuss objectives, without touching metrics.

5.4.1 Quality objectives
Top management shall ensure that quality objectives, including those needed to meet requirements for product…, are established at relevant functions and levels within the organization. The quality objectives shall be measurable and consistent with the quality policy.

One key point here is, “established at relevant functions and levels within the organization“. So, if a function doesn’t have at least one objective, an organization would have to make the claim that the function isn’t relevant. If it isn’t relevant – why is it there?

And to underscore the point of what a metric is, the section also contains, “The quality objectives shall be measurable“.

I do realize that may present a slight contradiction to what is stated in ISO 9000:2005 (Definitions) as it says, under the term (3.5.1) distinguishing feature (a component of an objective), “A characteristic can be qualitative or quantitative.”

We’ll have to assume that a qualitative characteristic is measurable. I guess that’s what adjectives are for. Don’t worry, that potential disconnect is the least of your worries.

These Metrics are Out of Control

Objectives are built into PDCA

Also, within 9001:2008 is a discussion of the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) process. In the description of “Plan” it states:

“establish the objectives and processes necessary to deliver results in accordance with customer requirements and the organization’s policies.”

And for “Check”, it adds:

“monitor and measure processes and product against policies, objectives and requirements for the product and report the results.”

Clearly, for an organization to be compliant with ISO 9001:2008, it must conform to the model presented by PDCA – a major component of the current version. Establishing objectives and monitoring performance against them via metrics is then a key management system component.

Annex SL

For the future, it’s wise to look toward Annex SL as a guide as this will cover many sectors – and it is built into the next version of ISO 9001.

Where is says, “XXX” it means “Insert management system nomenclature of choice here” – such as “Environmental” or “Quality” or “Safety“, etc.

6.2 XXX objectives and planning to achieve them
The organization shall establish XXX objectives at relevant functions and levels. The XXX objectives shall

  • be consistent with the XXX policy
  • be measurable (if practicable)
  • take into account applicable requirements
  • be monitored
  • be communicated, and
  • be updated as appropriate.

Nearly the same as 9001:2008, right? Those bullets are, with the exception of the last, accounted for within the current text in several places.

There’s a few helpful Notes further down the section as well:

NOTE 1 to entry:   An objective can be strategic, tactical, or operational.

NOTE 2 to entry: Objectives can relate to different disciplines (such as financial, health and safety, and environmental goals) and can apply at different levels (such as strategic, organization-wide, project, product and process (3.12)). 

NOTE 3 to entry:   An objective can be expressed in other ways, e.g. as an intended outcome, a purpose, an operational criterion, as an XXX objective or by the use of other words with similar meaning (e.g. aim, goal, or target).

Some Actual Metrics

Here’s a look at the possibilities. Not all of these are suitable for all organizations and the list isn’t exhaustive.

And, just like more rivets won’t make an airplane stronger, the full collection isn’t something to “strive for”. Some of these may even be mutually exclusive.

In no particular order – Here we go!

Human Resources

Timing related

  • Days to orientation training: Assumes must be done within X days,
  • Other required training completed on-time
  • Reviews done: (percentage)
  • Reviews late

Training Related

  • Percentage of required training completed: Forces a clearer definition of training requirements
  • Pass/Fail rate for verification of effectiveness: Are some methods better than others; can they be made better? Should everyone pass every time?
  • Trainer/Training satisfaction indexes: Are some trainings better than others… Ask the students.

Recruitment related

  • Interviews to offers ratio: Provides a measure of how efficient recruitment is. Track by manager to get data across departments, and which managers might need help.
  • Referral rates by department: Part of the new hiring process or even the exit interview (in some cases) – “Would you recommend [your company] to a friend?” Better to make it a scale from 1-5, for example.
  • Percentage of hires by source: For your business, is Monster better than LinkedIn? And so-on.

Retention related

  • Retention rate by type of employee: What are the  mission critical roles, or the day-to-day “getting it done”, or the “can find this role anywhere” types? Are you better at retaining some levels over others?
  • Resignation rates by department:  Not necessarily a reflection of a bad manager, there may be other factors at work.
  • Overall Monthly Turnover Rate: The standard calculation goes:  (number of departures during month divided by the average number of employees during month) x 100 to get the rate).

Performance Related

  • Revenue per Employee: Simply total revenue divided by total number of employees.
  • Human Capital Cost: Pay + Benefits + Contingent Labor Cost / Full Time associates.
  • HR to Staff Ratio: Employees / Human Resources Team Members. Essential if you ever want to justify departmental expansion.
  • Promotion Rate:  Promotions / Headcount.
  • Overtime per Individual Contributor Headcount: Overtime Hours/Individual Contributor Headcount.
  • Employee Absence Rate: Number of days in month / (average number of employees during month x number of days).

Demographic Related

Hires that meet certain demographic characteristics can reflect a broad spectrum of requirements, policies and philosophies. These metrics are not a means toward discrimination, but as a tool to determine progress toward a goal or objective.

  • Percentage [Females, Military Service, Race] by Management Level:  Can be essential when bidding some government contracts and to fortify positions with a given quality policy.
  •  Average Age of Employees: Consider breaking this down by department, management level – or both.

Until Next Week!

I hope you were able to find something useful in the HR list of metrics. And, with some luck, you’ve gained a broader understanding of why we need metrics at all.

Next week we’ll look at the other main departments within a typical organization – along with additional rationale behind their implementation.

Thanks again for reading.

Sal

14001:2015, Annex SL, ISO, ISO 14001

DIS 14001:2015 Review – Definitions 2

Leave a comment

DIS 14001 was released last week. Its arrival is another step toward ISO 14001:2015, scheduled for sometime next year. I’ve been reviewing it against the current 2004 version and there are some interesting changes.

Last post covered the first half of the Definitions section where the same words exist between DIS 14001 and 2004 – but they have either different meanings, or are augmented by different notes.

And, along with the release schedule for ISO 14001:2015, we looked at the overall structure, recognizing that DIS 14001 relies heavily on the basic skeleton of Annex SL.

In this part, coverage of the Definitions section continues, specifically of the new words.

Let’s get to it.

New words defined in DIS 14001

These are words that do not appear to be formally defined in the current version. Most of these do not show in Annex SL either, or I would not bring them up. Three fall into the latter category.

audit

Similar to “process” (below), audit is defined in Annex SL but not in 2004 – but there are differences in the notes in DIS 14001 (indicated in blue). Here is the whole piece for context:

3.28 – systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining audit evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled 

Note 1 to entry: An internal audit is conducted by the organization itself or by an external party on its behalf.

Note 2 to entry: An audit can be a combined audit (combining two or more disciplines).

Discussion: an aid to Registrars and organizations alike  as often ISO 9001 and 14001 are audited simultaneously. This should allow for some economies of scale during the audit process, such as not auditing Management Review twice; once for 14001 and again for 9001.

As an aside, and to those on the inside – I don’t know how this impacts MD5 (if at all).

Note 3 to entry: Independence can be demonstrated by the freedom from responsibility for the activity being audited or freedom from bias and conflict of interest.

Discussion: Another clarification as this concept has caused difficulties in the past. Folks often go “overboard” in this regard; disqualifying those who only have a peripheral association with a function.

Note 4 to entry: “Audit evidence” consists of verifiable records, statements of fact and other information relevant to the audit criteria, and “audit criteria” are the set of policies, procedures or requirements used as a reference against which audit evidence is compared, as defined in ISO 19011.

Discussion: A clarification based on numerous [mis]interpretations.

continual improvement

Just like “process” (below) and “audit” (above), continual improvement in DIS 14001 adds information in the notes that does not appear in either Annex SL or in 2004.

3.29 – recurring activity to enhance performance

Note 1 to entry: Enhancing performance relates to the use of the environmental management system in order to enhance environmental performance consistent with the organization’s environmental policy.

Note 2 to entry: The activity need not take place in all areas simultaneously, or without interruption.

compliance obligation

3.22 – requirement that an organization has to or chooses to comply with  Note 1 to entry: Obligations may arise from mandatory requirements, such as applicable laws and regulations, or voluntary commitments, such as organizational and industry standards, contractual relationships, principles of good governance and community and ethical standards.

[Source: ISO/DIS 19600:2014, 3.31]

environmental policy

3.6 –  intentions and direction of an organization as formally expressed by its top management related to environmental performance

Nothing in the 2004, and this DIS 14001 definition differs only slightly from that defined in Annex SL by preceding it with “environmental and adding “related to environmental performance” to the end.

indicator

3.33 – measurable representation of the condition or status of operations, management or conditions

[SOURCE: ISO 14031:2013, 3.15]

life cycle

3.15 – consecutive and interlinked stages of a product system, from raw material acquisition or generation from natural resources to end-of-life treatment Note 1 to entry: Life cycle includes activities, products, and services and may include procured goods and services, as well as end-of-life treatment of products and delivery of services, for example, design, manufacture, transport, packaging and end-use or disposal.

[Source: ISO 14044:2006, 3.1, modified ― refer to ‘end-of-life treatment’, not ‘final disposal’, Note 1 to entry was added].

process

I would not have included this as new even though it doesn’t appear in 2004 because it is covered in Annex SL – however it does add a note; so I’ve added it in this section.

3.26 – set of interrelated or interacting activities which transforms inputs into outputs

Note 1 to entry: Processes can be documented or not.

Until next time

There’s your review of the changes in DIS 14001 relative to the overall contents and, mostly, the Definitions section. Next post I’ll cover another section of the DIS standard, or two.

Thanks  for stopping by!

Sal

P.S. While this is my own independent blog, I would be remiss if I did not point out that if your company is in fact starting down the path to Certification, regardless of the standard, and are in need of a Registrar – I happen to know a great organization that does that kind of thing: Start here at TUV USA (part of TUV Nord).

Mention my name, please – so they’ll think I’ve been up to something useful in my spare time.

 

14001:2015, Annex SL, ISO, ISO 14001, Registration

DIS 14001:2015 Review – Definitions 1

Leave a comment

DIS 14001 was released on July 1st and it represents the latest iteration of the Environmental Standard. I’ve been reviewing it against the current 2004 version and there are some interesting changes.

This first part covers the overall contents, but primarily looks at how the Definitions section has evolved.

Timeline for ISO 14001:2015

First, a quick timeline summary of the process; actual and planned. DIS 14001 As you may notice, the Final Draft International Standard – FDIS was due originally at the beginning of this year. Didn’t happen.

So, I don’t think it’s likely that the actual release of ISO 14001:2015 will occur in January. I’m thinking September, 2015. Then, as with other standards roll-outs, there will be a transition period of up to sixteen months or so, while existing Certifications move to the new standard at their Surveillance and reCertification audits.

New Certifications typically have a timeframe where the client has a choice in revisions, depending on where they started their process.

Table of contents section of DIS 14001

First thing you’ll notice – the Contents section – huge.  HUGE I tell ya. Where the now familiar 2004 has thirteen humble lines, the DIS has, oh… two pages of lines. Audacity.

And it is clearly compliant with Annex SL. Don’t know what that is? We’ve got two great posts with details – here – and here.

Those who are familiar with Annex SL will have an easy time understanding new standards’ releases in the coming years. In actuality, most of what is changed in DIS 14001 can be easily grasped if Annex SL is understood.  

Again, this is true for most of the upcoming management systems standards; updated and new. 

Definitions section of DIS 14001

There are twenty definitions in the 2004 version, versus thirty-three definitions in the DIS. Of the thirty-three, eleven are both specific to 14001 and new or different in the DIS than in the 2004 version. So, using the power of maths, about two-thirds of the Definitions are built right into the structure of DIS 14001 – courtesy of Annex SL.

Because Annex SL is the new structure for multiple standards, I won’t review what is defined there. If it isn’t in 2004 but is in the DIS I will list it below – with three exceptions.

Same word, different definitions

Thomas, prior to man age.

These are terms defined one way in the 2004 version, and another in DIS 14001. Nothing as blatant as say, the word “Hello” – which was once a exclamation of surprise (thank you, Thomas Edison. See, he wasn’t so bad), or “Manage” which once meant, literally, “the age at which one became a man” (thankfully Sheryl Sandberg never read a vintage dictionary).

But I digress… the differences are subtle, but important because they do illustrate a shift in focus. A focus toward identifying [Annex SL] risks, for one.

environmental aspect

Discussion: DIS 14001 adds “or can interact”. This implies – again – a consideration of risks and the first note does this as well. That second new note, likely closes a loophole present in the current version by forcing the organization to have a rationale for decision making. Here is the text for your own comparison. I’ll use this “Discussion – DIS 14001 – 2004” format for the other definitions, too.

DIS 14001
3.9 – element of an organization’s activities or products or services that interacts or can interact with the environment

Note 1 to entry: An environmental aspect can cause (an) environmental impact(s). A significant environmental aspect is one that has or can have a significant environmental impact.

Note 2 to entry: Significant environmental aspects are determined by the organization applying one or more criteria.

2004
 3.6 – element of an organization’s activities or products or services that can interact with the environment

NOTE A significant environmental aspect has or can have a significant environmental impact.

environmental management system

Discussion: The reference to policy is removed in DIS 14001, and risk is integrated along with threats and opportunities. The management of environmental aspects remains the same. The full text of both is below.

DIS 14001
3.4 – part of the management system used to manage environmental aspects, conform to compliance obligations, and address risk associated with threats and opportunities

2004
3.8 – EMS – part of an organization’s management system used to develop and implement its environmental policy and manage its environmental aspects 

environmental objective

Discussion: I’m going to miss, “sets itself to achieve” it was almost English.

DIS 14001
3.17 – objective set by the organization consistent with the environmental policy

2004
3.9 – overall environmental goal, consistent with the environmental policy, that an organization sets itself to achieve

environmental performance

Discussion: Some quibbling about what “performance” is here; DIS 14001 translating it to “measurable results”. The rest is very similar, adding “environmental targets” – do not miss the “and” that replaces the “or”; I believe this closes a loophole of sorts.

DIS 14001
3.13 – performance related to the management of environmental aspects

Note 1 to entry: In the context of environmental management systems, results can be measured against the organization’s environmental policy, environmental objectives or other criterion, using indicators.

2004
3.10 – measurable results of an organization’s management of its environmental aspects

NOTE In the context of environmental management systems, results can be measured against the organization’s environmental policy, environmental objectives, environmental targets and other environmental performance requirements.

Nonconformity

DIS 14001 
While the definition remains the same between the 2004 version and the DIS (and Annex SL), there is an added:

Note 1 to entry: Nonconformity relates to compliance obligations, including requirements in this International Standard and additional environmental management system requirements that an organization establishes for itself.

Until next time

I’ve covered what Definitions have changed between the two versions, next post I’ll review the new terms.

A copy of your very own DIS 14001 can be purchased – here at ISO.org (I feel sheepishly obliged to tell you I’m not financially connected to them).

Thanks  for stopping by!

Sal

P.S. While this is my own independent blog, I would be remiss if I did not point out that if your company is in fact starting down the path to Certification, regardless of the standard, and are in need of a Registrar – I happen to know a great organization that does that kind of thing: Start here at TUV USA (part of TUV Nord).

Mention my name, please – so they’ll think I’ve been up to something useful in my spare time.