Is capability all that matters?
The capability of personnel is given much attention in the various management system specifications but there are other issues which have an impact on the ability of personnel to perform their functions in a way that minimizes risks to quality, environmental and health and safety (QESH) management. David Powley of DNV Certification brings the factors of reliability and availability into the equation
Capability of auditors
The management system specifications for ISO 9001 (clause 6.2), ISO 14001 (clause 4.4.2) and OHSAS 18001 (clause 4.4.2) have clear stipulations which aim to ensure that relevant personnel are capable of performing their functions. These stipulations include carrying out training needs assessments and then applying appropriate training and development as necessary, depending on the particular risk - whether it be in the area of quality, environment or health and safety.
Although not explicit, the specifications intimate that personnel capability should be ensured upon entry into the organization or when moving from one role to another. Third party auditors of management systems for QESH certainly consider capability assurance during their audits and, for the most part, find that most organizations handle this activity well. Furthermore, third-party auditors witness many investigations into undesired events or conditions (such as customer complaints, accidents, incidents, legal breaches etc) which conclude that there was a lack of capability on the part of connected personnel. However, capability is not the only determinant that should be considered.
Reliability and availability
Put simply, the likelihood of a person performing a task with minimal risk is determined by capability, reliability and availability.
Capability can be otherwise termed competence and is determined by factors such as experience, qualifications, education, training and intelligence.
Reliability - or dependability - is broad and is determined by many sub-factors, such as physical and mental well-being and health, fatigue, attitude, aptitude, personality, initiative and other sub-factors. Collectively these could all be termed 'human factors'.
Availability is simply an aggregation of the amount of time allowed to perform a function which in turn relates to the amount of work to perform and the working methods utilised.
A grey area.
The first determinant, capability, is covered well by the management system specifications. The third determinant, availability, can be said to be covered by the specifications in terms of the need to apply sufficient human resource, but would an auditor or the organization being audited give due recognition to this? Furthermore, nowhere in the specifications is there a hint that a management system should concern itself with the reliability of personnel. So what does this mean for third-party auditors and the organizations that they audit?
Without looking at all of the statistics of non-conformances found at third-party audits (were that possible) it would be unlikely that a significant number would be caused by deficiencies in availability and reliability. For cases of lack of availability this is not excusable where it is deserved. Some organizations are deluding themselves that, without other investments or alterations, fewer people performing the tasks of a larger workforce would not create more risk. A third-party auditor has a duty to highlight this. The need for human resource sufficiency is, after all, in the specifications.
However, it is excusable for an auditor to withhold issuance of non-conformities where reliability is deficient. It is difficult to assess and it is not covered in any of the specifications. The best an auditor can do is produce an observation in the report and only then when they are sure of their ground.
Considering all factors
In the case of an organization being audited for its ability to investigate undesired events and conditions, there should not be limitation on the number of likely causative factors to be considered. If this limitation occurs it can result in ineffective corrective action along the lines of applying more training when either no lack of training or competence existed, or even when the lack of competence had no causative effect on the event. It is as though a state of denial exists when other factors such as availability and reliability are not considered. Now, when a third-party auditor encounters such instances it is appropriate to declare a non-conformance, when deserved, on the basis that all factors are not being considered in the investigation.
It is possible that the most competent people can sometimes perform sub-standard acts due to their lack of reliability or the fact that they had insufficient time. The factors of reliability and availability must rank alongside capability in importance in risk management. It is vital for auditors and operators of management systems to give them the recognition they deserve.
About the author
David Powley is a principal lead IMS auditor for DNV Certification
ltd. He is also a chartered chemist and member of the Royal Society
of Chemistry and the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health.
He is a principal environmental auditor with the Institute of Environmental
Management Assessment, a registered lead auditor with the IRCA scheme
for QMSs and a lead verifier for the Eco-Management and Audit Scheme.
For more information go to www.dnv.com
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |