An analysis by Professor Olivier Boiral of the Faculty of Business Administration at University of Laval in Canada provides useful pointers on how to successfully implement a management standard such as ISO 45001. From 189 interviews with managers, environmental and quality specialists, and employees working in organisations certified to ISO 9001 or ISO 14001 (or both) Boiral identified the most significant pitfalls – and success factors. We will look at what Boiral found, alongside the experience of successful practitioners who have enjoyed the success of accreditation.
Boiral identified that over 70% of interviewees’ responses on implementation pitfalls fell into five main categories, as shown in Figure 1.
Implementation pitfalls
Inappropriate or excessive documentation
Lack of follow-up and system continuity
Search for commercial certification
Insufficient resources
Externalisation of implementation
Figure 1: Olivier Boiral Analysis - Implementation Pitfalls
4.1 Inappropriate or excessive documentation
Boiral explains that “documentation tended to be perceived as a necessary evil rather than a means of clarifying and safeguarding good practice.”
For Sarah Roper, the key to avoiding excessive bureaucracy and paperwork is to look for opportunities to combine documents. “By getting documents from all sites onto the same system, we could identify the gaps and overlaps, and see where documents could be shared.”
Declan McLogan also focusses on the need to reduce duplication. “We constantly ask project managers and site managers if it’s possible to remove duplication. Having streamlined procedures for reporting through an app helps with that.”
For Graham, technology was a key part of avoiding this pitfall “Having all the risk assessments online and being able to clone existing risk assessments to produce new tailored risk assessments, while maintaining control over versions has been a great benefit.
I shudder to think of the mountain of paperwork we would be managing if we were still doing risk assessments on paper.”
Whilst an accreditation system done badly can create more paperwork, more meetings, more bureaucracy, done well it should reduce paperwork, meetings and bureaucracy, and give greater certainty that risks are being controlled.
4.2 Lack of follow-up and system continuity
Boiral explains that managers did admit that “while many organisations are fully compliant with ISO system requirements during the certification audit, they do not necessarily remain so afterward. This was a problem where implementation was “too fast, too superficial or too steep in formalities.” As one manager explained “A system that kicks into action once a year for audits will never provide concrete benefits.” Boiral recommends “regular audits” to sustain momentum.
Sarah explains how having a cloud-based system has made it easier to maintain the system, and to provide benefits all year around:
“When it was suggested elsewhere in the ELG Utica Alloys group that each site should carry out 24 audits a year, other managers were surprised to hear that we already carry out 68 audits a year. The software makes it easy to timetable, carry out and report on audits, such that they are no big deal to the staff or managers.
I’m not worried when a client or our external auditor is coming in to audit – it’s business as usual for our staff.
Regular, quick audits keep us compliant all year around, and allow any issues to be identified early and nipped in the bud.”
Sarah adds “It would be a nightmare to carry out that many audits without software.”
4.3 Search for commercial certification
Another aspect of superficiality identified by Boiral was where organisations aspired to accreditations only for the marketing benefits, rather than “as a means of improving in-house practices.” He comments “Organisations were tempted to pay lip service to the rhetoric of ISO certification without really trying to improve or question their internal practices.”
It is clear from Graham’s comments that his MD wanted more than a piece of paper – he didn’t want to receive the type of phone call his friend had received informing him of a death at work. Although Declan was keen to be first amongst the ISO 45001 certifications, certification was a recognition of the work already carried out, not an end in itself. Declan warns:
“Don't jump into it for the sake of having it - we were ready, but if you're not ready it’s a lot of work.”
For Sarah, considering quality and safety at the same time ensure that the process was about improving internal practices, not just about accreditation.
“Documenting how and when we do plant maintenance helped us to meet the standards, but was also a benefit for production. It was a win-win.”
4.4 Insufficient resources
Boiral explains that “lack of human, financial and temporal resources ... are likely to result in cursory completion followed by employee resistance once the system is in place.” Sarah overcame both the resourcing issue, and the employee resistance, by involving the whole workforce in the process from the start.
“As everyone could access the software for producing and reviewing risk assessments, procedures and so on, everyone could be involved, with the system chasing actions.”
For Declan resources were never a problem
“Leadership commitment means I get resources when I need them. The MD and the leadership team have been behind us from the start, and provided the budget for the software, and for the audit process.”
Graham did find resourcing a problem initially, because of other changes occurring in the organisation at the same time. Boiral recommends a longer timescale where resources are a problem, so that the experience can be “a collective learning process” with time to identify scope and objectives to “rally employees to the cause” and to “establish an efficient team to implement the system.”
4.5 Externalisation of the implementation process
Organisations sometimes turn to external consultants to overcome the resource problems in-house. As Boiral points out, leaving accreditation to external consultants can “create management systems which look fine on paper but which... are poorly adapted to organisational needs.”
Buying a software system might seem like an unnecessary expense, but for our practitioners, it was one of the tools that enabled them to keep the process in-house. Sarah was recruited specifically to move the organisation towards certification. This gave ELG Utica Alloys the benefits of external expertise, along with the benefits of someone who could take the time to adapt the system to the organisation – and would have to make it last.
“Having a software solution meant we could do smaller, more frequent audits, to get better insights on which to build the system.”
“This disconnect can also create management systems which look fine on paper but which, from a practical standpoint, are poorly adapted to organisational needs.”
Boiral, 2011