 |
 |
|
 |
Is capability all that matters?
By David Powley - DNV Certification
The capability of personnel is given much attention in the
various management system specifications but there are other issues having
an impact on the ability of personnel to perform their functions in such
a way as to minimise risks to quality, environmental and safety &
health (QUESH) management.
presents the issues from an Auditor’s perspective.
The management system specifications ISO 9001 (clause 6.2), ISO 14001
(clause 4.4.2) and OHSAS 18001 (clause 4.4.2) have clear stipulations
to ensure that relevant personnel are capable in 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 to quality, environment or safety
& health. Although not explicit, the specifications infer requirements
to ensure personnel capability on entry into the organisation or when
moving from one role to another. Third-party Auditors (TPA’s) of
management systems for QESH certainly consider capability assurance during
their audits and, for the most part, find that most organisations handle
this activity well. Furthermore, TPA’s are witness to many investigations
of undesired events or conditions (such as customer complaints, accidents,
incidents, legal breaches etc) where it is concluded that there was a
lack of capability on the part of personnel connected with these events.
However, capability cannot be the only determinant to consider.
There are probably far more authoritative and detailed accounts on this
subject but simplistically put – 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 experience, qualifications, education, training, intelligence etc.
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 etc. These are often termed ‘human
factors’. Availability is simply an aggregation of the amount of
time allowed to perform a function which in turn relates to amount of
work to perform and the working methods.
The first determinant capability, as indicated above, is covered well
by the management system specifications. The third determinant, availability,
can be said to be covered by the specifications in the need to apply sufficient
human resource but would an Auditor or the organisation being audited
give due recognition to this? But nowhere in the specifications is there
a hint that a management system should bother itself with reliability
of personnel.
What does this mean for third-party Auditors (TPA) and the organisations
that they audit?
Without looking at all of the statistics of non-conformances found at
third party audits (were that ever possible) it would be unlikely that
a significant number would direct the cause toward deficiencies in availability
and reliability. For cases of lack of availability this is not excusable
where it is deserved. Some organisations are deluding themselves into
thinking that, without other investments or alterations, fewer people
performing the tasks of a larger workforce would not create more risk.
A TPA has a duty to highlight this. The need for human resource sufficiency
is after all in the specifications. However it is excusable for a TPA
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 a TPA can do is produce an observation in the
report and only then when ‘on solid ground’.
In the case of an organisation being audited (by a TPA) 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 were
the case it can result in ineffective ‘cop-out’ 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 TPA 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 the
most outrageously sub-standard acts due to their lack of reliability or
the fact that they had insufficient time. The factors reliability and
availability must sit alongside of capability in importance in risk management.
There may be others but their importance could not diminish this trinity.
It is important for Auditors and Operators of management systems to give
appropriate recognition to them.
| David Powley is a well recognised and highly experienced
integrated management systems Auditor and Trainer with DNV Certification.
He is the author of numerous articles on management systems for
quality, environment and health and safety. DNV Certification is
one of the world’s leading certification bodies/registrars
offering the latest in management systems certification services.
With more than 49,000 certificates issued worldwide, our name evokes
a strong commitment to safety, quality, and concern for the environment.
DNV recently launched Risk Based Certification™, a fresh approach
to auditing. For further information on Risk Based Certification
or any other service DNV offer please visit www.dnv.co.uk/certification
or call 020 7716 6543.
|
top of page |
|
