“It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones. ” Niccolò Machiavelli
WHAT IS CHANGING?
Entering 2015 heralded a significant change in the management systems standards landscape providing more choice for organisations. New revised ISO standards will become available with the headings of the various fragmented management system standards aligned to what has been termed Annex SL making it easier to compare the requirements for managing different aspects of organisational performance. However, the content will remain non-integrated and as far as we know, ISO has expressed no intention of going any further. ISO 9001 will make the management of risk more explicit but how will need more guidance.
The intention of introducing the Annex SL structure was to help facilitate integrated management systems, which have tended to become the norm in recent years. A survey in conducted in 2012 indicated that 80% of respondent’s organizations already had an integrated management system or were intending to implement one. Standards bodies such as ISO tend to be reactive and not proactive in initiating progress.
Older non-aligned ISO and other standards body standards will remain available, at least until they are possibly withdrawn.
Some management system standards bodies have already taken a structure and process focused approaches rather than focusing on an isolated aspect of performance, such as product/service quality, occupational health and safety, environmental protection, data security, supply chain management, contingency planning etc. An example is the International Atomic Energy Agency, who merged their safety and quality series nuclear standards.
At the beginning of 2015, the CQI Integrated Management Special Interest Group published the world’s first universal management system standard that totally focuses on the structures and processes of the organisation and facilitates fully integrated management systems without boundaries. It is based on seventeen universal management principles that transcend the various silo disciplines. MSS 1000:2014 is a free and open source standard that may be downloaded via the CQI IMSIG web site: CQI IMSIG web site (top of list). The great strength of MSS 1000 is its simple and elegant hierarchical management topic taxonomy, which is shown in the above figure. This may be readily carried over into structuring a full IMS contained within only twelve top tier or middle tier management sections or procedures.
Generally up to now, organizations have been confronted with choices such as whether to have a formal management system and if so whether to go for an integrated management system. An integrated management system only implies combining at least two formal management systems that could potentially exist separately. Organizations now need to decide whether to adopt a universal management system standard for managing everything, and whether to go for a fully supporting universal management system standard that also covers managing all aspects of the organization embracing strategic, tactical and operational structures and processes. The next two sections will aid these decisions by exploring exactly what a management system is and its benefits.
WHAT IS A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM?
A management system is simply the organization’s overall or partial plan for how it is to be managed and operated in order to deliver its purpose, which is the supply of some kind of goods and/or services to satisfy customers. Put more formally, a management system is a set of formally defined intentions, principles, rules and guidance used to systematically manage an organization’s structures and processes to achieve its objectives. A management system can be primitive or very sophisticated and can even manage its own evolution based on feedback and analysis of customer and other stakeholder needs and expectations. All organizations, whatever their type and size, can benefit from an appropriate management system. As managing all aspects of change is critical to success, these processes also need to be included in the management system. While the prospect (positive risk) of change may be high there are nearly always associated risks requiring a systematic project based approach.
Everyone’s behaviour, within their respective roles, should be compliant with the management system and made aware during their induction, training and supervision. Some elements such as policy statements are broad-brush principles with a generic focus while others are sharply focused operational instructions.
BENEFITS OF A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Many new organizations created by intelligent and creative people grow to a size where they struggle to manage because they lack a management system and are constantly micro managing every detail such they have no time to develop and grow the organization let alone get time to play an occasional game of golf. A management system allows senior management to give clear formal direction and guidance on how the organization is to be managed and operated. It frees up higher management to focus on developing the organization’s vision and strategic planning, rather than constant intervention or firefighting in operational processes. This enables personnel throughout the organization to perform much better in their respective roles and to interact effectively and efficiently with others internally and externally to the organization.
A formal management system provides a home for the organization’s explicit management knowledge and a firm springboard for review and subsequent improvement initiatives. It is a powerful and valuable asset, which contributes to effective and efficient management control.
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE
The wisdom contained in an organization’s management system, if it is to be of any value, must be easily accessible to each person who needs direction and guidance. Management system architecture, like building architecture, needs to be functional but also elegant. Employees need to be comfortable interacting with it, value it and take an active role in its evolution and improvement. It needs to able to respond quickly to its external environment and continually improve so that it remains aligned with evolving needs, expectations and aspirations of the organisation’s stakeholders.
The structuring of management systems has been strongly influenced by the publication of numerous management system standards, each focusing on a fragmented aspect of organization performance such as product/service quality, environmental protection, personnel health and safety, and data security etc. This has sadly resulted in organizations operating multiple management systems inhibiting joined up thinking and coherent management processes. These fragmented management systems have encouraged silo management rather than a strong focus on the organization’s structures and processes that determine all aspects of performance. Reductionist discipline based silo management inhibits the receipt of synergistic benefits obtained by taking a total coherent focus on the organizations structures and processes in order to equitably satisfy the needs and expectations of the stakeholders while making the best use of resources. An IMS has a host of advantages, which deliver increased effectiveness and efficiency, refer to CQI IMSIG top management brief on integrated management.
HOW WILL THE FUTURE EVOLVE?
MSS 1000 subsumes quality management and risk management seamlessly. A major difference from the risk management guide ISO 31000 is that MSS 1000 explicitly addresses the management of upside and downside events when operating under uncertainty and does it throughout the standard. It also addresses both prospect (positive risk) and risk tolerability individually and as an aggregate.
MSS 1000 is arguably the most significant disruptive innovation that has occurred in the theory and practice of management for some time. It is already out of the box and cannot be reversed, although as always people will stay in denial for some time. Well before the new millennium, it was questioned whether a universal system standard was possible, even PAS99 only recognised that an IMS could be created from multiple management system standards. The impossibility of a universal management system myth has now been exploded, opening up new avenues of thought and research.
So what does this mean for risk management standards/guides such as ISO 31000? Not as much as it does for the ISO certifiable standards that in 2015 will only have their headings aligned leaving the content unintegrated. Although ISO 31000 does not address all aspects of management, its scope of application of risk management pervades all management and is therefore unlike the other ISO silo fragmented management system standards that focus on an isolated aspect of an organisation’s performance. This provides the ISO 31000 Technical committee, currently reviewing the guide, with an opportunity to review it with a fresh perspective against MSS 1000 and enable the content to be made more user-friendly and accessible to those who are not qualified and experienced risk practitioners.
How will organizations react to the new choices that they are confronted with? The further penetration of the IMS seems like a no-brainer, but will the adoption of a full IMS managing everything within an organisation become more commonplace? How will top management take to using an IMS to systematically manage strategic, tactical and operational commercial management processes in a joined up way? Up to now, it has generally been something that the quality, health and safety, and the environmental silos did. How quickly will they recognise that it is a way to be in greater control of the business as a whole, improve all facets of performance and get to play more golf?
Evolutionary forces are enormously powerful but they tend to play out at their own pace and I believe we only influence the process as one of many interacting players. I think that the logical argument for one-stop universal management system standards, with specialist supplements as necessary, is very difficult to counter. But there are certainly those who will want to resist it for as long as possible because of their personal agendas and commercial interests, and of course to provide time to plan their transition to a new way of delivering even more effective and efficient services, while maintaining profits during the transition.
In general, management practices are slow to change led by the enlightened proactive organizations – the rest generally just follow the fashion reactively fearing a lack of competitive edge or compelled to comply with customer requirements. The accredited certification bodies, for example, may take their time acting collaboratively to resist the threats to their interests or one may break ranks early and steal a competitive lead. The non-accredited certification bodies may take the initiative and offer a more streamlined and effective service. Exactly what will happen and when is a tough call – is there is a risk practitioner in world who can advise where the smart money should be placed?
The potential benefits and impacts of MSS 1000:2015 is something that all organizations will soon have on their agendas and even perhaps as an item in their risk registers unless they are not in tune with the trends of time.
If you have found this article thought provoking and informative you may also like to read the LinkedIn Impulse article ’The World’s first Universal Management System Standard’
Anyone interested in joined up thinking approaches to management, referred to as integrated management, is very welcome to join the LinkedIn Integrated Management Special Interest Group – it has an international membership and is not restricted to CQI members.
Biography – IAN DALLING
Ian Dalling DipEE, BA (Hons), CEng, MIMechE, MIET, MIOSH, FCIQ, CQP, RSC Chartered Electrical and Mechanical Engineer and Integrated Management Practitioner
Ian’s 50 years of experience has spanned design, construction, commissioning, operation, and decommissioning of nuclear power plants and other industry sectors. While at CEGB/Nuclear Electric, he was a senior authorised person for nuclear, mechanical and electrical systems up to 400 kV and held posts in operations, commissioning, management services, planning and quality assurance.
From 1990, he was a quality and risk management consultant with the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. He managed the peer review of the decommissioning safety case for the UK Steam Generating Reactor, was the quality manager for a European Notified Body administering product safety regulations, and worked on a variety of safety cases and management systems for major organisations. He served on the European Process Safety committee and the British Standards Committee that developed the occupational safety and health standard (BS 8800:1996). He was a member of an international team that reviewed the safety management arrangements of the Lithuanian Ignalina RBMK nuclear power plant following the Chernobyl accident.
He has operated his own quality and risk management consultancy since 1999 with clients in the nuclear, construction, rail, oil and gas, medical devices, medical services and laboratory services sectors in the UK and overseas. He chairs the CQI Integrated Management Special Interest Group, which produced the universal management system standard MSS 1000:2014.