Some exiting insights
I would say that my baptism to ISO 9001 Quality Management Standard (which UpToDate is the most commonly used standard) was in 1999, a little over 25 years ago, at my last work place in Sri Lanka, which at that time was one of the leading tyre retreaders and manufacturers of two/three-wheeler tyres and custom-mixed compounds in our country. Even with my long working association with leading rubber companies, I should say I was amazed, but not in any way bewildered by the vast number of documents and paperwork deployed in establishing and maintaining the Quality Management System (QMS). The 1994 version of ISO 9000 standard used during that period had three versions, namely 9001, 9002 and 9003, adopted for manufacturing industries, service organisations and those engaged in inspection and testing respectively. The 9001-standard recommended 20 mandatory documented procedures, a Quality Manual that was compulsory and the need for work instructions at every conceivable activity. In a way, one cannot be surprised by this apparent proliferation of documentation because the first version of the ISO 9000 QMS standard in 1987 had its origins in the British Military Quality Standard BS 5750, which inherently required a high level of accuracy, precision, consistency and reliability, and hence the necessity for micro detail. Nevertheless, during the gradual evolution of the standard to its current status, one can clearly realise the transformation of the requirements to embrace the changes required for the emerging global needs of the manufacturing and service sectors of the civic society. In this article, I endeavour to bring forth some interesting practical experiences gathered during my working life and consultancy and auditing during the past 25 years with the ISO 9001/14001/and 45001 management systems in the rubber, plastics and other non- related manufacturing and service sector organisations in Sri Lanka.
Out of the numerous definitions of a management system, I find the following as a short, simple and concise and practical one:
A Management System is an organised way of defining, implementing, monitoring and improving an organisation’s operations to meet business goals, comply with regulations and enhance overall performance.
When contemplating deeper in to this apparently simple definition, I feel that it has far-reaching implications about management systems, stretching back to our ancient civilisations. One cannot comprehend how the great architectural designs, religious constructions, irrigation and the water management systems, harmonious with the natural eco-systems, were made possible without well-established management systems, although they would have been conceptually different from the contemporary management systems of the modern times. Just to site one example, during the design phase of the Maduru Oya Irrigation Project in Sri Lanka with the assistance of Canadian government in the late 1960s, the modern agro-engineers unexpectedly discovered the ruins of a centuries old anicut (ancient diversion weir). This remarkable find highlighted the advanced hydrological knowledge of our ancient civilisations, demonstrating their ingenuity in water management. Rather than disregarding the historical structure, the engineers decided to incorporate the principles in to their modern designs. Utilising the cutting-edge technology while respecting the traditional engineering wisdom in to their modern design, they constructed a new anicut that blended past innovations with contemporary advancements, enduring sustainable water distribution for agriculture.
Now coming to the more recent times in history, I can recollect that the rudiments of standard operation procedures (SOPs) and documentation, which are some of the salient features of the modern-day management systems, could be seen at the Bata Shoe Company of Ceylon Ltd, which was one of the blue-chip companies in Sri Lanka (the then Ceylon) in the late sixties, when I joined the company as a young Management Trainee. Standardised production control and hourly progress monitoring of the shoe assembly conveyors was used in the one hundred plus Bata companies spread throughout the globe. The rubber formulae cards also were also of a standard format, showing the issue date, revision status and revising date, and very importantly, the review and approval for use, all of which are key aspects of the control of documented information of the ISO Standards, which were first introduced in 1987. Another good practice used, although I realised the importance of it in later life, was the pre-preparation with the arrangements to ensure the 4Ms, namely men/machines/materials and methods to run the next day’s production, before we go home at the end of the working day. This was, in reality, the addressing of the process risks and taking preventive action to avoid the occurrence of problems, which is covered by ‘risk-based thinking’ or ‘what can go wrong’ in simple jargon and is incorporated in all the ISO Management System Standards in use today. Ironically, from my observations, only very few companies are making use of this golden principle in managing their day-to-day affairs, and hence the need for so many ‘meetings’ and firefighting, which has become a typical feature in many companies nowadays.
The crux of the matter is that management systems, in whichever names or forms they were known, have been used historically in all types of organisations, with varying degrees of success and failures, and hence the concept is nothing new. However, the International Organisation for Stadardisation (ISO), over the past 40 years, has endeavoured to bring together the cotemporary practices and thoughts about managing organisations to achieve desired outcomes in the form of all-encompassing requirements, which are universally applicable, especially in ISO 9001/14001 and 45001.
ISO 9001, the most widely deployed management system standard, was first introduced in 1987 by adopting the British military quality standards (BS5750) and aimed to create a universal approach to quality management. Over the years, ISO 9001 has undergone multiple revisions, in line with the changing global business scenarios, to make it more flexible, customer-focused and risk based, and the latest amendment has accommodated climate change issues. As environmental concerns grew in the late 20th century, the need for a systematic approach to environmental management became evident, and ISO 14001 was introduced in 1996 as response to global sustainability challenges, aligning with the Rio Summit objectives. Its revisions in 2004 and 2015 have strengthened its focus on life cycle thinking and integration into corporate strategy. ISO 45001 released in 2018 and replaced the OHSAS 18001, which has served as the primary occupational health and safety standard since 1999. It was developed to provide a structural framework for organisations to adopt a proactive risk management approach, rather than a reactive compliance-based model.
The adoption of these standards is often seen as a necessity for organisations seeking credibility, regulatory compliance and competitive advantage. Moreover, the possibility of integration of these standards allows businesses to create unified management systems, reducing redundancy and administrative burden. The High-level Structure (HLS), unreproduced by the ISO, is aimed to ensure consistency across the different management system standards.
On looking back, with the knowledge and experience I have gained by associating with the ISO-based management systems from the 1990s, I would say that the decade commencing from the mid-nineties was a period of bee-hive of activities for the manufacturing organisations in Sri Lanka. The tendency to embrace and accept any new methodologies, especially when they are successfully used in other parts of the world, is a natural survival instinct, or what has come to be known as benchmarking in the conventional management jargon, or colloquially ‘keeping up with the Joneses’. Similar trends can be seen during the introduction of other productivity improvement methodologies, such as 5S, Quality Circles, Toyota Production System (TPS), Lean and Kaizen concepts, which trickled down to our part of the world around the same period and caught up like wildfire. A notable deviation which I observed in the later methodologies is that they were directly linked to the operations, whether in manufacturing and service industries, and hence baring the initial mind set and attitudinal issues, it was relatively easier to implement and, in most cases, the results and the outcomes were directly and sometimes instantly visible, especially to the floor level personnel.
On the contrary, ISO-based management systems encompassed a more holistic and inclusive systems approach, which most top management and other managerial personnel naturally found somewhat difficult to grasp, and hence I would say that the learning curve progressed on a slow gradient.
The desire and the willingness to adopt the ISO 9001 system on the one hand and the lack of proper knowhow and experience on the other resulted in the complexity perceived by many companies in those early years. The certification bodies and some management consultancy training providers both locally and from overseas began providing the initial training, and these too were on the early stages of the learning curve due to lack of hands-on and practical experience, although the theoretical knowledge was adequately provided. As in the case pf many new waves of management thought, these conditions were ideal for some consultants to levy exorbitant facilitation fees. The mandatory conformity requirements for documentation, while resulting in the proliferation of paperwork, placed excessive burden and stress on the staff who were involved in the establishment and maintenance of the management systems. In the early years, some of the auditors of the certification bodies also focused too much on documentation and document control, document lists and revision numbering, which made the auditing a somewhat sterile exercise.
However, practically all the companies laid high emphasis on preparing for the audits, especially if they happen to be certification or recertification audits. Complete overhauling of the facilities, colour washing and cleaning up were normally carried out in addition to updating all documents and records, some of which have been neglected or not properly maintained throughout the year. Audit days had a sense of austerity and an aura of its own, which I think was good in a way at least once a year, although it could have sent wrong signals to the employees regarding leadership and management commitment as specified in Clause 5.0 of the standards.
The dichotomy between ISO requirements and the other management functions is still seen in some companies, especially the large organisations, which have management system coordination assigned to a septate department. Although the High-Level Structure of the three standards is intended to facilitate to enable an integrated management system, only a very few companies seem to be doing it effectively.
Despite their wide spread adoption, the real-world application of Management Systems like ISO 9001/14001 and 45001 varies significantly. While some organisations genuinely integrate these systems into their operations, others treat them as bureaucratic hurdles for securing certification for external validation and legal compliance rather than for internal improvement. The question is often raised as to whether businesses are blindly embracing these standards, or are they judiciously adopting them for real impact?
The cost and complexity of implementation can be prohibitive, especially for the small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs), and achieving and maintaining certification requires significant resources, which can divert attention from the core business activities. While the standards provide a good framework, their success largely depends on an organisation’s commitment. A poorly implemented system can lead to inefficiencies, resistance from employees and minimum real-world impact. Furthermore, in some industries, rapid technological advancements outpace the evolution of these standards, making them seem rigid or outdated.
These management systems can be powerful tools for improving quality, sustainability and workplace safety if used correctly. However, their effectiveness depends on how they are implemented. Blind adherence to ISO standards very often causes inefficiencies and a waste of resources, and judicious and strategic adoption can drive real improvements.
I vividly remember an awareness programme organised by the Sri Lanka Standards Institution around the year 2000 to introduce the major changes in the ISO 9001: 2000 Standard. In one of the presentations, ISO 9001-based QMS was depieced as an elephant on which the organisation rides to use the system, while what happens in many a case is the organisation carrying the elephant (QMS) as an extra burden.
Margaret Wolff Hungerford, in her 1878 novel Molly Bawan, first mentioned the famous quote ‘beauty is in the eyes of the beholder’, which augments well to the ISO-based Management System Standards.
At this juncture, I cannot resist citing a Buddhist discourse where the doctrine (Dhamma) is depicted as a piece of gold. For a child it will be a play item, and for investor it is a valuable asset whose value keeps on appreciating with time, while for the jeweller it will be the source material that can be turned into a beautiful necklace.
Management System Standards will continue to play a vital role in helping organisations to systematically manage their activities to the foreseeable future with varying degrees of success along with the appropriate amendments and revisions that may come into effect from time to time.
The author is a Management Counsellor from Sri Lanka.
Comments (0)
ADD COMMENT