J
JaneB
Pity they didn't come up with a clearer and better one. I doubt if this is the definition that 'most people' (and yes, I'm aware that's a vague term) would put forward.
The Future Structure of ISO Management System Standards - from HLS to HS (Harmonized Structure) September 2023
- Thread starter Sidney Vianna
- Start date
V
vanputten
What caught my attention about the TMB on Risk Management is that Risk Managmenet now superseeds quality management. Risk Management is being identified as the highest level of management where quality management, environmental management, project management, health and safety, .... you name it, are a subset. Risk Management is being defiend as the top of the management/management system food chain.
Risk management includes product quality risk, environment risk, safety risk, business risk, security risk, health, etc., etc., etc.
And the main drivers of these standards, the structure, and the definitions are the insurance industry who have lots of experience in risk management.
To me, this is huge news. Will we soon have Risk Digest instead of Quality Digest? How about the Journal of Risk and Particpation instead of Quality and Particpation? What about Risk Progress Magazine? Soon will there be certifications like Certified Risk Auditor? Certified Risk Engineer?
There is a possibility (or risk?) that this direction will be an industry changer.
Risk management includes product quality risk, environment risk, safety risk, business risk, security risk, health, etc., etc., etc.
And the main drivers of these standards, the structure, and the definitions are the insurance industry who have lots of experience in risk management.
To me, this is huge news. Will we soon have Risk Digest instead of Quality Digest? How about the Journal of Risk and Particpation instead of Quality and Particpation? What about Risk Progress Magazine? Soon will there be certifications like Certified Risk Auditor? Certified Risk Engineer?
There is a possibility (or risk?) that this direction will be an industry changer.
V
vanputten
Oh, and I had a question. Why can't there be risks to positive outcomes? I think there can be risk that the result is a less positive result as opposed to a negative result.
Can "risk" be the possibility or probability of less desireable result? The result isn't negaitive. The result is less postive and still postive overall.
Can "risk" be the possibility or probability of less desireable result? The result isn't negaitive. The result is less postive and still postive overall.
Last edited by a moderator:
Analysis of risk assumes there's a possibility of loss, not a possibility of partial success. If there's nothing to lose, there is no risk. Of course, partial success may mean that the plan has to be reworked and more time has to be spent on it, so in that sense there is a measure of loss, but without the possibility of some form of loss, it ain't risk.
Enterprise Risk Management is the topic of ISO 31000. There is no question an organization is faced with a myriad of risks that must be managed holistically and in a balanced manner. An organization can make decisions which could improve the quality of a product, whilst negatively impacting their environmental performance. Decisions have to be made addressing multiple stakeholders.
It seems to me that Enterprise Risk Management, Social Responsibility and Sustainability trends are finally converging towards the mainstream.
Way too often people don't see the forest for the the trees; ISO 9001, 14001, OHSAS 18001, QMS, EMS, ISO 26000, SA-8000, OHSMS, Information Security, Food Safety, etc. are just pieces of the big puzzle, which is enabling organization towards sustainable performance, while promoting sustainable development.
J
JaneB
I agree risk management is important. But don't accept the idea that it is, or should be at the apex of the management system food chain/hierarchy. Sounds & feels wrong - a bit like living one's whole life calculating the risk of something going wrong (ie, guarding against negative goals) rather than setting deliberate course toward positive goals or outcomes.
I strongly believe that sustainable success is the better 'top' of the tree.
J
JaneB
Yes, agree strongly.
A management system is a system to establish policy and objectives and to achieve those objectives. If the highest level objective is to achieve sustainable success, then the would the ultimate management system be the Sustainable Success Management System (SSMS)?
Other management systems would really be subsystems then. I suppose the QMS would become the QMSS (Quality Management SubSystem). I imagine that Enterprise Risk Management would be in the area of overlap illustrated in the "flower model."
Other management systems would really be subsystems then. I suppose the QMS would become the QMSS (Quality Management SubSystem). I imagine that Enterprise Risk Management would be in the area of overlap illustrated in the "flower model."
Not to be confused with Six Sigma Management System.
Without a doubt sustainability transcends the buzzword and becomes a megatrend. No coincidence the aspect of sustainable performance is embedded in the latest version of ISO 9004: Managing for the sustained success of an organization -- A quality management approach.
It is critical to remember, however, that Sustainability refers not to organization's ability to endure, but Mankind's ability to maintain development without compromising the quality of life of upcoming generations.
Not to be confused with Six Sigma Management System.
Or Surface-to-Surface Missile System...
