How to Retain Auditor Training Knowledge When You Can’t Apply It Immediately 

Completing an auditor training course is an exciting milestone. You walk away with frameworks, methodologies to create checklists, audit question techniques, and—if you’re like most professionals—a head buzzing with new knowledge. Ideally, you’d jump right into an audit and apply your skills, reinforcing what you’ve learned while it’s still fresh. But what if that opportunity doesn’t come right away? 

At QMII, we recognize this common challenge among our alumni. Let’s explore effective strategies to bridge the gap between training and practice—so that knowledge doesn’t fade but instead becomes a solid foundation for your future audit work. 

1. Simulate Real-World Scenarios 

Action: Design mock audits for yourself or with peers. 

Even without access to an organization’s system, you can simulate an audit process by reviewing publicly available quality manuals, environmental reports, or sample procedures including your own. Pretend you’re preparing for an audit: write an audit plan, create checklists, additional documentation you would request and practice conducting document reviews. 

Tip: Use scenarios from your training or past experience and ask yourself: 

  • What would I ask as an auditor? 
  • What evidence would I seek? 
  • What risks could be present? 

2. Start a Learning Journal 

Action: Reflect on key concepts, standards clauses, and audit techniques by writing them down in your own words. 

Journaling isn’t just for reflection, it’s a brain-anchoring technique. When you write out what you remember and how you would apply it, you’re reinforcing neural pathways tied to that knowledge. 

Include: 

  • Summaries of ISO clause requirements. 
  • How you would handle nonconformities. 
  • Sample non-conformities within your organization and write down your assessment of them as also the effectiveness of corrective actions. 

3. Teach Others What You Learned 

Action: Participate in knowledge-sharing sessions. 

There’s no better way to solidify your understanding than teaching others. Reach out to other auditors in your organization and discuss applicability and interpretation of a clause. Participate and contribute to discussions on LinkedIn forums. Search the web for interpretation of clauses and see the differences as opined by various different personnel. 

Bonus: You’re also building your credibility and visibility as an auditor. 

4. Stay Active in the QMII Alumni Network 

Action: Engage with blog articles, LinkedIn posts, ask questions, and share insights. 

QMII’s alumni network offers a treasure trove of experience. Staying engaged keeps you in the loop on best practices and might even lead to mentoring or shadowing opportunities. React to blogs written by QMII, contribute articles for QMII blog, comment on QMII posts and connect to QMII alumni. 

Don’t hesitate to: 

  • Ask others how they’re maintaining their skills. 
  • Request mock audit partnerships. 
  • Share resources and templates you’ve created. 

5. Continue the Learning Loop 

Action: Sign up for webinars, read audit case studies, and revisit your course materials regularly. 

Audit skills are built not just on knowledge, but on judgment, observation, and communication. You can sharpen these even while waiting for your first official audit assignment. 

Suggested activities: 

  • Attend QMII webinars or ISO updates. 
  • Subscribe to quality-focused newsletters. 
  • Read ISO audit case studies and identify what went wrong—and why. 

6. Request to Observe Internal Audits 

Action: If you’re part of an organization, ask to shadow an experienced auditor. 

Even if you’re not leading, observing an audit helps you internalize the structure, flow, and behavioral nuances of auditing. Jot down observations on auditor behavior, techniques, and interaction styles. Create your own checklists and then compare it to that prepared by the lead auditor. Discuss the differences after the audit. 

If your organization doesn’t have an active program, this is a great opportunity to propose starting one—a value-added initiative from a proactive auditor-in-training. 

Final Thoughts: Don’t Let the Gap Become a Gully 

Skills fade when left idle, but they flourish with even light engagement. Whether it’s through simulation, teaching, journaling, or community interaction, there are numerous ways to keep your audit knowledge sharp and ready. 

At QMII, we believe that continual improvement isn’t just for organizations, it’s a personal practice. Stay connected, stay curious, and keep that audit mindset active until your next assignment arrives. 

Have your own tips for retaining training knowledge? 
Join the conversation by commenting on this blog or drop us a line—we’d love to feature your story! 

10 Steps to Safeguard Maritime Property from Cybersecurity Threats

IJ Arora, Ph.D

Cybersecurity threats have become a pressing concern in the modern era due to our lives becoming increasingly dependent on computerization. However, with the convenience of technology comes vulnerability to malicious attacks. The maritime industry, with a growing reliance on technology, faces significant cybersecurity threats. Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (i.e., good and bad) exist and have always existed. Protecting against cyberattacks is crucial to ensuring the industry’s stability and security.

Understanding cybersecurity in the maritime industry

Cybersecurity in the maritime sector involves safeguarding systems, information, and assets from unauthorized access, disruptions, or manipulations. The industry’s growing reliance on technology, including networks controlling essential functions like navigation and communication, makes it an attractive target for cybercriminals. To maintain business continuity, it is crucial that companies assess their current cybersecurity posture and act to proactively improve it. The maritime industry supports trade and the economy at large, so a cyberattack can have broader consequences beyond just affecting a single vessel or company. For this reason, the intent of the attackers might be broader than simply affecting a specific entity for ransom.

Current challenges in maritime cybersecurity

Before delving into the 10 essential steps to fortify against cyberthreats, it’s crucial to acknowledge the prevalent challenges faced by the maritime industry, which include:

  • Business continuity disruption due to breaches
  • Lack of comprehensive response plans
  • Growing reliance on automation
  • Insufficient awareness
  • Vulnerabilities in cloud computing
  • Rise in phishing and social engineering attacks
  • Internal threats and attacks

Controlling both information technology and operational technology systems is critical to fortifying cybersecurity. Various systems within the small passenger-vessel sector are susceptible to cyberthreats, including bridge systems, access control systems, passenger servicing and management systems, and communication systems.

The 10 steps

When addressing cybersecurity, organizations must consider protecting information itself as well as the asset on which that information is stored. Control of both information technology (IT) and operational technology (OT) systems is critical to fortifying cybersecurity. Additionally, management must consider the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information and how these three aspects may potentially be compromised.

Step 1: Leadership commitment

Leaders must drive the need for cybersecurity and ensure that it is baked in (not buttoned on) to processes. They need to engage the workforce to contribute to the system. To do this, they can:

  • Appoint a cybersecurity manager to ensure accountability and garner buy-in.
  • Make cybersecurity integral to business processes and consider risks vs. rewards.

Step 2: Use a system framework

Employ the plan, do, check, act (PDCA) cycle as the foundation for a robust cybersecurity approach. This is also the approach prescribed by the Passenger Vessel Association (PVA) safety management system (SMS) framework.

  • Develop and regularly update cybersecurity policies aligning with organizational needs and threat landscape changes.
  • Identify clear roles and responsibilities for all concerned with cybersecurity aspects of the SMS.

Step 3: Contextualize risk

  • Consider the broader context of operations, trade patterns, technology, and legislative factors.
  • Identify stakeholders, online networks, assets, critical components, and business-sensitive information.

Step 4: Risk assessment (3D framework)

Leaving hazards in uncertain states is a drawback for proper risk assessment. It is the responsibility of leadership to convert uncertainty into clearly defined risks within the context of the organization and then prioritize those risks.

  • Organizations must assess hazards in terms of probability, severity, and the likelihood of detection.
  • Risks should be prioritized with consideration given toward confidentiality, integrity, and the availability of information.

Step 5: Build controls into processes

Controls can be split into various categories, including administrative, physical, human, and technological. In some cases one control may suffice, but for the most part a combination of controls must be applied. Identified controls should be implemented based on the feasibility rule, meaning that although they may look good in a vacuum, ease of implementation must be considered. Information security should be a part of everything the organization does—not an add-on. This includes:

  • Implementing technical security controls like firewalls and intrusion-detection systems.
  • Adopting a layered security approach (i.e., “defense in depth”) to effectively mitigate against various threats. This entails creating multiple barriers to prevent access to information—physical, passwords, firewalls, VPNs etc.

Step 6: Maintain basic measures

Basic safety measures are easy to implement and, for the most part, they are cost-effective. This can include cybersecurity awareness training for personnel, physical security, and password security. Below are a few more, although this is not an exhaustive list:

  • Keep hardware and software updated.
  • Enable automated antivirus and anti-malware updates.
  • Limit administrator privileges and control removable media.
  • Avoid public network connections without a VPN.
  • Regularly backup and test information-restoration capabilities.

Step 7: Employee awareness

It is important to make employees aware of the need for good cybersecurity protocols. Employees are often the weakest link in the security chain. Statistics show that almost 36 percent of data breaches are caused by employee negligence. Immediate actions organization can take include:

  • Educate employees on cybersecurity best practices to minimize human error.
  • Train personnel to identify phishing attacks and report incidents promptly.

Step 8: Emergency preparedness

No organization is immune to cyberattacks. It is important to have a plan in place for responding to attacks quickly and effectively. The plan should include steps for mitigating the damage, containing the attack, and investigating the incident. You can use ISO 22301: 2019, “Business continuity,” to develop this plan.

  • Your plan should include comprehensive processes for responding to cyberattacks swiftly and efficiently, including reporting mechanisms.
  • Test and improve your business continuity plan regularly.

Step 9: Assess effectiveness

The check stage of the PDCA cycle is vital to instill confidence in the effectiveness of the organization’s cybersecurity measures.

  • Conduct regular cybersecurity assessments, including third-party evaluations for objectivity.
  • Evaluate assets, vulnerabilities, IT/OT risks, physical access, and breach potentials.

Step 10: Continual improvement

  • Embrace continual improvement through the PDCA cycle to maintain vigilance.
  • Invest in training personnel on cybersecurity standards like ISO 27001.

Conclusion

Taking cybersecurity seriously and implementing these 10 steps can significantly mitigate the risk of cyberattacks. Begin the process by conducting a gap assessment using a qualified person to assess where your system currently stands and what actions need to be taken.

Your action plan should identify risks, gaps, and the controls needed. These controls can easily be integrated into the existing safety management system. Investing in cybersecurity today will better prepare your organization to manage future risks. Leadership involvement is crucial, and these steps serve as a solid foundation to effectively fortify cybersecurity measures.

About the author

Inderjit (IJ) Arora, Ph.D., is the President and CEO of QMII. He serves as a team leader for consulting, advising, auditing, and training regarding management systems. He has conducted many courses for the United States Coast Guard and is a popular speaker at several universities and forums on management systems. Arora is a Master Mariner who holds a Ph.D., a master’s degree, an MBA, and has a 33-year record of achievement in the military, mercantile marine, and civilian industry.

Above article is featured in the following:-

Foghorn Magazine

Exemplar Global Publication “The Auditor”

Looking Ahead at ISO 9001

ISO 9001 has proactively kept up with various industry expectations, over the years, to allow

application by a broad spectrum of industry including the defense forces. The 2015 revision was

a thoughtfully planned giant step. It defined risk (ISO 9001 Clause 6.1) in the context of the

organization (ISO 9001 Clause 4.1 & 4.2) and removed exclusions provision from certification by

redefining what an organization does not do or outsources in the scope (ISO 9001 Clause 4.3). It

also removed preventive action, a reactive concept, and introduced proactive risk appreciation

(Clause 6.1 of ISO 9001 & Clause 8.1 in industry specific standards as AS9100).

This took preventive action from the delayed “Act” stage of the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) stage

to the more logical sensible “Plan” stage. After all, “look before you leap”, as the historical

fundamental, could not be left as a preventive action decision. It had to be at the look – plan

stage! Risk also needed not just mitigation, but also acted as an input, to be used to bring in

innovation in terms of OFI (opportunity for improvement).

These were all positive steps in keeping with technical advancements and computerization and

AI (artificial intelligence) tools. The HLS (high level structure), later updated to HS (harmonized

structure), recognized the need to enable ease of implementation of integrated management

systems. This in turn leading to efficiency, ROI (return on investment) and where applicable

environmental protection, security of the global supply chain, business continuity, cyber

security and health and safety.

The differentiating of knowledge (ISO 9001 Clause 7.6) from competence (ISO 9001 Clause 7.2)

was also a clever needed change. Organizations needed to define their corporate knowledge

aspects and differentiate it from the individual knowledge of personnel. Knowledge and

competence needed merging and a healthy marriage but needed recognition that they were

different. Removal of the reference to Quality Manager (QM) and Quality Manual from the

standard, took away the narrowness of thinking in quality, and brought the clarity to leadership

to remain accountable and to differentiate authority delegation from retaining the

accountability.

I am a member of the TAG-176 group, and yet have not really contributed much to the next

expected changes to ISO 9001. I am sure the TC-176 is working on this. Nevertheless, it is time

to debate and consider updating the standard.

Since the 2015 version was a major fundamental change, I doubt there would be a significant

departure from this 2015 version in the next major update. Unlikely that the next version may

have revolutionary updates. The emphasis, I think would be to clarify and strengthen the

present thoughts in the 2015 version. I would consider the following:

1. Two Standard Concept: I have over the years thought about the two prongs:

manufacturing and service, approach. Both the service and the manufacturing industry

have been using the standard. Some may consider the need for a separate

manufacturing and a service standard as the next step. However, over the years I have

feared too much bureaucracy which the two standards approach brings. I think the two

standard approaches may actually cause more issues than to resolve them. Might I

opine that Clauses under 8.3 for D&D can, if needed, be strengthened, clarified or more

useful notes as applicable to service version incorporated to assist implementers,

consultants and auditors?

2. Risk be better defined and OFI be clarified, to avoid auditors using it as a tool to sneak in

recommendations. OFI is the outcome of considering risk as an input for innovation. It is

not a recommendation.

3. The knowledge clause needs meat to strengthen it, and to better make it inclusive to

systematizing the requirements for organizations to systematize lessons learnt.

4. An annex added to bring clarity and ease to designing and implementing a combined

management system for an organization.

5. Clause 4.3 Scope, in defining scope requires consideration of the context of the

organization, which is based on Clauses 4.1 and 4.2. However, while the scope has to be

available as documented, 4.1 and 4.2 do not require documentation. I would suggest

both clauses 4.1 & 4.2 to have context as a documented requirement.

In conclusion, I think, updating the standard ground up is not a wise idea at this stage. Perhaps

slight tweaking to include some minor changes would give stability in implementation of an

already robust standard.

How to Alleviate Common Management System Pain Points

Implementing ISO standards is not mandatory, however a management system conforming to a standard can have numerous benefits. Some benefits include increased efficiencies, proactive risk management, better interaction among departments and alignment with the needs of interested parties. However, once you are actually in the process of implementation, you may experience the following pain points: 

  1. Lack of top management commitment 
  1. Limited resources to effectively implement the program 
  1. Lack of buy-in from the workforce  
  1. Over documented systems  
  1. Lack of measurable objectives driving improvement  
  1. Teams lack adequate interaction and alignment  
  1. Company is focused on keeping certification at all costs  

Quality Management International, Inc (QMII), having over 37 years of providing sustainable solutions for our clients, recognized how these hurdles can impact an effective management system. QMII has developed and provided solutions to address and alleviate these pain points that continue to benefit our clientele. 

A management system consulting project cannot start without top management present to map the process of what they do (core process) and to identify the core objectives for the system. Policies, objectives, and motivation must be demonstrated from the top-down and evidenced by all the team players. To further reinforce commitment, we get top managers to develop a presentation to launch the system and that will then be used for awareness training as the system progresses. This is done using our Awareness Leaders Workshop. Without authority, responsibility, and resources, middle management and individual contributors cannot improve the business management system.  

We understand that companies have financial restrictions. With a mission to get organizations to appreciate the benefits of a process-based management system, we provide multiple options to work around this challenge. 

(1) We provide free information on our website so you can carry out ISO implementation at your organization.  

(2) Attending a lead auditor training course is a relatively minimal cost. You and your team will gain a comprehensive understanding of the desired ISO standard and gain the skills necessary to implement requirements and conduct audits to determine conformity.  

(3) If you need a little more guidance, we provide scalable consulting services. Our consultants are here to assist you with exactly what you need. You will not have to pay for the full package.  

(4) Our alumni have free email and phone support, for life, to get over average hurdles.  

As far as reluctance among employees, it’s human nature to be reluctant towards change. Keeping this in mind, QMII consultants get key process owners to evidence top management’s commitment and ensure that they are involved in QMS (Quality Management System) development. We analyze with them to capture the system AS-IS and what-should-be. It is essential to get the team buy-in during this process and get their input on the process’s actualities. Teams must also interact and be aligned. We provide team-building workshops where we align objectives to the vision and processes to meet objectives. 

ISO implementation is not an overnight process, it may even seem daunting. QMII’s Action Plan Checklist is readily available, and it focuses on the big picture to simplify the process. If you need more assistance, our consultants would be happy to work with you through the checklist. We appreciate the system you already have; we are simply helping you enhance it to meet requirements and set objectives. Documentation is a significant part of ISO implementation. To remove complexities, we incorporate existing documentation and use a format that works best for you. 

At the end of the day, ISO certification is primarily a marketing decision. QMII strives to help you develop a resilient, integrated management system so that you receive actual benefits. Once set up, your system will work independently and continue to improve while managing risk proactively.  

Maritime Leadership – Beyond Designated Person Ashore (DPA)

It appears the maritime leadership is limited to the DPA/DP (Designated Person Ashore). The worst is when senior leadership of a company, washes its hands off, of the leadership role, by assuming a DP will do all that needs to be done! The ISM (International Safety Management) Code, in clause 4 defines the role of the DP (designated person).  It is to be remembered that the DP is indeed the link between the company and those on board, to the extent decided by the leadership/ ownership of the maritime company. The DP with clause 4 of the ISM Code has his/ her role defined as the link. However, there is much more to it. There is a kind of upstream and downstream relationship between the safe operations of a vessel, and the leadership exercised by the shipping company. The DP can represent and do his best in meeting objectives if he/she is resourced and supported by the leaders. Maritime leadership is strengthened by the contribution of the DP. This is particularly true when a tragedy occurs, and the crisis management team is called to minimize the aftermath of the tragedy and hands-on dealing with the tragedy. The DP as part of the crisis management team and must play a lead role in providing his/ her experience, expertise to ensure the situation does not worsen. DP should be competent, involved and participate in designing the safe operations of the vessel as also to predict the risks and trends from the available company and industry data and make timely recommendations, to ensure tragedies do not occur. But once they occur the same detailed knowledge has to be used to meticulously plan the response actions.

The leadership of the company, particularly when not from the marine background, should orient itself to matters maritime during good times. It is in normal good times that the relationship of confidence has to build with the DP. Regular access to the TM (top management) of the company by the Designated Person Ashore, makes teamwork smooth in a crisis situation. The leadership working together with DP and the team is able to ensure the company’s safety objectives, environmental policy implementation and functional requirements are met. Regular drills and exercises and analysis of situations ensure that the lessons learnt thereof, are used as input for further planning and resourcing.  Clause 4 of ISM Code is not just a job description basis for the DP, but also an input to the leadership to see where they fit in so that the support when required can be provided in a crisis without delays in a crisis. Building trust is a responsibility both the DP and the organization must build. There is much more to this dynamic leadership role. Meeting the safety, prevention of human injury or loss of life, and avoidance of damage to the environmental objectives of the company given in clause 1.2 of the ISM Code are the DP’s responsibilities. He/ she is the implementer of safety and environmental policy as given in clause 2 of the ISM Code. This however cannot be achieved without resources and support from the company top leadership.

Emergency preparedness is a requirement of the ISM Code. Clause 8 of the ISM Code requires implementation on board, with office support lead by the Designated Person Ashore and resourcing provided by the top management of the company. The DP with his/her team brings the considered opinion as input to the organizational decision-making body. Making preparations for being able to respond to emergency situations at sea needs forethought in appreciating the risks, and preparations in advance. It starts with recognizing the hazardous situations, creating the procedures, conducting drills and exercises, and learning lessons from exercises conducted, other industry inputs, similar occurrences anywhere. Data drives risk appreciation and trend recognition. Managements have to look ahead at possible crisis and be prepared with timely quick response.

Crisis if handling well, requires and brings out clearly that not just competence, but motivation and leadership are all of the utmost importance. As primary consultants in the field of maritime work,  QMII (www.qmii.com ) has worked on crisis management, handling media, and building teams for over 30 plus years now. Our experience shows clearly that a leadership team working with not just the Designated Person Ashore, but all departments in a participatory manner determines the success of addressing a crisis.

Safe operation of ships and prevention of pollution requires dynamic leadership at the company level with the involvement of the DP using the expertise in the ISM Code and SOLAS as also other relevant IMO conventions, as also Flag State advises to formulate robust, well thought out plans for crisis management.  A process-based management system approach is most important. “If an organization can do not describe what they do as a process, then they do not know what they are doing,” it is to be remembered that behind every casualty at sea are many detentions, and behind them indicators like Major NCs (non-conformities) and near misses. The maritime leadership with Designated Person Ashore included must lead to prevent a crisis.

Obtaining Top Management Commitment

Who cares about the system? 

Management systems need top management commitment to work well, and yet many systems lack the necessary commitment. You may recognize some symptoms.  Policy – ignored.  Objectives  are barely alive. Corrective actions remain open. Managers seem not to appreciate the value of the requirements.  Employees are unsure about the system’s requirements. Proactive identification and addressing of risks/opportunities is rare. Root causes of failure remain in the system. Consequently, the system is not improved. Employees are unaware of what the system should do for them. Management reviews are embarrassing. Leaders either do not show or do not contribute. Top Management Commitment is lacking. Audits may temporarily energize the players. Management representatives ask, “Am I the only person who really cares?” 

Who trained the leaders? 

Many leaders do not explain their management systems. They may know the importance of certification, but they rarely explain why their system is vital for survival and growth. Why is this? Examine your internal audit program; is it driven by top management’s objectives?  Audit your training records. Do they show that leaders are competent and confident to show their top management commitment? Who trained the leaders in their organizational management system?  Competent leaders take responsibility for their system. They explain how their system works and why its requirements are so important to them. Unaware leaders blame employees for mistakes caused by their system. 

Your system, is it perceived as worthy? 

Even if your system is certified, do not expect leaders to support it.  Every organization is a system. Does the documented part of this system describe how it converts stakeholder needs into cash (or continued funding)?  Is this the management system that was certified or was it some new ISO system built on templates?  

Is your system irresistible to the leaders?  If not, show how your system converts needs into cash so top managers would not want to lead without it. Try our methodology to appreciate how others have developed systems and gained top management commitment beyond certification. Everyone should fulfill their objectives and earn their bonuses by using and improving  the system.  

Awareness Leaders Workshop™ 

Engage us to design and facilitate your one-day Awareness Leaders Workshop™. Select attendees who are leaders by job title and those who are leaders by personality. Include the skeptics! 

We listen to your objectives and design your workshop to fulfill your required outcomes. This may need  system analysis to result in a diagram that explains how the system converts needs into cash. This  workshop is facilitated by our senior management system consultant and auditor, who for over 20 years  has helped many willing and reluctant managers to understand and commit to their systems. 

Prepare for action 

Remove the root causes of what ails many management systems. You want your top management commitment  to the requirements of their management system. Clear the backlog of stale CARs  and pending actions on identified risks to prepare for the surge of improvements flowing from the renewed leadership of your system.  

When you are ready, please email IJ Arora or call 888.357.9001 with your requirements.

Management review: A Necessity or Improvement driver

The management review is a critical step to ensure sustained success of the management system, yet this is often left to the relevant manager to document to meet the system standard requirements. A myriad of reasons is given for a management review not being done within the timeframe as defined by the organization. These include unavailability of senior management due calendar conflicts, waiting on inputs from department heads and sometimes just a lack of commitment by leadership.

Even when conducted ‘timely’ the review is often done purely out of necessity of meeting the requirements of the standard. The review, however, is a critical step for the success of the system and enables the continual improvement of the system. Leadership may, at times question, why money invested in a Quality Management System; that certification to ISO is not delivering the intended ROI. The answer often lies in their lack of commitment to the system as perceived by the users of the system.

Why are my reviews not driving improvement?

Management reviews when done out of necessity become a documentation exercise. The responsible manager collects all the data and analyzes/evaluates it for presentation to management. They proudly share these presentations with whomsoever asks about the management review. The ISO standards (e.g. ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and others) in clause 9.3 give the requirements for what shall be included in a management review. However, the review need not be limited to just these topics.

In consulting, QMII has often heard, “But we do daily reviews with our team and weekly updates with the managers”. Why not record these as a part of your management review? Do keep in mind that ISO standards ask organizations to conduct management reviews at planned intervals. It does not say it has to be a meeting or be held in a boardroom or the planned intervals need to be equally spaced. When the system is incorrectly implemented, or the standard incorrectly interpreted it often leads to a weak foundation of the system. Soon users of the system are complying and doing what has been documented rather than asking “is this really correct for us?”

With the passage of time, the lack of commitment percolates through the system to where the person tasked with championing the system, such as a quality or environmental manager, is fighting a lone battle. This lack of commitment may be apparent from the lack of decisions by management to issues presented in the review.  At times the concerned departments are trying to drive their own agendas, and this creates conflict and disconnect. Also, in recording the outputs of the review, the decision and actions from management must be recorded. QMII, often finds these missing.

How do I improve my management reviews?

To do so the organization must first understand the intent of this clause in the ISO standards. Clause 9.3 (under the high-level structure) asks management to review their systems to ‘ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy, effectiveness and alignment with the strategic direction of the system.’ This, in essence, must be the guiding principle for the management reviews.

This is the reason why these reviews must be done holistically. It is this guiding principle that will determine the intervals for the review. Clause 5.1 of the ISO standards (those aligned per the HLS) asks leadership to take accountability for the effectiveness of their systems. The management review is the platform via which they can assess if the system is effective in meeting their policy as set. The management review is also where management reviews the system and determines the required changes in the context of the organization, the needs of the interested parties to determine new risks,  if any changes to the policy / strategic direction needs to be made and resourcing needs.

Engaging Leadership and the rest of the team

There is no mantra that will deliver sure-shot success. I wish there was one, for I know many an organization that would willingly invest in it! However, educating management on the WHY of the management review has often helped. If need be consider external consultants to deliver the message. Additionally, you can consider these three steps to get more engagement:

  1. Gather review inputs from management team: This is a good method to get everyone involved. Pass around a draft meeting agenda so all system users can prepare for the review (should you be having a meeting) and can provide their inputs /items that they need management’s decision on. It is also an opportunity for them to gather opportunities for improvement from users of the system.
  2. Use a review format that works for leadership: Document how your reviews are done exactly the way they are done within your organization. Perhaps some agenda items are discussed on a quarterly basis and others on a weekly basis. The intent is not to please an auditor but to use this tool to drive improvements through the system, as needed. Remember, the guiding principle discussed above.
  3. Communicate the outputs of the review …. including leadership’s decisions. While the standard does not require this, it is implicit in ensuring continual improvement. Communication is important but the outputs of the review need not to be communicated to the entire organization. Perhaps relevant parts to the concerned managers and their teams. It demonstrates to the users of the system that management is involved, is aware of the problems and has provided decisions on various matters presented.

Management Reviews ….  Improvement Driver

When done correctly management reviews become the springboard for improvement throughout the system. It comes at the end of the ‘Check’ stage of the PDCA cycles leading into the ‘Act’ stage for continual improvement. It enables leadership to assess how well their system is doing. It delivers, in the long run, the engagement needed from users of the system and the ROI that leadership are seeking in their quality management system.

Defining Measurable Objectives/ Metrics to Drive Continual Improvement

Measurable objectives are an essential input for all levels of the management and come from the top management (TM). These objectives guide personnel at the work level to help ensure the success of a management system. The need for a set of value-based metrics is met by looking carefully at the company policy (based on the strategic direction) and then drawing the measurable objectives from it.

My thought is for any organization giving more than the desired value is a challenge! Values in today’s business world are often related solely to the ROI (Return on Investment). Providing value to the customer is a goal. The question is at what cost? Due to budgetary concerns, no organization wants to do more than what is required. Availability of funds is input to the design of the final product and or service. Consequentially, the values that an organization sets for itself must be based on trying to meet the objectives and expectations of the customers, or the statutory bodies (if relevant) within the constraints of the resources. Where a statutory body is involved, it is the vital responsibility of that body to precisely define expectations and what metrics they will accept.

My opinion is that the statutory bodies such as the FAA, FDA, EPA, and USCG, would have concerns about continual improvement by the external service providers. It is therefore critical to conduct an analysis and conduct management reviews internally to achieve the intended purpose of Clause 10.3 of ISO 9001:2015. However, it all starts with defining, providing and monitoring these clear expectations. This means that the statutory body should provide guidelines for stated requirements, as the IMO does in the ISM Code, within Resolution A.1118(30) & MSC-MEPC.7/Cir8. In a similar manner, the USCG could provide clear guidelines for TPO (Third Party Organization) and for the towing companies for the Subchapter M.

Statutory bodies, understandably, may struggle with defining their policy in the initial stages and clearly converting it to a set of measurable objectives (Value based metrics) for external providers. The need for the Leadership (TM) is to spend time and resources well at the plan stage of the PDCA cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) by understanding the context of the organization (Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 of the ISO 9001) and appreciate the various risks (Clause 6.1 of ISO 9001) keeping the customer focus in mind. The Standard here provides useful clauses to make the decision. An objective audit of the internal procedures of the statutory body (Clause 9.2 of ISO 9001) would provide the inputs for the Management Review (Clause 9.3) and ensure a robust decision-making process. This then should be followed by regular audits of the organization to which the processes have been outsourced (meeting the requirements of Clause 8.4.1 and 8.4.2 of ISO 9001). The organization which provides the outsourced service or product needs the information in terms of clause 8.4.3 to perform to the total satisfaction of the statutory body. As such providing clear requirements is a vital role of the statutory body.

Once requirements are clear, then the organization providing a product or service will use these inputs to design their Policy (Clause 5.2 of ISO 9001) 5.2.1d. This policy would then ensure that the feedback loop will help to drive continuous improvement efforts of the QMS. This policy would then provide the framework for the “value-based metrics” which in Quality terms would be the measurable objectives in terms of clause 6.2. Both 6.2.1 and 6.2.2 would put the organization on the correct path to success. The statutory body would vigorously and regularly audit the correct implementation itself or by using an independent professional service provider.

In effect, what this means is that just being certified to e.g. ISO 9001:2015 is not enough for any organization. What is required is a functioning PBMS (process-based management system) based on the chosen standard and other criteria implemented by committed leadership and motivated manpower.

(The author Dr. IJ Arora, is the President and CEO of QMII)

What Makes A System Work?

What Makes A System Work And Successfully Meet Objectives, Expectations And Requirements?

Successful companies have visionary leadership, are able to understand the changing context of their businesses, look ahead and adapt. The 20th and 21st century has been fertile with innovation. Many history-defining breakthrough inventions have been developed. Innovation is growing at a pace never known before.  The inventors and innovators are naturally accepted as leaders for their ability to clearly define their vision. These leaders can at times be harsh taskmasters; nearly dictatorial in pursuit of their passion (invention/vision). However, where the innovators are part of the team as a group and the leaders of the organization separate the leadership challenges are different. A professionally lead organization without a system cannot be only driven by the passion of its leader and this is certainly not a recipe for prolonged success.  

The need to put a system in place is but, of course, the result of a decision made by the leadership/ top management (TM). TM must have the desire to operate in a systematic manner to achieve desired results and outputs. That desire is indeed key to the motivation of the rest of the organization and crucial to gaining their involvement.  The PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle has to be understood and correctly aligned to the desired standard. There is also a need for commitment from the leadership to the unrelenting pursuit of their policy being systematically converted into measurable objectives and implemented throughout the organization, the implementation monitored and reviewed to ensure continual improvement. 

As experienced consultants, QMII has over 32 plus years, been implementing management systems to achieve results. Consultants never hold the recipe for success but can facilitate and guide the leadership and the organization in the right direction. The key to success is a motivated leadership. Trusting consultants to perform miracles using the perfect templates is a medicine for disaster in the making. A commitment to excellence starts with the leadership and needs the organization’s team to build a system ensuring consistency in meeting the requirements of the customer, stated or unstated. Then alone can an organization attain the success it seeks.  

As the year ends and reminiscing on my experience, education and learning from association with numerous varied organizations, my conclusion in differentiating between successful and not so successful organizations take me to the intent and determination of the TM to be committed to the system approach.