Rank: Forum user 
|
Can anyone offer me some guidance on how best to achieve 18001 certification?
The company is multi-site engineering with around 450 employees.
Many thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Take the OHSAS 18001 auditting course. I could say do a gap analysis but if you are not clear on what or how to audit then that route is useless.
SBH
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
An approach I saw at a presentation in Birmingham was for a manufacturer/producer that was tackling their business on a site by site basis rather than trying to get all their sites/the whole of their business certified at once even if all the sites operate to the same management system.
I would have liked to try and implement in this manner for my employer but as some of our sites are transient (construction related) it was very difficult on a site by site basis.
As SBH suggests have a look around for OHSAS18001 auditing (or even combined auditing if you do not have 9001/14001) courses. A few of the auditing companies do these and will be able to advise if they are appropriate to you. If you already have 9001/14001 it may be worthwhile asking if they provide 18001 auditing/certification and if they can provide you with a gap analysis as a service to allow you to work towards compliance on your stage 1 audits.
A copy of the guide to the standard from the BSI bookshop is also worth considering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
SBH wrote:Take the OHSAS 18001 auditting course. I could say do a gap analysis but if you are not clear on what or how to audit then that route is useless.
SBH I would agree with the quote above - you must have some idea of where the business is situated within the 18001 spec but be warned the process can be quite an onerous one. We have implemented it within a Fire and Rescue Serivce and it was not easy. It is not just achieving 18001 but also the maintaining of it with sufficient resources to support this. I am quite happy to answer any more question if you message me if that will help?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Why would you do it site by site? They are the end users. The framework needs setting centrally, end user compliance comes second.
Who will manage;
Doc control
Legislative register
Management reviews
The MS
Audit schedule
Just to name a few
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
nr wrote:Why would you do it site by site?
Because it's easier to get one site up to speed than every site simultaneously. Because it's cheaper to get one site audited and certified than every site simultaneously. Because it's less disruptive to business to get one site to follow new working practices (if required) than every site simultaneously. Because subsequently if one site goes off the rails and loses the accreditation then the whole organisation does not lose it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Got it so we let the tail wag the dog!!
You can't roll anything out until the central system is in place- then its end user compliance. Of course you can't audit 10 sites at the same time if you are a lone worker. Equally to sit on one small site(The OP said 450 staff which is very small) whilst they make one change then the next change would seem a waste of resources and time when you could be moving round all the sites simulations bringing them all up to the level required.
But then there are those that adopt the one man, one day, one job approach
End user compliance is the easy part of implementing and maintaining a compliant system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
nr wrote:Got it so we let the tail wag the dog!!
You can't roll anything out until the central system is in place You're assuming you have a central system. There may not be a 'central' system - just multiple suites following the same system. In that case there is no difference (functionally) to having them all start following a new system simultaneously and having them start following a new system one-by-one. However, doing it one-by-one lets you iron out bugs in the system at one location then have a closer-to-working setup to implement elsewhere. It lets you concentrate on one place, and is cheaper and easier than trying to be in six places at once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
You're assuming you have a central system. There may not be a 'central' system - just multiple suites following the same system."
For clarity then are you saying;
Doc/version control will be managed at each site
Management reviews held at each site
Legislative registers in each site plan
Audit schedules (including possibly corporate audits) held and managed by each site
Separate policies at each site
etc
Out of curiosity where would the "same system" come from or sit if it isn't centrally held.
I think I understand what you are saying I'm just keen to understand how and where the systems would come from, how they would be managed, maintained etc. I believe you mention cost saving, having several systems would be more expensive I would have thought for a number of reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
I think you're assuming I am advocating multiple systems. You can have one certification and add sites to it on a site-by-site basis, one at a time. All the reasons I gave remain valid except the last.
Actually, if you wanted to preserve the last, you could run separate systems (which is nearly what we do for some sites - we have one for UK sites and one for overseas sites, but we bring new sites onto our certification on a site-by-site basis).
If you did want to do that, with respect to your list of objections, there's no reason taht a management review can't review multiple systems in one meeting (it probably does so anyway - 9001, 14001, 18001 - even if there's only one of each system across multiple sites, ours does two of each but each pair is substantially identical). Likewise, a single audit schedule could be managed at one site that covers all systems at all sites. Version control is no more difficult where a site has its own policy that just happens to always be word-for-word identical to that of another site than if two sites follow the one policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: New forum user
|
Most organisations have the fundamentals of the requriemetns of 18001 in palce as the majority are legal requirements. It is often a case of identifying and organising these records and requirements in a logical fashion. rom experience the best way to fully understand a management system specification is as many others here have suggested and if you are to do this yourself, to undertake an auditors course. This helps to clarfiy the requirements in the standard.
With knowledge of the requirements of the standard a "gap analysis" or audit can be undertaken to see what is and isn't in place and how the elemnts interact in practice. Many consultants offer this kind of service to undertake gap analysis and then aid a company in developing a management system to pull all the elements together to satisfy the standard. Having a gap analysis undertaken by a consultant is often cheaper and quicker in the sort term, the benefit of undertakeing the course yourself is that you then have this knowledge going forward. To finish I would strongly recommend that any system developed for your organisation is exactly that, developed specifically for your organisation and not a standard set of procedures shoe horned into your organisation. Make it your own and involve the workforce where possible you will get better buy-in from the workforce.
Hope this helps
Good Luck
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Paul
PM me with your email and I will forward you a gap analysis for the standard. I shared this with a good few colleagues from this forum before Xmas and they found it useful.
You only need a general knowledge of auditing as its a detailed checklist against each element of the standard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.