Comments on: Evaluating ISO 30401 standard: Part 4 – Primer on implementation process

By: Mark Harbor

Mark Harbor — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 09:11:07 +0000

In reply to Stephen Bounds. That there is no consensus, from a MS development point of view is a good thing. Auditors should not be defining how to meet standards, merely whether or not the standard, as a minimum, has been achieved. How compliance is achieved is up to the organisation implementing management systems, possibly supported by consultants.

By: Stephen Bounds

Stephen Bounds — Sun, 20 Sep 2020 07:33:06 +0000

Thanks for the correction Mark, I’ve updated the article to be more accurate. I understand the purpose of having the standard Annex SL language and cautiously accept that it has a purpose when an organisation is seeking to implement multiple MS standards in parallel.

While there are certainly drawbacks in having highly prescriptive standards (the somewhat outdated methodology in ISO 15489 comes to mind), the problem is that in an immature discipline like KM, we don’t have the infrastructure to support development of the “how”.

There are no armies of ISO 30401 accreditors out there and in any case, there is no consensus on what sound execution of the system standards would look like. So it’s hard to see how we’ll end up markedly improving the standards of KM implementations in organisations through mere adherence to the ISO 30401 standard.

By: Mark Harbor

Mark Harbor — Sat, 19 Sep 2020 17:01:12 +0000

I have to say, Annex SL is not peculiar to the QMS standard (9001). It is a template for all management system standards; you will find it used for 14001 as well as 45001, and I’m assuming other MS standards too.
The purpose of the annex it to facilitate integration of management system arrangements.
Another point: MS standards are not designed to tell an organisation how to achieve the requirements, but what is required; they are not technical, but system standards. The how is dependent on the organisation’s context.