The symposium had a strong attendance with over 80 attendees—all practicing compliance and product safety engineers, and a small number of EMC engineers.
Elya delivered a presentation on the iNARTE PSE program and its expected evolution. The presentation drew great interest and led to many inquires for more about info the iNARTE program.
Elya even had his photo taken with two proud iNARTE certified professionals.
We plan to attend further conferences for all areas we certify in the coming year. Check future newsletters for events that we will be attending.
One of the most frequent concerns raised by auditors about ISO 9001:2015 is how to audit a quality management system (QMS) that has little or no documentation. ISO 9001:2015 doesn’t include specific requirements for documented procedures and doesn’t require a quality manual. However, it does require “documented information” related to a number of requirements. Several of the new requirements: context of the organization (clause 4.1), actions to address risks and opportunities (clause 6.1), and organizational knowledge (subclause 7.1.6), have no such reference. So how can these “documentless” processes be audited?
ISO 9001:2015 defines an audit as a “systematic, independent and documented process for obtaining objective evidence and evaluating it objectively to determine the extent to which the audit criteria are fulfilled.” The standard defines audit criteria as a “set of policies, procedures or requirements used as a reference against which objective evidence is compared.” Finally, ISO 9001:2015 defines audit evidence as “records, statements of fact or other information, which are relevant to the audit criteria and verifiable.”
It may appear from these definitions that audit evidence and audit criteria must be documented. However, the key questions that come to mind when limited or no QMS documentation is available are:
- How are audit criteria established?
- What audit evidence is available to evaluate conformance?
The answer to these questions is found in understanding the QMS from the process approach and applying essential auditing skills.
Consider that every activity within an organization is a process that—by definition—takes inputs and converts them to an output typically of greater value through defined steps. Thus, the basic audit criteria for any process can then be derived through a set of process questions:
- What is the desired output?
- What input triggers action toward the desired output?
- What steps are taken to transform the input to the output?
Every process must have a process owner who’s responsible for managing the process and its related outputs. Specifically, a process owner is responsible for:
- Clearly identifying process output requirements
- Determining process interfaces, including input triggers
- Defining how the process is to be executed (process sequence and actions)
- Establishing process performance goals
- Evaluating potential process risks in achieving output requirements and process performance goals
- Determining appropriate process and output controls
- Identifying, obtaining, qualifying, and maintaining process resources
- Monitoring ongoing process performance (process execution and outputs, both internal and external)
- Changing/improving the process as necessary
Recognizing the process owner’s role makes it clear that audit criteria can be determined by interviewing the process owner. The process owner’s responses to the questions then become the basis for gathering the objective evidence to verify conformance to the stated audit criteria. This approach requires auditors to exercise several critical auditing skills:
- Initiating the audit by interviewing the process owner to establish the audit criteria. This will challenge auditors to carefully listen to the process owner’s responses to audit questions and quickly organize this information into a process framework.
- Be able to quickly develop open-ended audit questions based on the process owner’s response to the questions and gather relevant audit evidence from personnel working in the QMS process, including the process owner. This technique for gathering objective evidence is often referred to as corroboration.
- Be capable of synthesizing auditee responses to determine alignment with audit criteria as described by the process owner and recognize relevant audit trails for exploring the sequence and interaction of QMS processes.
While this approach to auditing certainly depends heavily on auditors’ listening skills and ability to organize information, it also offers greater flexibility in the depth of questioning that can be pursued during an audit. The auditor is no longer limited to questions related to whatever is stated in QMS documentation.
This does mean a bit more work for the auditor—especially during the audit—and perhaps auditees will be nervous not having a script to follow when responding to auditors’ questions. However, the potential for exploring potential risks and opportunities related to QMS processes is much greater. These benefits will increase the value of audits and the information they can provide to process owners and the organization’s leadership in better utilizing their QMS for increased customer satisfaction and improved business performance.
About the author
Cathy Fisher is founder and president of Quistem LLC, which provides online and onsite management systems implementation, update, and assessment services for manufacturers and other industry sectors. Cathy has more than 30 years of respected auditing expertise, having led internal audit programs at many manufacturing organizations during her career. Cathy also has extensive experience conducting management system registration audits, as well as establishing supplier evaluation and development programs.
She has held numerous auditor certifications including ASQ CQA, RAB-Certified Quality Systems Auditor, and ISO/TS 16949 IATF-recognized auditor. She has conducted internal and external audits that total more than 1,000 audit days and trained hundreds of management systems professionals as auditors. Cathy is passionate about the value auditing can bring to organizations and enjoys mentoring the next generation of technical professionals to develop their auditor excellence.
Today’s audit environment is truly global. Gone are the days of small, local teams working on focused audits within a single department. Seldom are all audit members in the same time zone or even the same continent.
Preparing for an audit in a decentralized function takes complex planning and attention to detail. Effective decentralized management audits require the right skills focused on the right data within manageable time frames. Modular Kaizen is an integrated systems approach to organizational performance that supports the complex planning required for decentralized audits.
What is Modular Kaizen?
Modular Kaizen is a modification of the traditional kaizen improvement process that provides the same rapid results without removing critical personnel from daily operations. It’s conducted over a series of short activities designed to fit into a highly driven work environment.
Modular Kaizen was developed as a method for implementing a culture of quality improvement within an agency of the U.S. federal government during the H1N1 flu virus response in 2009. The agency was deeply involved in both the global preparation for and response to the effects of the H1N1 virus. Key personnel involved in the development of the cultural quality framework were leading scientists in the efforts surrounding the H1N1 epidemic. I was challenged with leading globally dispersed teams with subject matter experts busy working on life-saving activities.
Improvement relies on a system of processes
A management audit is an effective tool for process improvement. Faster process cycles and associated agility often suggest a decentralized auditing event. Auditors must be prepared to support this decentralized structure through remote communication.
One purpose of a management audit is to assure that the correct information is fed back to the appropriate parts of the organization to facilitate sustainability. The example described in this article shows how planning for a decentralized audit identified underlying process problems.
The emerging requirement to conduct decentralized audits fits well into the concept of Modular Kaizen. Modular Kaizen places heavy focus on planning, considering the availability of team members and subject matter experts. Critical to any successful audit is the availability of supporting documentation, often stored remotely under differing levels of security and access. Tools can be employed to structure complex activities to minimize disruption and maximize audit success.
What the audit tells us about a process
Figure 1 illustrates the concept of “accept, adjust, or abandon” in auditing processes. The least disruptive condition is to have the current process flow smoothly from one task to another, as illustrated in flow 1. Occasionally, processes will veer off expected target performance and exhibit a slight variation as shown in flow 2. This variation is still within the expected range of performance for the current process, so the process simply adapts to the minor variation identified in an audit and returns to the expected flow.
Occasionally a special cause strongly disrupts the flow, as exhibited in flow 3. Here process performance is outside the expected variation of the process. At this point, the process must adjust operations to return to the current process flow.
Finally, in flow 4, external pressure may be so strong on the current process that it’s no longer capable of meeting customer requirements. In this situation, the current state is abandoned and a new process is designed.
Auditing process performance relative to the four flows in figure 1 is a challenge when all the players are in the same room. Achieving an accurate image of how processes are followed during a remote audit can be downright frustrating. Unless the auditor and auditees think clearly through the audit steps well ahead of time, the event can fail miserably.
An example from real life
I recently served as a senior quality consultant to the electric utility industry. During this time, I designed quality assurance systems for protection and control departments. I was asked to complete a project closeout audit as follow-up for corrective action. One issue was the failure to follow documented procedures for engineering checklists and peer reviews before releasing an electrical design package to the client.
When planning for a decentralized audit, the following items are critical to a favorable outcome:
- The right skills
- The right standard
- In the right place
- At the right time
- With the right documentation
Although the right skills were assigned to the process being audited at the electric utility, several other requirements were not as simply addressed.
The office being audited and the subject matter expert were in Birmingham, Alabama, along with the project coordinator and director responsible for the client. The auditor and project manager work out of headquarters near Orlando. We used online virtual meeting software for audit meetings. Keep in mind that this example is influenced by only one time zone. Imagine what happens when the audit is with locations on the other side of the globe!
Obstacles in this decentralized audit appeared quickly. Because the subject matter expert continued to have daily responsibilities for technical upgrades at client substations, I needed to schedule audit virtual sessions in between his work activities in Alabama. The Birmingham office was small with no backup for specialized engineering work.
Road blocks also appeared during documentation planning. Accessing standards and documentation across different servers became an issue. I use Microsoft Windows 10; the auditee location uses Windows 7. Windows 10 defaults to Microsoft Edge; Windows 7 uses Internet Explorer. IT access rules prevented the subject matter expert from having field access to corporate files, so we needed to download copies to a tablet we carried with us. Even with this workaround, we couldn’t always access the files we needed.
The reference standard for auditing the process was contained in a series of control manuals, but they weren’t all located in the same office or in the same format. Companywide standards were housed in electronic format at the headquarters location outside Orlando. Client-specific standards were maintained at the Birmingham office in electronic or hard copy files. Project-specific information was maintained in Birmingham across several software applications and files. MS Project files were kept by the project coordinator in Birmingham.
The standard for design packages follows generic electrical engineering protocols. A series of checklists and peer reviews are required before delivering the final package to the client. A common flowchart was maintained at headquarters for all company protection and control design packages. The Birmingham office had modified the flow for minor changes in client communication during design and acceptance.
Checklists for preliminary design, engineering package assembly, and final package delivery were available as standard templates with slight modifications for client preferences.
I developed a tracking sheet to record scheduled and completed dates of checklists and peer reviews for each of the three phases of project design. Event completions by the required date were used as project key performance indicators. When I compared the dates on the checklist and peer review documents with the project schedule based on the standard flowchart, I discovered serious discrepancies. When I asked about this, I was told, “Well, we don’t use the standard checklists. We wait to review until issue for acceptance.” This was a big clue for the audit.
Because I didn’t have access to company MS Project files, the project coordinator offered to create a PDF version of the project schedule to use during the virtual audit. Figure 2 is the PDF file. Problems with this approach were apparent quickly. When I maximized the font size by 400 percent to see the text, I couldn’t see sequencing throughout the project. The schedule includes individual dates for all three checklist and peer review phases that weren’t met, but instead left for the end of the project.
Apply data access and Modular Kaizen project scheduling tools
The project team and I quickly came to the root cause analysis of the corrective action situation. The local office had accepted more client work than time allowed and was cutting corners to meet deadlines. Resolving obstacles to performing the decentralized audit highlighted the discrepancies between the standard and the utility’s compliance.
As a result of this experience, I worked with the project coordinator and director to establish firm expectations for meeting key performance indicators. I used the Modular Kaizen model to suggest planning tools for an effective decentralized audit.
Figure 3 illustrates the major tools recommended by Modular Kaizen. The tools identified for this audit activity were:
- Quality at the source
- Modular flow
- Pull technology
- Project management
As we become less preventive and more reactive, the cost of correction increases in dollars and reputation. Planning to have all materials and personnel available for a remote audit is critical. We learned from our mistakes during this example.
The checklists and peer review templates provide a description standard for deliverables. The Birmingham team established the project schedule, modified standard checklists to meet the nuances of its client contract, and performed tasks as identified in the process flowchart. The local team was augmented with corporate project management and quality assurance for key performance tracking and the closing audit.
Modular flow: Schedule separately using pull technology
Modular flow assumes there is no need to have team members in the same room at the same time to perform a closing audit. Advanced planning ensures data are available in the correct format, in the right place, and with access authority for each scheduled activity.
Figure 4 illustrates the modular activities possible through effective planning.
Note that the project coordinator schedules the project kickoff meeting and builds the project schedule based on information from the project lead. The design engineer performs engineering activities, including three phases of checklists to meet content and due dates. Once the checklists are performed, the director is queued to perform the associated peer review. When the package is accepted by the customer, the director performs final signoffs for project close.
All members of the team don’t need to be present for the closing audit. If the project coordinator can present all materials to meet audit requirements, it’s done.
A Modular Kaizen approach to the decentralized audit
The decentralized audit requires significant advanced planning. Modular Kaizen focuses on the preventive nature of planning rather than the reactive nature of correction. Anticipating the skills, data, standards, and timing required for a decentralized audit allows both auditee and auditor to use their time effectively. In this fast-paced and highly disruptive world, using tools to assure that an audit is done right the first time is worth the work.
About the author
Grace L. Duffy has more than 40 years of experience in successful business and process management in corporate, government, education, and health care. She uses her experience as a former president, CEO, and senior manager to help organizations improve. She has authored 13 texts and many articles on quality, leadership, and organizational performance. She is a frequent speaker and trainer.
Grace holds an MBA from Georgia State University. She is an ASQ CMQ/OE, CQIA, SSGB, and CQA. Grace is a Lean Six Sigma Master Black Belt, ASQ Fellow, and Distinguished Service Medalist. Grace is the 2014 Quality Magazine Quality Person of the year and the 2016 recipient of the Asia-Pacific Quality Organization Milflora M. Gatchalian International Woman in Quality Medal.
The post Prepare for a Decentralized Management Audit Using Modular Kaizen Tools appeared first on The Auditor.
Despite 83 percent of manufacturers being adversely affected by supplier inability to meet their needs in the past, only one third anticipate a parts or services shortage in 2017, according to ASQ’s 2017 Manufacturing Outlook Survey.
More than 1,125 manufacturing professionals from around the world responded to ASQ’s 2017 Manufacturing Outlook Survey, which was conducted online in November and December. Survey respondents represented a multitude of industries including aerospace, automotive, food, and medical devices.
According to the survey, 66 percent of manufacturers expecting a problem with suppliers are working closely with providers to resolve issues, while 35 percent are working with their suppliers’ competitor. Some manufacturers are stockpiling parts, while others are expanding their operations to create the necessary parts themselves.
ASQ Chair Pat La Londe said supply chains play a critical role in manufacturing, and companies simply can’t risk being without the necessary material they need to be successful.
“Companies need to carefully consider multiple options when faced with a shortage of materials or suppliers that can’t meet their needs,” La Londe said.
In addition to questions about their organization’s supply chain, the annual Manufacturing Outlook Survey also asked respondents about their financial outlook for 2017. Close to 72 percent of respondents said they expected an increase in their company’s revenue in 2017. Furthermore, 74 percent said they expected salary increases in 2017—up from 61 percent in the 2016 survey—and 46 percent said they expect their company to increase staff, compared with 37 percent last year.
While respondents are confident their companies will increase revenue, the top hurdle facing organizations continues to be the economy. More than 36 percent of respondents cited the economy as their greatest hurdle in 2017, down from 40 percent of respondents in last year’s survey.
Around 30 percent of respondents said the shortage of skilled workers will be their greatest challenge, followed by regulatory issues at 15 percent. Uncertainly about the government’s direction with a new president, global trade issues, and decreased demand for their products were identified as other areas of concern.
Only seven percent of respondents said a shortage of necessary parts is their greatest obstacle. In fact, respondents are satisfied with the quality and availability of materials, with 68 percent of respondents saying quality is the most important factor when considering suppliers. When suppliers are unable to provide the necessary materials, respondents said “don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” Openly communicate with suppliers to determine any potential risks, and have back-up plans—and back-up suppliers—to alleviate supply chain disruptions.
The survey also revealed that 59 percent of respondents said their organizations have formal processes to address supply chain risk, whereas 28 percent do not, and 13 percent aren’t sure.
The post ASQ Manufacturing Survey: Confidence in the Supply Chain Returns appeared first on The Auditor.
Newly updated ISO/IEC 27004:2016, Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management – Monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation, provides guidance on how to assess the performance of information security management system standard ISO/IEC 27001.
ISO/IEC 27004:2016 explains how to develop and operate measurement processes, while also assessing and reporting the results of a set of information security metrics.
Replacing the 2009 edition of the standard, ISO/IEC 27004:2016 has been updated and extended to align with the revised version of ISO/IEC 27001 to provide organizations increased value and confidence.
Edward Humphreys, convenor of the working group that developed the standard, said cyber attacks are among the greatest risks an organization can face.
“This is why the much improved version of ISO/IEC 27004 provides essential and practical support to the many organizations that are implementing ISO/IEC 27001 to protect themselves from the growing diversity of security attacks that business is facing today,” Humphreys said.
ISO/IEC 27004:2016 details how to construct an information security measurement program, select what to measure, and operate the necessary measurement processes. The standard also includes examples of different types of measures, and how to assess their effectiveness.
Benefits of implementing ISO/IEC 27004 include:
- Increased accountability
- Improved information security performance and ISMS processes
- Evidence of meeting the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001, applicable laws, rules, and regulations
The post ISO/IEC 27004 to Measure Information Security Effectiveness appeared first on The Auditor.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is seeking feedback on the latest revision of ISO/IEC Guide 14, Product Information for Consumers.
ISO/IEC Guide 14 provides general principles intended to make it easier for consumers to effectively compare products or services before buying them. The primary purpose of the guide is to advise those responsible for drafting national or international standards what information prospective purchasers require and expect. Additionally, the guide may assist those who write purchase information, such as suppliers, as well as enforcement authorities.
Although the draft guide doesn’t address conformity assessment, it does include the following changes from the second edition:
- An improved scope and introduction
- Inclusion of new purchase information labeling tools
- Relationship with ISO/IEC Guide 37, Instructions for use of consumer products and ISO/IEC Guide 41, Consumer needs in packaging
- Consideration of vulnerable persons’ product information needs
- Addition of information on recycling and used goods
- Improved treatment of risk, sustainability, and privacy issues
- Addition of new clauses on performance and conditions of use and dependability considerations
- Deletion of purchase information bodies and purchase information systems
Click here to view the draft of ISO/IEC Guide 14 on Product Information for Consumers.
Relevant stakeholders are invited to send comments on the draft by close of business January 6 to ANSI Senior Director of International Policy Steven Cornish at email@example.com.
Based on the input received, the ANSI ISO Council will be asked to approve an ANSI position and submit its comments to ISO before its April 7 deadline.
The post Feedback Sought on International Consumer Product Information Guide appeared first on The Auditor.
The average salary for quality professionals in 2016 remained relatively flat, according to ASQ Quality Progress magazine’s 30th annual salary survey.
The Quality Progress Salary Survey helps to outline the health of the quality profession and breaks down salary information—submitted by ASQ members—in 26 sections and sorts the results by variables including job title, education, years of experience and geographic location. This year’s survey was completed by more than 7,200 quality professionals from a range of industries and market sectors.
According to the 2016 results, average salaries increased 0.86 percent to $91,659 for full-time professionals in the United States. However, average salaries for quality professionals in Canada decreased 2.6 percent to $86,923*. The decrease can be attributed to the smaller number of respondents.
In 2016, the titles of the highest-paid quality professionals in the United States include vice president/executive (earning an average of $169,350), statisticians ($132,468), and directors ($130,902). In Canada, the top salary belongs to Master Black Belts and educators/instructors, who earn an average of $177,230.
While salaries in the United States remained flat, the percentage of respondents dissatisfied with their salaries decreased from 35 percent in 2015 to 27 percent this year—the lowest level since Quality Progress began monitoring employee satisfaction in 2014. Respondents are most satisfied with their pay when their employers pay for quality-related training and ASQ certifications, according to the survey.
“While salaries for quality professionals remain mostly unchanged from last year, support from senior leaders and their willingness to pay for quality training and ASQ certifications play a major role in the satisfaction of their employees,” says Pat La Londe, ASQ chairman. “It’s that training and those certifications that can help employees add value to the organization and increase its quality.”
While the average salary for full-time quality professionals increased slightly, there are steps workers can take to boost their pay, such as earning ASQ certifications.
Consistent with past results, those who hold ASQ certifications earn more than their non-credentialed colleagues. According to the survey, U.S. respondents with one ASQ certification earn more than $3,800 than those without any certifications. Those with two certifications earn nearly $6,200 more than those with only one certification.
Specifically, quality engineers who hold ASQ manager of quality/organizational excellence certification earn nearly 21 percent more than non-certified quality engineers. Specialists with ASQ quality auditor certification earn 17 percent more than non-certified specialists.
Another way to boost pay is completing Six Sigma training. The average salary increased from $83,004 to $100,361 for U.S. quality professionals who completed one or more Six Sigma training programs. In Canada, the average salary increased from $81,759 to $94,234 for those with Six Sigma training.
While any level of training offers a boost in pay, completing higher levels of Six Sigma training offers an opportunity for larger salary increases, according to the survey.
In the U.S., the greatest disparity is between Master Black Belts, who earn an average of $130,878, and Black Belts, who earn an average of $104,974. In Canada, the greatest premium comes with Black Belts, who earn nearly $18,000 more than Green Belts.
Results from the Quality Progress Salary Survey can be found in the December issue of Quality Progress magazine.
*All Canadian figures are noted in Canadian dollars.
The post ASQ Salary Survey Reveals Modest Increase for U.S. Quality Professionals appeared first on The Auditor.
As a result of the rapid expansion of industries that rely on automation, the International Organization for Standardization’s Technical Committee 184, Automation systems and integration (TC 184), requires additional expertise.
As the U.S. member body to ISO, the American National Standards Institute is seeking additional U.S. participants with expertise reflecting the diverse nature of the committee to work within the ANSI-accredited U.S. Technical Advisory Group to ISO TC 184. The committee and its subcommittees work on a variety of standards related to automation, especially in areas involving manufacturing systems and integration.
Examples of the required expertise include experts who represent smart manufacturing and enterprise resource planning.
ISO TC 184 has developed a strategic business plan to highlight how its standards add value, including:
- More efficient and effective capture, organization, and expression of the requirements for integration and operation of physical, human, and IT elements. Reduced cost of implementing the required technologies in a combined e-manufacturing and e-business environment.
- The ability to adapt to changing business requirements by addressing the capabilities needed for enterprises to quickly respond and adapt to new supply chain demands and to flexibly configure their human, physical, and information resources to support continuous product and process improvements. TC 184 standards facilitate changes to the configuration of system elements while retaining the investment in individual elements.
Currently, stakeholders involved in ISO TC 184 standards development represent a diverse range of industries including automotive, aeronautics, space and defense, and electrical device sectors, along with leading IT companies, research institutes, trade associations, consortia, and academia. Twenty countries, including the United States, participate in the TC, which has published more than 800 standards since its creation in 1983.
The post U.S. Representation Sought for Automation Standards Development appeared first on The Auditor.
This year the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) approved a project to revise ISO 19011:2011—Guidelines for auditing management systems. ISO Project Committee PC 302 was established with experts from numerous countries to revise the standard. The first of four plenary meetings was held during the second week of November in Orlando, Florida.
While it is too soon to say exactly what the new revision of ISO 19011 will look like, here is a brief overview of the most relevant topics that were discussed at the first meeting.
Terms and definitions: ISO 19011 isn’t a management system standard, therefore it’s not required to use the same terminology as other standards. However, it was decided that it’s in the interest of users of the standard that the terms and definitions be aligned with the high-level structure in Annex SL of the ISO directives. One example is the use of the term “documented information,” which will be integrated in ISO 19011 whenever possible.
Risk and risk-based thinking: The committee decided that it’s not necessary to include a new section about risk. However, the concepts of risk and opportunities will be included throughout the standard as applicable.
Remote auditing: The main idea and argument to justify the need to include remote auditing in the revision was that some companies only exist virtually, or that some or all information may not be stored in a physical location. The committee decided that an audit is an audit, no matter where it’s completed. Therefore, there are different tools and methods that can be used—remote auditing being one of them.
Small and medium enterprises (SME): It was determined that it’s not necessary to include a specific section regarding SMEs because the language used in the standard should be generic enough to apply to any type of organization and audit. If any specific guidance is needed for SMEs, it may be included within an annex or notes.
Audit team competence: ISO 19011 and ISO 17021 are compatible and will remain this way. There will be some changes to reflect current challenges regarding auditor and audit team competence—in particular in relation to risk, combined audits, and auditing clauses 4.1, 4.2, and 4.3 of the high-level structure, along with remote auditing.
In summary, we can expect the revision of ISO 19011 to be better aligned with the terminology, business practices, and audit needs of current times. The revision will incorporate concepts such as risk-based thinking and remote auditing, and will also include updated terminology and auditor competence requirements. This will provide a contemporary approach to complex organizational structures and audits.
About the author
Elisabeth Thaller has provided management system consulting, auditing, and training for the past 20 years. During this time, Thaller has coached private and government organizations on the implementation of diverse management system and conformity assessment standards, including ISO 17024 and ISO 17021.
As a contracted evaluator with Exemplar Global, Thaller has performed training provider and course certification audits in the US, Europe, Mexico, and South America.
Thaller is a member of the US TAG to ISO/PC 302 Guidelines for auditing management systems and is actively involved in the current review of ISO 19011. Thaller previously participated in the ISO/TC 176 STTG (ISO 9001:2015), ISO/TC 207 STTF (ISO 14001:2015), and ISO/CASCO/STTF (ISO 17021:2015).
An awards program has been created to recognize organizations that are transforming their businesses through ISO 50001, which applies to energy management systems certification.
The Energy Management Leadership Awards program was established by The Clean Energy Ministerial (CEM)—a global forum consisting of 24 countries and the European Commission.
The awards aim to raise global awareness of the benefits of energy management and accelerate uptake of the management system to support corporate, national, and global climate goals.
Industrial, commercial, and public-sector companies or facilities that hold a valid, third-party-verified ISO 50001 certificate are eligible to enter. To enter, organizations are required to submit a case study that describes their energy management experience and the benefits of doing so. The entries will be evaluated by an independent panel of international experts.
The winning organizations will be recognized in 2017 during the Clean Energy Ministerial meeting in China, which will host energy ministers and corporate leaders from around the world.
Each organization to submit a qualifying entry will receive an Energy Management Insight Award for helping to build global insight on the benefits of energy management systems. The top-ranking submissions from each country will also be shared with the appropriate governments.
Click here to learn more about the CEM Energy Management Leadership Awards. The deadline for submissions is January 24, 2017.