ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 Alignment?

Experts say it's problematic but possible as early as 2011.

Since the mid 1990s, technical committee (TC) 176 (the group responsible for ISO 9001) and TC 207 (the group responsible for ISO 14001) have worked to achieve compatibility between these two standards. But for a number of years, some of the leaders within the International Organization for Standardization have advocated that TC 176 and TC 207 go beyond compatibility to achieve alignment. The concepts of compatible vs. aligned management systems standards (MSS) can be described as follows:

• Compatibility means that the two standards can be implemented in a coordinated way without unnecessary duplication. In such cases, the wording of common requirements isn't necessarily the same in the two compatible MSSs.

• Alignment, as currently conceived, means making the two standards nearly the same, with the same structure and identical text for common elements.

ISO's Technical Management Board has essentially ordered TC 176 and TC 207 to work together to produce aligned standards sometime after the next projected amendment to ISO 9001, currently scheduled to be issued in 2008. If the TCs do this, we could see a set of aligned standards as early as 2011 or 2012. There's now a joint task group working to develop the framework for aligned versions of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001.

These two standards don't currently have the same structure, and although the 2000 version of ISO 9001 and the 2004 version of 14001 have standardized a good deal of their language, there remain common elements with significantly different wording. For the standards to be aligned, the structure of one document--or more likely both--must be altered. Common language must be developed for the shared elements and agreed upon by both groups. To accomplish this and preserve the international consensus process will take a lot of time, much discussion and a good deal of compromise.

It's likely that the compromises will result in broader language and less detail than currently found in the ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 standards because it's easier to agree on more generalized language. Feedback on the 2000 version of ISO 9001, however, indicates that users have difficulties with the more abstract requirements. This would likely increase if the two standards were aligned. (Actually, this is the sort of challenge that standards writers enjoy tackling.)

But what does this mean to the average user? It means change. It's fashionable these days to view change as a good thing, and generally it is. The concept of aligned standards is a good one. But as with any new product, timing is everything, and the devil is in the details. There are many stories about innovative companies that were first to market with a new idea but failed, although at a later time another company made a fortune with the same product concept. The key is timing and market acceptance.

If ISO moves too quickly, the aligned standards might well prove unsuccessful in the marketplace. When I ask ISO 9001 users if aligned standards are a good idea, I almost always get a positive response. But when I ask if they'd be enthusiastic about changing their systems to deal with a new common structure or identical core requirements, these same people tend to say something like, "Not really." There are hundreds of thousands of organizations using ISO 9001 and as many as a hundred thousand using ISO 14001. The potential cost in time and money to make changes is great for these current users. Even if this were offset by lower third-party auditing costs and easier implementation for new users, it's likely to take years to amortize the total cost of development and implementation.

Meanwhile, ISO has other considerations. There are other management system documents, most not yet issued as ISO standards, and the organization has been under pressure from some member bodies to take on projects such as occupational health and safety management systems standards.

From the perspective of a standards body, a common structure and identical content for common requirements makes sense. It's often pointed out that although the market might not want aligned standards, it will readily accept the concept once the project is completed. Henry Ford was fond of pointing out that the market didn't ask for the automobile. This may be, but it's also true that what's logical isn't always accepted by customers--in this case, the user communities.

Whether aligned standards will prove to be better is a matter for discussion; no one really knows yet. What can be said is that getting to them will be a long and very time-consuming journey.

About the author
John E. (Jack) West is a consultant, business advisor and author with more than 30 years of experience in a wide variety of industries. He is chair of the U.S. TAG to ISO TC 176 and lead delegate for the United States to the International Organization for Standardization committee responsible for the ISO 9000 series of quality management standards.