SMS AND QMS .1 INTRODUCTION TO SAFETY

7-8 Safety Management Manual SMM c The lions are a clear hazard to the caveman and to the delivery of the service. The STOP sign is a resource that already exists in the system, intended to alert the caveman about the hazard i.e. entering a particularly dangerous zone. Nevertheless, a self-defence tool would be an appropriate additional resource. Providing a spear for the caveman would therefore address a mismatch between the caveman L and the lions E. d In addition to the STOP sign, yellow “hold” lines painted on the road just before entering the particularly dangerous zone would increase awareness and direct the attention of the caveman towards the lions, thus supplementing the spear as an additional resource to address the mismatch between the caveman L and the lions E. e The caveman has no equipment to carry the small packages so that his hands are free to handle the spear as well as to maintain better balance and stability while travelling on the rough and uneven mountain road. A backpack to carry the packages would be an additional resource to address a mismatch in the interface between the caveman L and the lions E and the caveman L and the road H. f There is a speed sign that indirectly alerts travellers at the beginning of the winding road. The speed sign does not convey an unequivocal message about the upcoming road conditions. A dedicated and obvious alerting sign would be an additional resource to address a mismatch in the interface between the caveman L and the road E. g There is no warning that the pass at the top of the mountain is through a tunnel. An alerting sign would be an additional resource to address a mismatch in the interface between the caveman L and the road E. 7.5.5 A gap analysis thus reveals the resources, structures and safety arrangements existing in the system to address safety vulnerabilities, specified in terms of hazards, that arise as a consequence of the interaction of people and other components of the operational context. It also reveals additional resources, structures and safety arrangements that would be necessary to mitigate safety vulnerabilities and increase operational resilience to the hazards. 7.5.6 Once the gap analysis is complete and fully documented, the resources, structures and arrangements that have been identified as missing or deficient will form, together with those already existing, the basis of the SMS implementation plan. Organizations may format their SMS implementation plan to suit their individual needs; however, a spreadsheet format, Gantt chart or MS Project type layout is recommended for ease of viewing and tracking. Each item will be assessed to determine how the organization will create or modify policies, objectives, procedures or processes to incorporate the required SMS components and elements. Appendix 2 to this chapter provides an example of a gap analysis for service providers with suggested questions to assist an organization in finding out what is missing once they have described their own system in the organization. 7.6 SMS AND QMS 7.6.1 Quality management has been established in many segments of the aviation system for a long time. Many aviation organizations have implemented and operated quality control QC andor quality assurance QA for a number of years. 7.6.2 A QA programme defines and establishes an organization’s quality policy and objectives. It ensures that the organization has in place those elements necessary to improve efficiency and reduce service-related risks. If properly implemented, a QA ensures that procedures are carried out consistently and in compliance with applicable requirements, Chapter 7. Introduction to Safety Management Systems SMS 7-9 that problems are identified and resolved, and that the organization continuously reviews and improves its procedures, products and services. QA should identify problems and improve procedures in order to meet corporate objectives. 7.6.3 The application of QA principles to safety management processes helps ensure that the requisite system- wide safety measures have been taken to support the organization in achieving its safety objectives. However, QA can not, by itself, as proposed by quality dogma, “assure safety”. It is the integration of QA principles and concepts into an SMS under the safety assurance component discussed in Chapter 9 that assists an organization in ensuring the necessary standardization of processes to achieve the overarching objective of managing the safety risks of the consequences of the hazards the organization must confront during its activities related to the delivery of services. 7.6.4 QA principles include procedures for monitoring the performance of all aspects of an organization, including such elements as: a design and documentation of procedures e.g. SOPs; b inspection and testing methods; c monitoring of equipment and operations; d internal and external audits; e monitoring of corrective actions taken; and f use of appropriate statistical analysis, when required. 7.6.5 A few aviation organizations have integrated their QC and QA programmes into what is called quality management systems QMS. A number of internationally accepted standards regarding quality assurance are currently in use. The standards of choice depend on the size, complexity and the product of the organization. Standard ISO 9001- 2000, for example, is one set of international standards developed by ISO and used by many organizations to implement an in-house quality management system. Using such systems also ensures that the organization’s suppliers or contractors have appropriate quality management systems in place. 7.6.6 In view of the long history of QAQC in aviation, the relative youth of SMS and the fact that specific SMS processes are nurtured by quality principles, the potential for misperceptions and misunderstandings about the relationship between SMS and QMS is real. It is thus essential to define this relationship from a synergistic rather than an antagonistic perspective, and the relative contribution of SMS and QMS to the attainment of overall organizational goals and, in particular, to the organization’s safety goals. 7.6.7 It is accurate to say that SMS and QMS share many commonalities. They both: a have to be planned and managed; b depend upon measurement and monitoring; c involve every function, process and person in the organization; and d strive for continuous improvement. 7.6.8 Because SMS and QMS share many commonalities, there might be a tendency to assume that an organization that has established and operates a QMS does not need, or already has, an SMS. However, in the same way that SMS and QMS share commonalities, there are important differences between both, as well as shortcomings in the effectiveness of QMS to achieve by itself the overarching objective of managing the safety risks of the consequences of the hazards the organization must confront during the activities related to the delivery of services. 7-10 Safety Management Manual SMM 7.6.9 Quality management was introduced in the 1960s, when the understanding of human performance, organizational factors and their impact on safety was far less developed than today. Therefore, notwithstanding modifications and continuous updating over time, quality management is less effective at identifying high-levelhigh- consequence problems, such as the complex latent failure pathway, that can lead to disaster. Furthermore, the bureaucracy of auditing and the process of attaining formal quality accreditation have all the potential of becoming an end in themselves: the objective of hanging a banner with an ISO accreditation at the entrance of a corporate headquarters may distract the organization from the generation of safety practices and lead to a loss of focus, safety-wise. 7.6.10 SMS focuses on human performance, Human Factors and organizational factors, and integrates into these, as appropriate, quality management techniques and processes to contribute to the achievement of safety satisfaction. The objective of SMS is to identify the safety hazards the organization must confront, and that in many cases it generates, during delivery of services, and to bring the safety risks of the consequences of these hazards under organizational control. In broad terms, the first imperative of this objective — hazard identification — is accomplished through the safety risk management component of an SMS discussed in Chapter 9, which is based upon safety management principles and practices. The second imperative — bringing the safety risks under organizational control — is accomplished through the safety assurance component of an SMS also discussed in Chapter 9, which is based upon the integration of safety and quality management principles and practices. 7.6.11 Succinctly, then, SMS differs from QMS in that: a SMS focuses on the safety, human and organizational aspects of an organization i.e. safety satisfaction; while b QMS focuses on the products and services of an organization i.e. customer satisfaction. 7.6.12 Once commonalities and differences between SMS and QMS have been established, it is possible to establish a synergistic relationship between both systems. It cannot be stressed strongly enough that the relationship is complementary, never adversarial, and it can be summarized as follows: a SMS builds partly upon QMS principles; b SMS should include both safety and quality policies and practices; and c The integration of quality principles, policies and practices, insofar as SMS is concerned, should be focused towards the support of the management of safety. 7.6.13 Establishing a complementary relationship between SMS and QMS leads to the complementary contributions of each system to the attainment of the organization’s safety goals: a SMS results in the design and implementation of organizational processes and procedures to identify safety hazards and their consequences and bring the associated safety risks in aviation operations under the control of the organization; b The integration of QMS into SMS provides a structured approach to monitor that processes and procedures to identify safety hazards and their consequences, and bring the associated safety risks in aviation operations under the control of the organization, function as intended and, when they do not, to improve them. 7.6.14 It must be stressed that the ICAO safety management SARPs included in Annexes 1, 6, 8, 11 and 14 and discussed in Chapter 6 are limited to SMS. There are no ICAO requirements in the aforementioned Annexes with regard to QMS, with the sole exception of a requirement for approved maintenance organizations AMO in Annex 6, Part I, Chapter 8. Chapter 7. Introduction to Safety Management Systems SMS 7-11 7.7 SSPSMS AND THE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION PROCESS 7.7.1