PreSenTeD By UL DQS InC.
Volume 4 Issue 5
Inside this Issue
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
PAGE
DuPont Crop Protection
Partners with UL DQS
Food Packaging The Last Frontier in
PAGE Food Safety
PAGE
PAGE
PAGE
new ISO IeC 20000-1:
A Step in the right Direction
Building a robust Corrective
Action Process (Part II)
Important AS91XX Audit
Update notice
Turtle Diagrams A Tool for Process-Based
PAGE Internal Auditing
UL DQS Clients
Take Advantage of
PAGE ISO 50001 Services
UL DQS Inc. Introduces
energy e-Tool for
PAGE ISO 50001 energy
Management System
Winter 2011
The year 2011 has sustained and accelerated change globally in the
natural environment, at work, in the public sphere, as well as, the
virtual world. Many of these changes have offered us an opportunity to learn, identify opportunities for growth, and either prevent
or minimize the negative impacts of unexpected change. The nuclear disaster caused by the tsunami – earthquake combination in
Japan, the numerous casualties caused by outbreak of food contamination in the USA and Europe and the repeated breach of information systems globally have all heightened the awareness of our preparedness
to cope with change.
At UL DQS, we responded to the external changes by evolving our relationships
with you, our clients, to support your business objectives. Our technical competencies are continuously enhanced in various industry sectors and we broaden our services to meet your current industry needs. In 2011, we developed market responsive
services for industry leading clients in food safety, energy management, and information technology services. By directly participating in the standards development
processes at the ISO or other industry gatherings, we are able to bring advanced insight to you on global developments that affect your business and supply chain.
Keeping pace with change and partnering on industry relevant issues is a commitment
we make to our clients. In 2012, we will continue to develop our services to help you
meet the challenges that affect your various industries. The late Peter Drucker spoke
on this topic many years ago saying, “Everybody has accepted by now that change is
unavoidable. But that still implies that change is like death and taxes — it should be
postponed as long as possible and no change would be vastly preferable. But in a period of upheaval, such as the one we are living in, change is the norm."
— Peter Drucker
Management Challenges for the 21st Century (1999)
Happy Holidays and best
Wishes for the New Year!
Ganesh Rao
VOICE OF THE
CUSTOMER
"It is important for my company to
develop a good rapport with our
auditor, one who makes our
employees feel at ease. We have
chosen UL DQS as our registrar
based not only on the competency
of the auditor, but the relationship
we have established as well.”
Patrick Ricucci
Operations/Quality Assurance
Manager
Air Systems Int'l., Inc.
Preventative Actions - Your Frontline
Defense Against Quality Issues
One of the barometers of a strong quality
management system is a robust Preventive
Action (PA) system which requires that
you take appropriate actions to eliminate
the causes of potential nonconformities
when identified by your organization.
Some of the Best-in-Class organizations
who have implemented robust PA systems
embrace the numerous benefits that come
with effective monitoring and analysis of
critical data. Taking proactive measures to
determine and mitigate potential nonconformities is a key ingredient to improving
your business.
Even though these methodologies have
been around for some time, we continue
to see some organizations place PAs on the
back burner of their Quality Management
Systems and as a result not reap the full
Continued on page 6
*If you have difficulty printing this issue, please try to “print as image” which can be found under the advanced setting in your print manager.
DuPont Crop Protection Partners
with UL DQS Inc.
In February, 2011, DuPont’s Crop Protection division approached UL DQS
with a request for assistance regarding
a unique project. The business had encountered some product failures that
not only caused some environmental
issues, but that also resulted in significant monetary losses.
The team,
which consisted of members from both
DuPont and UL DQS, determined that
a benchmarking approach would be
helpful. In this case, an auditor would
be sent to a plant that was performing
well, while another auditor would be
sent to a facility that was experiencing
a high degree of failures. The results
of each visit would then be compared
in an effort to determine the cause for
the failures. The auditors could focus
on the processes at each plant and the
end results of those processes.
Before beginning the audit, DuPont’s
Crop Protection Quality Manager, John
Olsen, was asked to clarify the objectives of this comparison. In response,
Mr. Olsen said, “Determine what type
of auditing would have prevented the
types of failures we are having.” This
response made
the task for the
auditors clear
and concise.
At the first audit,
the client was
made aware that
this
review
would not impact
their ISO registration and that
the sole purpose
was to identify
improvement opportunities. Soon
after our arrival,
it became obvious that the root
cause of the majority of failures were process-related. It
was decided that deep dive, productionfocused audits would be the best option.
It was also determined that the pool of
Winter 2011
Pat Meehan -DuPont, Jeff Spizuco - UL DQS, Don MacDonald - UL DQS, Aida Garcia DuPont, Fernando Garcia - DuPont, John Wright - UL DQS, Jim Parente - UL DQS,
Candace Kelly - UL DQS, and John Olsen - DuPont
auditors for this type of non-certification
work would be limited to those with direct chemical experience.
The reviews took
place at the operator and line supervisor levels. It was
important that all
issues would be
covered, not simply those that were
related to quality.
The auditors also
identified and reported on issues
related to: environmental, health and
safety,
general
housekeeping, and
other best practices. The results
of these audits
were then presented to the site team in
a simple report, listing areas of strength
and additional opportunities. Unlike a
typical audit, the lists are not categorized into observations, minor non-con-
formances and/or major non-conformances. Once the report has been submitted to the team, the plant determines
the best course of action.
When asked how the various sites have
responded to the findings listed in the
reports, Mr. Olsen said, “The sites
have been very receptive to the findings because they see it as critical to
their operation’s mission. Our business
is selling regulated products for food
production and this requires a high
quality standard. These audits have
identified our blind spots so we can
correct them before a failure occurs. I
am happy to report that, in 2011, we
were able to reduce the rate of issues by
fifty percent. Next year, we look foreward to similar results and additional
reductions in the failure rate.”
Candace Kelly
Northeast Business
Manager
Page 2
Food Packaging The Last Frontier in Food Safety
In 1906, Upton Sinclair wrote the
book, The Jungle, which was a
scathing view of the meatpacking industry. This book had a profound effect on food safety, as it raised
consumer awareness to the appalling
conditions in the food manufacturing
industry. Bisphenol-A (BPA) , which
is an acutely toxic chemical compound that is reported to pose potential human health concerns, has
been used in the manufacturing of
a significant amount of hard plastic food containers since the
1950’s. It is possible that the recent issues surrounding Bisphenol-A are having the same effect
on consumer’s awareness when
it comes to packaging.
In recent decades, food manufacturers have begun to show a
greater interest when it comes to
their packaging suppliers. This
includes supplier audits and inclusion in traceability studies.
Food manufacturers quickly realized that packaging suppliers
were just as important as food ingredient suppliers, and therefore
deserved the same attention. As
a result, packaging suppliers
began implementing Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP), as
well as Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP)
plans as a means of ensuring the
safety and effectiveness of their
products.
Food packaging is responsible
for protecting food products
from outside influence and damage, to contain the food, and to
provide consumers with ingredi-
Winter 2011
ent and nutritional information. Traceability, convenience, and tamper indication are secondary functions of food
packaging, but are of an increasing
importance. The goals of food packaging are:
•
to contain food in a cost effective way that also satisfies
industry requirements and
consumer desires
•
maintain food safety
•
provide minimal environmental impact.
With such an important function,
food packaging should be required to meet the same applicable GMP standards, as required
by other food chain suppliers.
UL DQS offers FSSC 22000,
which is a certification audit that
is comparable to the BRC/IoP
standard specific to food packaging suppliers. Companies that
have already achieved ISO 9001
certification may already meet
many of the requirements of the
BRC/IoP standard, as FSSC
22000 can be easily integrated
with other management systems.
This standard has a comprehensive scope that covers areas of
quality, sanitation and safety that
is applicable to both low risk and
high risk food contact and nonfood contact packaging.
Jill Carson
Lead Auditor
Page 3
New ISO IEC 20000-1:
A Step in the Right Direction
ISO released a new version of ISO IEC
20000-1 in June 2011. I have never
been so happy to see a new release of
an ISO standard! This version has
solved some major issues of the 2005
version of the standard. Let me highlight the improvements in the new
standard that I am so excited about.
Improvement #1
Redefinition of section 5: How many
times have you stumbled on the question, "Why do we need this section:
'Planning and implementing new or
changed services'?" Regardless of
whether a service is new or has been
changed, their implementations have
to follow Change Management and
then Release Management. This question is quite logical. The actual intent
of section 5 was to define service design and transition. The 2011 version
has redefined section 5 as “Service
Design and Transition.”
Improvement #2
Alignments with ISO 9001: There are
only 3 clauses for management system
requirements in the 2005 version. Honestly, you can’t establish a management system by fulfilling only those
three requirements. Perhaps, it was assumed that organizations will follow
ISO 9001 anyway. Actually, IT Services organizations should not require
ISO 9001 when ISO 20000 is available. The new release of ISO 20000-1
has added more comprehensive requirements from ISO 9001. If you are
a start up, ISO 20000-1 is adequate for
a management system. If you already
have ISO 9001, just add on service related requirements from ISO 20000-1.
Improvement #3
Alignments with ISO 27001: The information security related requirements of 2005 were so inadequate that
it was almost imperative to refer to ISO
27001 to understand what was required
for information security. If you are
looking for a minimum requirement,
ISO 20000-1:2011
• Design and transition
of new or changed
services
• Service delivery
process
• Relationship process
• Resolution process
• Control process
Winter 2011
Page 4
ISO 9001:2008
•
•
•
•
•
Management responsibility
Documentation requirement
Resource management
Management review
Internal audit
• Product realization
• Measurement, analysis
and improvement
ISO 27001 will easily overwhelm you.
The new version of ISO 20000-1 has
adopted the synopsis of ISO 27001. It
is adequate to establish a rudimentary
information security system which can
be easily migrated to a full blown
ISMS following ISO 27001.
Improvement #4
Applications in a complex sourcing scenario: In the era of outsourcing, very
rarely do you have a straightforward
sourcing deal where one service
provider delivers end to end IT services,
supported by few suppliers. Sourcing
scenarios are often far more complicated
then envisioned in the 2005 version.
What if a client is managing part of the
process or a shared services organization
is involved in the service delivery?
There was no clear guidance. The new
version added a section on “Governance
of processes operated by other parties.”
With these improvements, the new standard is better aligned to the real world.
Subrata Guha
Director of IT Services
Building a Robust Corrective Action
Process (Part II)
Corrective action is a reaction to any
cause/non-conformance and can be divided in two phases of action:
1. Identification of root cause by
using TQM tools such as fish-bone
or cause & effects analysis can be
practiced.
2. Taking necessary actions. The effectiveness of the corrective action
taken has to be verified periodically through a systematic approach of PDCA (Plan - Do Check - Act) cycle.
Examples of corrective action tools:
• Error Proofing
•
Visible or Audible Alarms
•
Process or Product Redesign
•
Training
•
Improvements to maintenance
schedules
•
Improvements to material handling
or storage
In some cases a combination of such
actions may be necessary to fully correct the problem.
Problem Solving Methods
There are various recognized problem
solving methods in use today. Two of
the most common ones in use are the 8
Disciplines (8D) and 5 Why’s. This article will focus on using a modified 8D
Winter 2011
format and incorporating the 5 Why
methodology.
5 Why's
The 5 why's typically refers to the practice of asking, five times, why the failure
has occurred in order to get to the root
cause/causes of the problem. There can
be more than one cause to a problem as
well. In an organizational context, generally root cause analysis is carried out
by a team of persons related to the problem. No special technique is required.
If at the end of the initial 5 whys, there
are still questions; it may be beneficial
to go to a more in depth method like the
Fishbone Analysis.
Fishbone Diagram
Also Called: Cause-and-Effect Diagram, Ishikawa Diagram, cause enumeration diagram, process fishbone,
time-delay fishbone, CEDAC (causeand-effect diagram with the addition of
cards), desired-result fishbone, reverse
fishbone diagram
Description
The fishbone diagram identifies many
possible causes for an effect or problem. It can be used to structure a brainstorming session in identifying the
causes or when the brainstorming
stalls. It immediately sorts ideas into
useful categories.
Factors contributing to defect XXX
Measurements
Materials
Calibration
Personnel
Alloys
Shifts
Microscopes Lubricants
Inspectors
Training
Operators
Suppliers
Defect XXX
Angle
Humidity
Engager
Temperature Brake
Environment
Methods
Blade wear
Speed
Machines
Fishbone Diagram Procedure
• Agree on a problem statement (effect). Write it at the center right of
the whiteboard. Draw a box around
it and draw a horizontal arrow running to it.
•
Brainstorm the major categories of
causes of the problem. If this is difficult use generic headings:
1. Materials
➢ Defective raw material
➢ Wrong type for job
➢ Lack of raw material
2. Measurement
➢ Incorrect measuring device
➢ Defective device
➢ Poor gage design
3. Machine/Equipment
➢ Incorrect tool selection
➢ Poor maintenance or design
➢ Defective equipment or
tool
4. Methods
➢ No or poor procedures –
Lack of Process
➢ Practices are not the same
as written procedures
➢ Poor communication
5. Environment
➢ Orderly workplace, Job
design or layout of work
➢ Physical demands of the
task
Page 5
➢ Previously identified hazards were not eliminated
6. People (Manpower)
➢ No or poor management
involvement
➢ Inattention to task – Stress demands
➢ Task hazards not guarded properly
Write the categories of causes as
branches from the main arrow.
1. Brainstorm all the possible causes
of the problem. Ask: “Why does
this happen?” As each idea is
given, the facilitator writes it as a
branch from the appropriate category. Causes can be written in several places if they relate to several
categories.
2. Again ask “why does this happen?” about each cause. Write subcauses branching off the causes.
Continue to ask “Why?” and generate deeper levels of causes. Layers of branches indicate causal
relationships.
3. When the group runs out of ideas,
focus attention to places on the
chart where ideas are few.
Preventative Actions from page 1
benefits of this important standard requirement. If you want to stay ahead of
your competitors on a number of quality indices, then you will need to move
your PA system to the frontline of your
business.
Some common missteps we have observed during our audits of PA systems
include:
•
•
•
Not clearly documenting the requirements for determining potential non-conformances and their
causes;
Overlooking the benefits of conducting regularly scheduled PA
meetings;
Using a cross-functional team to review key processes and critical quality data to arrive at a consensus on
any actions to be taken when poten-
Winter 2011
Verification of Effectiveness
The key to verification is evidence. You
are seeking objective, factual evidence
that your problem causes have been reduced or removed. This evidence usually takes the form of data or records.
Another powerful form of evidence is
your own first-hand observations.
The exact amount of evidence depends
on the magnitude of the problem.
Broader and more severe problems lead
to more profound solutions, which in
turn require more evidence to verify eftial nonconformities are identified;
•
Relying on outdated quality models/standards for the collection and
analysis of data;
•
Misclassifying Corrective Actions
as Preventive Actions;
•
Placing an emphasis on data/trends
derived from Corrective Actions
taken to address customer complaints.
There are numerous quality tools and
data that can be used by an organization
who wishes to maintain a competitive
edge by identifying potential nonconforming issues and their respective
causes. You may already be using some
of these tools and data but have not considered them as part of your Preventive
Action system. A list of good sources of
information for developing your PAs
fectiveness. It is a simple matter of
scale. The scale of verification must
match the scale of the actions taken. It’s
important to note that you’re sampling
evidence. You’re taking a representative subgroup of all the available evidence. Use what you believe to be a
balanced and representative sample of
the evidence.
Angel Tucker
Certification Leader
include: data derived from supplier
scorecards, customer surveys, equipment commissioning milestone reports,
warehousing, repackaging and distribution data, service and reliability reports,
FEMA’s, Lean Six-Sigma and other
TQM data. You may use many of these
tools with little to no increase in cost to
your quality system. There are a number of books and articles on the benefits
of maintaining a proactive, quality-focused business. Take a second look at
your PA system and see if it is structured to take advantage of the data and
quality tools you already have in place.
Al Madison
Business Manager
- UL DQS Inc.
Page 6
Important AS91XX Audit Update Notice
flexibility in working through this
scheduling process
so that we can accommodate
all
customers who are
transitioning. This
is critical, as SR001 requires that
certificates must be
withdrawn for any
organization that is
not certified by
July 1, 2012.
Transition audits dates
must be reported by
January 4, 2012. If
not, suspension is
mandated by the industry.
In order to ensure successful transition to
AS91XX:2009, please
be aware of recent additional requirements
within the SR-001. If
your transition audit
has already been conducted, this new requirement does not
affect you. We are
providing this information to all of our
AS91XX customers.
This information is having a profound
impact on our AS91XX scheduling
process during this time of transition.
Scheduling Requirement
While all transition audits to
AS91XX:2009 must be completed by
June 30, 2012, the International Aerospace Quality Group (IAQG) Other
Party Management Team (OPMT) has
introduced a new requirement through
the SR-001. All AS91XX:2009 transition audits must be scheduled and reported to the Aerospace Industry by
January 4, 2012. If you have not had
your AS91XX:2009 transition audit,
we need to confirm an agreed upon
schedule for your audit. SR-001 requires that certificates for organizations that are not scheduled for their
AS91XX:2009 transition audit by January 4, 2012 must be suspended. It is
imperative that we reach you. Beginning Monday, December 12, 2011, we
will begin the process of contacting all
of our AS91XX customers who will
not have their audit completed in 2011.
If we are unable to reach you, we will
assign an audit time that will need to
be maintained.
Your flexibility will allow us to optimize the use of our AS auditor resources at this critical time. We are
doing everything possible to ensure
that we are able to perform the
AS91XX:2009 transition audits for all
of our clients within the required time
frame. At this time, there is a possibility that we may have to adjust and reconfirm previously scheduled audits.
Due to increased offsite audit activities, AS auditor resources, across the
industry, are limited. We ask for your
SR-001 also requires that suspension will occur if
an
organization
cannot declare conformance prior to
their scheduled AS91XX:2009 transition audit. In order to confirm an audit,
you must be able to declare your system is compliant to AS91XX:2009. If
you will not be ready by the planned
audit date, please let us know this when
we contact you so that we can evaluate
available options and reassign the audit
team. NOTE: The agreed upon audit
schedule must be maintained.
We will continue to update you on
changes as they become available.
Please feel free to contact us if you
have any questions at 1-800-285-4476.
Michelle Barton
UL DQS
AS Lead Auditor
UL DQS would like to
wish you and your families
a safe and happy holiday season!
UL DQS Inc.
UL DQS offices will be closed December 26, 27 and 30 in observation of the holidays.
Winter 2011
Page 7
Turtle Diagrams A Tool for Process-Based Internal Auditing
disruptions in the manufacturing flow
ment does very well at this and they
For several years now, organizations
lower the overall cost by 5%. This
have struggled with doing true
of the plant. This now upsets the cusmay sound great. As long as quality
process-based audits in their internal
tomer and/or your manufacturing perand delivery aren’t impacted, then this
audit programs. Often, the internal ausonnel. In the end, the 5% savings on
process is effective. However, too
dits are far too clause-based. This is
incoming parts has come with a signifoften the quality and delivery may be
understandable based on the experiicant cost: unhappy customers.
compromised for incremental savings,
ence of the internal auditors. Many
Using the Turtle Diagram to Deterwhich, in the end, costs the company
times, an auditor will look at a procemine Effectiveness
through increased defects and dissatisdure for a given clause and observe
If the turtle diagram is laid out corfied customers.
whether it is being followed. Although
rectly, one can ask the questions about
there is some value in this type of auThe performance metrics of all
effectiveness first. How do you know
diting; however, it misses the most improcesses need to support the overridthat the purchasing process is effective
portant aspect which is effectiveness.
ing theme for a quality management
in supporting the manufacturing
system, which is to “enhance customer
The turtle diagram allows the auditor
process and our customers? If the persatisfaction by meeting customer reto capture the inputs and outputs of the
formance measures make sense, but
quirements.” (section 0.2 of the ISO
process and helps to determine if the
are underperforming, follow the Plan9001:2008). What does the customer
process results are effective.
Do-Check-Act cycle. Ask what the
want?
What
are
their
requirements?
next
actions are to address the shortfall
Below is a typical Turtle Diagram.
and when do
For example, let’s
they plan on imtake a look at auditplementing
With whom?
With what?
ing a typical purthem,
etc. You
(Competence,
Skills,
Training)
(Material, Equipment, etc.)
chasing process. If
can even look at
an organization was
the turtle diagoing to audit this
gram in the
process and the inter“who”,
“what”,
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
nal procedures that
and “how” boxes
PROCESS
go with it, one might
to help determine
ask, “How does a
what
should
How?
vendor receive initial
change
in
order
(Procedures, Methods,
Effective?
approval in the sysSupport Processes)
to impact the
(Performance Indicators)
tem and how are
performance
they monitored on an
metric. Perhaps
ongoing
basis?”
the purchasing
One can determine
Generally, they want good quality
department needs different tools for
whether or not the purchase order has
products, on time, at a fair price. So,
evaluating new vendors that allow
all necessary information, etc. One
the performance measures of the indithem to be validated as “good supplimight find that the purchasing departvidual processes should support these
ers” prior to purchasing their products.
ment is doing everything they say they
three things.
Another suggestion would be to use a
are supposed to be doing. But, is it eflean
manufacturing person who could
In our purchasing example, let’s say
fective? The answer is hard to deterdevelop
the current supply base and
that the supply base now is getting
mine, objectively, with this type of
help
drive
out waste and cost.
cheaper products, but the overall supauditing.
ply base on-time delivery has gone
Try this approach to help make your
Selecting Performance Metrics
down by 10%. This is now jeopardizinternal audits more valuable in drivSelecting the performance measures of
ing the plant’s ability to supply fining harmonized processes and satisfied
a process is critical to driving the right
ished products, to the customer, on
customers.
behaviors and improvements. Let’s
time. Let’s also say that the quality of
Written by Michael
say, for the previous example, that the
the parts from the supply base has gone
Brannock
purchasing department is measured
down due to cheaper raw material
based on cost reductions. The purchasBusiness Manager –
being used or short cuts taken in the
ing department personnel all work with
Southeast
Region
manufacturing process. These defects
their supply base to lower their prices
are then passed on to the customer
and/or they put the parts and services
(worst case) or the parts are causing
out for bid. The purchasing depart-
Winter 2011
Page 8
UL DQS Clients Take Advantage of
ISO 50001 Services
The ISO 50001 – Energy Management
System (EnMS) is gaining momentum
and UL DQS is no exception. Interest in
the new standard has risen dramatically
over the past six months. In early 2012,
UL DQS will have its accreditation audit
with ANAB. During the last three
months, we have conducted
several types of EnMS
assessments.
The clients
had the
same industry scope as defined within
ISO 50001: “Light to Medium Industry.”
The clients had different approaches to
system implementation which reflected
the differences in their operational cultures and corporate philosophies. However, in the end, they all achieved
progress to support energy performance
efficiency improvements and
maintenance of their energy
using operations.
The Gap and Stage 1 process
had several positive impacts
for these clients. It allowed
them to better understand the
scope, nature, spirit and intent of the standard. In
addition, there were
some educational opportunities
conducted by the audit team.
For example, in the planning
process, future energy use
and consumption was
noted as a common area
for increased understanding and implementation.
While
future energy consumption forecasting
has multiple variables, an organization must have a
process in place to
provide an estimate.
Another example
was the implementation of methods to
provide employees
and others working
on behalf of the organization with a
process to offer comments or suggestions
for improvements to the
EnMS. The companies
had unique approaches that
proved to be effective for
their respective facilities.
Winter 2011
A formalized registration process (or
Stage 2 assessment) was conducted by
two auditors, who reviewed and verified the elements of the standard and the
facility operations. Significant progress
on their EnMS was made from the
Stage 1, Readiness Review. One of the
more notable strengths was a
method
to
provide
input/suggestions of energy performance, including calculation
of Kaizen cost
savings where
applicable.
As with any assessment,
there
were
some opportunities for improvement.
These opportunities reflected those areas that could be enhanced, or at least revisited, with the
new knowledge of the EnMS standard.
Even with the presence of a few minor
non-conformances, the system was
functional and was recommended for
registration.
As the EnMS program continues to
grow, we look forward to providing our
clients with the expertise, experience
and knowledge to help improve their
energy performance efficiencies and reduction of energy consumption. We
continue to expand our staff, meet auditor certification requirements and develop our program services that will
enable us to provide the highest level of
value to our customers.
Jerry Skaggs, P.E.
Environmental, Health
Safety & Energy
Program Manager
Page 9
UL DQS Inc. Introduces Energy
E-Tool for ISO 50001 Energy
Management System
OUR SERVICES
•
ENERGY MANAGMENT e-Tool
UL DQS Inc. announces the availability of the Energy E-Tool, which allows
companies to assess their readiness regarding the implementation of the ISO
50001 Energy Management System.
The Energy E-Tool is a complimentary,
online application provided by UL DQS
Inc., which offers a general assessment
of an organization’s ability to comply
with the requirements of the ISO 50001
standard. This tool calls for organizations to answer 12 questions pertaining
to their current energy usage. The information provided is then evaluated and
used to suggest feedback on ways to improve energy efficiency and reduce energy consumption.
The International Organization for
Standardization released the 50001 Energy Management System (EnMS) on
June 14, 2001. This standard was proposed to enable an organization to follow a systematic approach in achieving
continual improvement of energy performance. UL DQS Inc. conducted its
first ISO 50001 Energy Management
System assessment in September 2011
and, since then, has assessed and certified numerous organizations looking to
control their energy usage.
Energy Management Systems enable
organizations to reduce emissions without negatively impacting operations.
The Environmental Protection Agency
believes that, “…good energy manage-
ment is good business, and adopting an
energy management strategy is a business decision [an organization] cannot
afford to ignore.” In addition, most
countries offer financial incentives for
compliance, while some even provide
system optimization training for those
organizations that wish to participate.
According to Energy Star, by forming a
commitment to energy management
practices and establishing a dedicated
team to oversee those practices, organizations can use energy management
systems as a means of reducing energy
expenditure and increasing profit margins. By implementing such a system,
organizations such as Ford Motor Company and Eastman Kodak have saved
millions of dollars in operating costs.
The Energy E-Tool is accessible by visiting the UL DQS website and choosing
Sustainability Services. The application
has been optimized for Internet Explorer 7.0 and above, Mozilla Firefox
8.0 and Google Chrome. For more information regarding UL DQS Inc.’s
Sustainability Services and the Energy
E-Tool, please contact Don MacDonald, Director of Sustainability Services,
at (847) 809-6735.
Mahogany Krakowiak
Customer Service
Professional
Click here for the UL DQS Inc.
Energy Management e-Tool
Winter 2011
•
•
Certification Assessment Services
Management System
Training Classes
Internal and Supplier
Audits
OUR COMPETENCIES
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ISO 9001
AS 9100/9120
ISO 22000
ISO 20000
ISO/TS 16949
ISO 27001
BS25999/SS540
eSCM
TL9000
IRIS
ISO 13485
ISO 14001
OHSAS 18001
ESD S20.20/ IEC
ISO 50001
CMMI
BRC
BRC IOP
FAMI-QS
HACCP
FSSC 22000
...and many more
www.ul-dqsusa.com
For assistance,
please contact us at
1-800-285-4476
or
customerservice@us.dqs-ul.com
Page 10