China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Audit Techniques and Collecting Evidence
Published in Rajkumar Banoth, Narsimha Gugulothu, Aruna Kranthi Godishala, A Comprehensive Guide to Information Security Management and Audit, 2023
Rajkumar Banoth, Narsimha Gugulothu, Aruna Kranthi Godishala
In exploring how corrective actions diverge from preventive actions, definitions are a good place to begin. Corrective actions consist of plans for identifying the root causes of a problem and plotting solutions for the outcomes. Here are other points of difference:Preventive actions comprise actions for identifying potential risks that could impact operations and create plans to mitigate them.If we can consider the point of use, organizations apply preventive actions before problems arise. Therefore, preventive actions are a way to resolve consequences and minimize additional risks.Some corrective actions in manufacturing involve the recall of substandard products after their launch on the market. In human resources (HR), it could mean coaching or laying off a worker.Preventive action processes begin with audits, investigations, and analyses of potential risks. Corrective action processes begin with identifying the causes of an occurring problem.While preventive actions are proactive, corrective actions are reactive.Preventive action processes begin with audits, investigations, and analyses of potential risks.
Process Safety Management Guidelines
Published in Michael B. Weinstein, Total Quality Safety Management and Auting, 2018
Fault-tree analysis is a means of analyzing rather than identifying accidents. It is a graphical deductive technique that focuses on one type of accident or system failure and displays the various primary and secondary causes (equipment failures, human errors, external factors). The strengths of this method are its abilities to identify combinations of events that can lead to accidents and to evaluate the relative importance of the basic causes. Preventive actions can then be focused on the most significant problem causes.
Epilogue
Published in D. H. Stamatis, Automotive Audits, 2021
An organization may also conduct follow-up audits to verify preventive actions were taken as a result of performance issues that may be reported as opportunities for improvement. Other times organizations may forward identified performance issues to management for follow-up. So, in general terms, the cycle of all auditing may be summarized in four steps. They are as follows: Audit planning and preparation: Audit preparation consists of planning everything that is done in advance by interested parties, such as the auditor, the lead auditor, the client, and the audit program manager, to ensure that the audit complies with the client’s objective. This stage of an audit begins with the decision to conduct the audit and ends when the audit itself begins.Audit execution: The execution phase of an audit is often called the fieldwork. It is the data-gathering portion of the audit and covers the time period from arrival at the audit location up to the exit meeting. It consists of multiple activities including on-site audit management, meeting with the auditee, understanding the process and system controls, and verifying that these controls work, communicating among team members, and communicating with the auditee.Audit reporting: The purpose of the audit report is to communicate the results of the investigation. The report should provide correct and clear data that will be effective as a management aid in addressing important organizational issues. The audit process may end when the report is issued by the lead auditor or after follow-up actions are completed.Audit follow-up and closure: According to ISO 19011, clause 6.6, “The audit is completed when all the planned audit activities have been carried out, or otherwise agreed with the audit client.” Clause 6.7 of ISO 19011 continues by stating that verification of follow-up actions may be part of a subsequent audit. Corrective action is action taken to eliminate the causes of an existing non-conformity, defect, or other undesirable situation in order to prevent recurrence (reactive). Corrective action is about eliminating the causes of problems and not just following a series of problem-solving steps.Preventive action is action taken to eliminate the causes of a potential non-conformity, defect, or other undesirable situation in order to prevent occurrence (proactive).
Developing, validating and implementing performance metrics to evaluate the health and safety performance of sustainable building projects
Published in International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2022
Bezalel Orogun, Mohamed H. Issa
Existing studies [27,36–38] in the literature developed metrics that can to some extent assess H&S performance. However, a common limitation with the metrics developed by these studies is that they were mainly frequency based and lack context of the safety intervention measure being assessed. This thus makes them generally ineffective and unable to present a true picture of the actual state of H&S performance. For instance, instead of measuring the frequency of the preventive actions, a more robust performance measure would be ‘the percentage of the number of preventive actions actually carried out versus the ideal number that should have been carried out’. The metric of ‘the percentage of the number of construction activities for which job hazard assessment was carried out’ gives context because, ideally, each construction activity should be subjected to a pre-job hazard assessment. Nevertheless, in practice, this may not be done and the measure of the extent to which this safety intervention is carried out as measured by a percentage or ratio represents a better assessment of performance Additionally, these existing H&S performance metrics tended to place more emphasis on procedures and processes while ignoring the human element and socio-cultural factors such as safety behaviour, safety values and safety attitude, thus making them unable to comprehensively and reliably evaluate H&S performance [39,40]. Moreover, no study appears to have developed and implemented metrics to evaluate the H&S performance of SB projects, thus making the present study an invaluable contribution to managing H&S performance proactively on SB projects. This research attempts to build on existing studies’ limitation to develop, validate and implement H&S performance metrics that can effectively and comprehensively evaluate the H&S performance of SB projects. The new H&S performance metrics contributed by this research will help facilitate proactive on-site H&S management of SB projects. These metrics should enable safety practitioners to shift the safety paradigm from reactive to more effective proactive safety management. Unlike traditional metrics, these metrics measure the presence rather than the absence of safety on site. These metrics can also be used as a tool to help construction companies evaluate and benchmark their H&S activities on their SB projects because they target specific areas of their site safety systems. Furthermore, they can be introduced at any point during the project’s construction to manage H&S performance at either the compliance, improvement or sustainable levels.