We are excited to announce the release of ETQ Reliance 2019, a major upgrade to our flagship QMS SaaS product. The latest release of ETQ Reliance includes an entirely new User Interface (UI) and updates that improve personalization and collaboration.Read More
quality management software Medical Devices Food Safety Management System Life Sciences Aviation Safety Management Food and Beverage Safety quality Document Control Nonconformance Employee Training Software Supplier Quality Management Innovation Product Updates quality system Company News SaaS
In an enterprise quality management software, scalability is usually measured in terms of performance: how many active users, how much memory used, how much bandwidth, how many processors and how fast they are. Scalability using these performance metrics is critical and a must have for any enterprise software, but not sufficient. Equally important is scalability of administration.
Risk assessment provides a quantitative technique for picking the Corrective Actions you need to work on now and the ones you can leave to later. Using a rating of probability and severity (and optionally detectability), supported by clearly documented guidelines, you can calculate a risk level for each Corrective Action. With this information, you can set a risk threshold for determining which Corrective Actions to work on. Complete all those Corrective Actions first, regardless of their issue date or "priority" level, before moving to lower-risk Corrective Actions.
On the flip-side, with increased visibility comes increased expectations. Which is why EHS implementations are run more like mission critical projects, compared with less stringent QMS implementations. EHS projects will typically have stricter project management, predefined outputs in the shape of reports and metrics, detailed security requirements, usability guidelines, and more emphasis on end-user buy-in and training. All of which contribute to a successful, well-rounded project, but that are often missing from QMS implementations.
EHS implementations are different because they often have direct involvement from a stakeholder at the highest level of the organization. This stakeholder can rein in scope creep and resolve disagreements. They can enforce deadlines and allocate resources to keep the project on track. QMS implementations, on the contrary, are often user-driven initiatives with no clear directive from upper management. These projects can sometimes meander in a continual cycle of requirements gathering and refinement that extends the delivery dates and dilutes the value of the project.
What QMS can learn from EHS is to recruit an influential advocate for the project at the highest levels of the organization who will take an active role in defining the objective and scope, allocating the necessary resources, and monitoring the progress of the project to its successful conclusion. After all, Quality deserves nothing less.