Where Do Quality and Safety Management Systems Intersect?

Quality and safety management are related but not the same: a Quality Management System (QMS) is designed to deliver consistent products or services that satisfy customers, while a Safety Management System (SMS) is designed to identify hazards, manage risk, and improve safety performance. For leaders and practitioners responsible for quality, safety, compliance, or operational systems—especially in aviation, construction, manufacturing, and other regulated environments—that distinction matters because a process can produce consistent results and still produce an unsafe outcome.

When organizations start talking about QMS and then the conversation moves into SMS, many will do a double-take and wonder “Hey… Wait a minute, aren't these the same thing?” This comparison explains where the two systems differ, where they overlap, how a QMS can support an SMS without replacing it, and why quality consistency alone does not guarantee safety. While there are some commonalities, the QMS and the SMS have very different objectives:

• QMS = Focused on delivering quality to satisfy the customer
• SMS = Is primarily focused on safety

Requirements for a QMS or SMS depend on the operation, jurisdiction and applicable rules. The systems can share administrative controls, but a QMS does not replace safety risk management. Its documented processes can provide part of the operating framework for an SMS.

Confused? Steven C. McNeely of Jet Solutions, Inc. helps to explain:

There seems to be an underlying misunderstanding between a quality management system and a safety management system. You can have a quality product or service, as defined by the ISO standards, and still not have a safe product or service. Part of the confusion stems from the adoption of some of the same types of tools and techniques used in quality management, to manage the safety system. Trade association presidents and regulators state that SMS is a businesslike approach to managing safety; and this is correct. However, many people falsely assume this to mean that processes designed to produce a quality product, (repeatedly doing the same thing, without variation) equates to the same thing as repeatedly producing a safe product.

In other words, your processes might produce one identical product after another, but that doesn't mean that the product itself is inherently safe. Put another way, the quality may be consistent, but if it's consistently producing an unsafe product, clearly you have a problem. McNeely sheds more light on the differences between a QMS and an SMS:

It is how the tools and techniques are used, along with a focus on investigation of events, which makes the quality and safety management systems different. The quality systems do not investigate incidents or accidents for risk assessment. (QMS) audit output of a process only for variance, and makes adjustments. (Safety Management (SMS)) investigates events, looking for contributing factors from all influencing sources. One of the purposes of an SMS is to improve the safety performance, and therefore reduce the exposure to risk of having an accident (during production). It is not focused on the safety record per se. Quality systems are focused on continuous improvement also, but through improving the production record rate. This is another source of confusion between the two management system concepts; improving a safety record is not the same as improving safety performance. There are many aviation companies that have extremely good safety records, but are operating with risky behavior or inadequate organizational structures, and have just not had an accident yet. A good safety record, just like a good quality record, does not guarantee safety.

Steven C. McNeely, Manager, Safety Management Systems, Jet Solutions, L.L.C, published by “Flight Safety Information February 12, 2010 No.034”, Lessons Learned from Toyota – 2010-QMS vs SMS.

Quality Management: How a QMS Can Support an SMS

A QMS can provide documented processes that also support safety management. A Quality Management System for manufacturing organizations can share procedures, responsibilities, review evidence and corrective-action tracking with an SMS. Safety management still needs explicit hazard identification, risk assessment and assurance of safety controls.

Quality assurance can help identify process deviations and organize review evidence. Safety risk assessment remains a separate task. Understanding the cost of quality in a QMS helps organizations balance prevention, appraisal, and failure costs to support safer operations.

If a QMS supports an SMS, assess what additional controls the safety program needs. The FAA framework includes hazard identification, risk assessment and monitoring risk-control effectiveness. Reusing documents or workflows does not demonstrate that these safety activities have been completed.

SMS Core Elements:

• Management Commitment: Leadership commitment from senior management makes safety a core value
• Accountability: Responsible for your decisions and any consequences
• Employee Involvement: Communication and engagement across all levels strengthen the program
• Hazard ID: Initial and ongoing assessment of anticipated hazards and risks
• Hazard Control: Select options for eliminating, preventing, or controlling hazards
• Incident and Accident Analysis: Use root-cause analysis to address contributing factors and assess corrective actions
• Education: Training on safety and quality standards helps workers recognize hazards and apply controls
• Continuous Improvement: Periodically evaluate controls to improve performance
• Communication: Create a unified program across sites and organizational levels

Quality management and safety management are equally important, and integrating them is a systematic approach that helps maintain high standards, consistency, and overall performance.

An SMS analyzes the organization’s operations, hazards and risks. Define responsible owners, documented controls, training and assurance activities for that scope. Review changes for their effect on safety rather than assuming that quality controls or regular audits establish safety compliance. Select applicable standards and requirements for the operation.

Workplace health and safety require controls suited to the work and jurisdiction. Identify hazards, assign responsibility and review control effectiveness. A safety program must evaluate actual working conditions rather than rely on the presence of a management system.

Training and safety communication should help employees recognize hazards, report concerns and apply controls relevant to their roles.

Quality and safety management have different objectives. Coordinating procedures and evidence can reduce conflicting instructions, while each program retains responsibility for its own measures, reviews and applicable requirements.