What comes – or should come first – in a company. Context or Leadership?
Without Leadership there can be a context that leadership has to address and then work on changing and adapting that context accordingly through objectives and targets BUT – from a best practice perspective – shouldn’t we START with the actions of good leadership? SO part 4 and Part 5 of the draft standard should be switched round – doesn’t that make a more start flow to any management process.
Then later on in the standard structure we have Performance Evaluation and Improvement. At face value this makes sense but what comes after Improvement? does it link straight back to the start? Does the way we improve actually work or require itself improvement – what checks that even the Improvement function is working? Nothing.
Would it not – therefore – make “logical” sense to extract “Management Review” from the performance evaluation box and give it separate status and action at a point where it is used to REVIEW ALL stages in the management system functions?
So it would look like this – a loop/feedback system that starts with leadership – who set objectives and targets that impact context and ends with a review that leads to proposals for new objectives and targets???
A Better Structure
This may appear to be mere semantics but does it not give the reader/user a better idea of how to consider THE management of the company – ie start with establishing good leadership and setting objectives and targets and flow through context, planning, resources, operations, performance, improvements, review to resetting objectives and targets for the next month.year etc
Why? – Why Not