IA202606 — Improvement¶
Audit Record
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Audit reference | IA202606 |
| Area audited | Improvement |
| Audit criteria | ISO 9001:2015 clauses 10.1 and 10.3 · ISO 14001:2015 clauses 10.1 and 10.3 · ISO 45001:2018 clauses 10.1 and 10.3 · SOP 7.2 · SOP 7.1 |
| Audit date | 05/05/2026 |
| Auditor | Sean Ashton, HSQE Consultant, Onyx Operations Ltd |
| Auditees | Aaron Mason (Director), Leanne Mason (Director) |
| Result | Conforms. 0 non-conformities, 0 observations |
| Previous audit of this area | IA202506, 2025 cycle |
| Form | FORM_INTAR001 Rev 1 ID 01/09/2025 |
1. Scope, criteria and independence¶
1.1 Scope¶
Whether AMWS determines and selects opportunities for improvement, and whether it continually improves the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the management system.
Clauses examined: 10.1 general and 10.3 continual improvement in all three standards. Clause 10.2 nonconformity and corrective action is audited in full at IA202614 and is examined here only as an input route into the improvement pipeline.
1.2 Independence¶
The auditor is an external HSQE consultant engaged through Onyx Operations Ltd. He is not an employee of AMWS and holds no line responsibility for the work audited. SOP 6.2 requires that an auditor does not audit work for which they are also responsible; AMWS has no second competent auditor, and the consultant drafted much of the documented system. The mitigation applied is that no document is tested against its own wording. Each clause is tested against records, against what the people responsible describe doing, and against what can be produced on request. Findings are reviewed and countersigned by a Director, who holds the authority to accept or reject them.
2. Method and sample¶
| Method | What was covered |
|---|---|
| Document review | SOP 7.2 Continual Improvement Issue 3 (01/05/2026) · SOP 7.1 Complaints, NCR & Corrective Action Issue 3 · SOP 6.1 Analysis & Evaluation Issue 3 · SOP 6.2 Internal HSQE Audits Issue 3 · SOP 6.3 Site Inspections & Tours Issue 3 · MAN_01 Rev 3 (30/04/2026) sections 9.1 and 9.2 |
| Registers examined | APP_21 Nonconformity & Corrective Action Register at Issue 3, approved 04/05/2026 |
| Records sampled | The six corrective action reports open at the audit date, CAR-2026-001 to CAR-2026-006, tested as improvement actions rather than as corrective actions · the improvement output delivered in the preceding fortnight, including the reissue of the standard operating procedure set at Issue 3 on 01/05/2026, two new policies issued 04/05/2026, one new risk assessment issued 04/05/2026, and the toolbox talk programme issued 04/05/2026 |
| Interview | Both Directors, on where improvement ideas come from, who decides which are taken up, and how a decision becomes work |
3. Result against each clause¶
3.1 Clause 10.1 — General¶
| Requirement | Objective evidence examined | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Determine and select opportunities for improvement and implement any necessary actions to meet requirements and enhance satisfaction — including improving products and services, correcting and preventing undesired effects, and improving system performance | SOP 7.2 Issue 3 defines the pipeline end to end: "A M Water Services pursues continual improvement of the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of its IMS through a structured pipeline that captures improvement opportunities from many sources, evaluates and prioritises them at the Directors' level, and implements the prioritised set with named owners and tracked progress." Input routes are named in the procedures that feed it — audit findings under SOP 6.2, inspections under SOP 6.3, analysis under SOP 6.1, and nonconformity under SOP 7.1. MAN_01 Rev 3 section 9.2 adds the worker route: "All employees are encouraged to suggest improvements through multiple channels including toolbox talks, direct communication with supervisors, and formal suggestion schemes." | Conforms |
| Improvement is evidenced by output, not only by intent | Improvement delivered in the fortnight to the audit date and examined as objective evidence: the full standard operating procedure set reissued at Issue 3 on 01/05/2026; two new policies issued 04/05/2026 covering mental health and IT security; a new risk assessment on fatigue management issued 04/05/2026; and a twelve-month rolling toolbox talk programme issued 04/05/2026. Each carries a document reference, an issue number and an issue date | Conforms |
3.2 Clause 10.3 — Continual improvement¶
| Requirement | Objective evidence examined | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Continually improve the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the management system | SOP 7.2 Issue 3 places the decision with top management at a stated cadence: "Improvement opportunities are evaluated by the Directors at regular management meetings (weekly compliance call cadence)." Long-horizon items take a different route: "Long-term improvement projects are initiated through Management Review (SOP 6.4)." Both Directors described the weekly call and the split between what is decided there and what waits for the review, consistently with each other and with the procedure | Conforms |
| Improvement actions have owners and are tracked to completion | The six corrective action reports open at the audit date each carry a named owner and a target date, and none was past its target. They are tracked on the register at APP_21 and reviewed by name at the weekly compliance call | Conforms |
| Workers can raise improvement, and what they raise is acted on | Tested by walkthrough on a live example: a question raised by an operative on site about glove specification during a Director site visit on 28/04/2026 was routed through the Director to the office for a specification review against the supplier. The route described by the Directors matches the route in MAN_01 Rev 3 section 9.2, and the item reached a named person rather than stopping at the conversation | Conforms |
| Results of improvement reach the management review | Improvement is a recorded output category in the management review. The 27/09/2025 minutes record the decisions taken: "Approved: QR codes, training modules via Onyx, virtual site/van enhancement." | Conforms |
4. Findings¶
4.1 Non-conformities¶
None.
4.2 Observations¶
None.
4.3 Status of the previous audit of this area¶
IA202506 closed with no findings. No prior actions were open against this area at the start of this audit.
5. Conclusion¶
Improvement conforms to clauses 10.1 and 10.3 of all three standards. There is a defined pipeline with named input routes, a stated decision point at Director level on a weekly cadence, and a separate route for work too large for that cadence. Improvement actions carry owners and dates and are tracked on a register generated from the underlying records.
The evidence for this clause is unusually direct, because the improvement output of the period sits in the system as dated, issue-numbered documents rather than as a claim about intent. The worker route was tested on a live example and reached a named person.
No findings were raised.
6. Recommendations¶
- Where an operative question is routed through a Director as in the example tested, capture it in a line on the weekly call notes. The route works; what it does not yet produce is a record that the route was used.
- Keep the split between the weekly decision point and the management review for long-horizon items. It is what stops the annual review becoming the only place improvement is considered.
7. Sign-off¶
| Role | Name | Position | Signature | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Auditor | Sean Ashton | HSQE Consultant, Onyx Operations Ltd | S. Ashton | 05/05/2026 |
| Reviewed and accepted | Aaron Mason | Director | A. Mason | 05/05/2026 |