Document {{ORG_PREFIX}}-005

IMS Objectives & Improvement Plan¶

1. Purpose¶

This document is {{ORG_NAME}}'s authoritative statement of its quality and OH&S objectives and of how continual improvement of the integrated management system is planned, executed and evidenced. It defines:

the two-level objectives model — company-wide objectives plus optional offer-level ("sleeve") objectives — and the coverage rule that binds them;
the company-wide objectives themselves, with the plan for achieving each one;
the sleeve method by which a specific product × market offer can be brought under its own additional objectives;
the improvement pipeline that turns analysis, audit, review and corrective-action outputs into selected, tracked improvements.

The Objectives & Targets register in Airtable is the live status index of every objective at both levels; the authoritative objective statements and plans live here. Evidence of results is retained in docs/records/ — chiefly docs/records/management-reviews/.

2. Scope¶

In scope: every quality and OH&S objective set under the IMS, wherever in the business it lives (the two-level model in section 3.1 decides where one is needed); the whole working life those objectives lead under sections 3.2 to 3.5; and the section 3.6 improvement pipeline, through which the management system as a whole is continually improved.

Out of scope: business strategy. Market selection, offer development priorities and commercial performance targets are decided outside the IMS and appear in this document only as organisational context (see section 3.3). Also out of scope: the mechanics of risk and opportunity assessment (see risk-opportunity-hazard-methodology) and the corrective-action workflow itself (see nonconformity-corrective-action-improvement-procedure) — this document only defines how their outputs feed and consume objectives.

3. Content¶

3.1 Two-level objectives model and coverage rule¶

{{ORG_NAME}} sets objectives at two levels:

Company-wide objectives (section 3.2): a small set of measurable quality and OH&S objectives, each owned by a named role, reaching wherever in the business the IMS needs one. In an organisation of {{ORG_NAME}}'s size (~[NEEDS INPUT: headcount] people), one company-wide set with clear role owners is the appropriate depth; per-department objective cascades would be invented structure.
Offer-level ("sleeve") objectives (section 3.4) — additional objectives attached to a single product × market offer, established deliberately and sparingly as a continual-improvement mechanism.

Coverage rule. The company-wide objectives in this document apply to all products and services within the IMS scope and to every part of the business the IMS reaches. Offer-level objectives are an additional continual-improvement mechanism: they are established only for offers selected by a management-review decision recorded in the review minutes, and an offer's presence in the Product & Market Offers register creates no requirement for offer-level objectives — unselected offers remain fully governed by the company-wide objectives.

3.2 Company-wide objectives¶

3.2.1 The objectives table¶

The table below is the authoritative statement of {{ORG_NAME}}'s company-wide quality and OH&S objectives. {{ORG_NAME}} keeps the set small and expects every row in it to change something. Each row therefore starts from a measure the business already produces rather than from a number nobody collects today: the Measure column says what is counted, the Data source column names the register or log it is counted from, the Target column says what good looks like, and the owner role reads that measure on the Review cadence in the row. Some of what {{ORG_NAME}} wants to improve does not reduce to a count, such as how a report reads to the client who commissioned it, or how readily people speak up about a hazard. Those rows say instead who judges the result at review and against what; {{ROLE_TOP_MANAGEMENT}} agrees that basis before the objective goes Active, so nobody argues the meaning of a result after seeing it.

Objectives are how {{ORG_NAME}} works on the promises it has made. The commitments in quality-ohs-policy state those promises in short form, and each row here is the business doing something about one of them. A candidate that answers no commitment is either not worth the effort or a sign the policy has drifted from the business, and {{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}} takes the second case to the next review. The promises that generate candidates are the ones closest to costing {{ORG_NAME}} something: what customers have been told the services will do, what legislation and regulators require of those services, and the entries in the Compliance Obligations register, statutory duties and adopted commitments alike, that current practice only just satisfies. That is why the quality rows sit on the two things a customer judges {{ORG_NAME}} by: whether the work delivered conformed to what was agreed, and whether the customer was satisfied with it.

The OH&S rows come in two kinds on purpose. CW-4 to CW-6 aim at the harm itself, and moving those numbers the right way is the point of the exercise. CW-7 and CW-8 aim at the training and at the review and audit programme that hold the gain, because OH&S performance that improves while the machinery behind it decays does not stay improved, and a management system nobody maintains stops being able to prevent anything.

Before an OH&S objective goes Active. {{ORG_NAME}} does not set a safety objective on a hunch about where the danger is. {{ROLE_OHS_COORDINATOR}} moves an OH&S or Both-discipline row to Active only once its Objectives & Targets row carries two links: Linked Risks, the Risk & Opportunity Register entries behind it, the assessed exposure the objective aims at or the opportunity it takes up, rated under risk-opportunity-hazard-methodology; and a Consultation Ref, the record in docs/records/consultation/ where the people who do the work said what would actually shift it. Chasing an exposure nobody has assessed wastes a year, and a control the crew was never asked about is the one that gets worked around. Where either link is missing, the objective is still somebody's idea, and it stays Proposed until the assessment and the conversation have happened.

#	Objective	Discipline	Measure	Baseline	Target	Data source	Owner role	Review cadence
CW-1	Customers are satisfied that delivered work met their needs	Quality	Average customer feedback rating across entries logged in the period	[NEEDS INPUT: first full measurement period]	[ORG-DECISION: e.g. average rating at or above 4.0 of 5]	Customer Feedback & Complaints register	{{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}}	Quarterly
CW-2	Services are delivered conforming, right first time	Quality	Count of delivery-related nonconformities raised in the period	[NEEDS INPUT: first full measurement period]	[ORG-DECISION: e.g. sustained downward trend against baseline]	Nonconformity & CAPA Register	{{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}}	Quarterly
CW-3	Corrective actions close on time and actually work	Both	% of CAPA rows closed by due date with a completed effectiveness check	[NEEDS INPUT: first full measurement period]	[ORG-DECISION: e.g. at least 90%]	Nonconformity & CAPA Register	{{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}}	Quarterly
CW-4	Work-related injury and ill health are prevented	OH&S	Number of work-related injury events and ill-health cases (lost-time incidents reported separately)	[NEEDS INPUT: first full measurement period]	[ORG-DECISION: e.g. zero lost-time injuries]	Incident Register	{{ROLE_OHS_COORDINATOR}}	Quarterly
CW-5	Workers actively report hazards before they cause harm	OH&S	Count of hazard reports logged in the period (leading indicator)	[NEEDS INPUT: first full measurement period]	[ORG-DECISION: e.g. at least N reports per quarter, trending toward routine reporting]	Hazard Register	{{ROLE_OHS_COORDINATOR}}	Quarterly
CW-6	Identified hazards are controlled promptly	OH&S	% of hazards reaching Controlled status within the agreed timeframe [ORG-DECISION: timeframe by inherent rating]	[NEEDS INPUT: first full measurement period]	[ORG-DECISION: e.g. 100% of High/Extreme within timeframe]	Hazard Register	{{ROLE_OHS_COORDINATOR}}	Quarterly
CW-7	People hold the training their roles require	Both	% of active people with all applicable Training Curriculum items in date	[NEEDS INPUT: first training snapshot]	[ORG-DECISION: e.g. at least 95%]	Training Log against Training Curriculum	{{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}}	Quarterly
CW-8	The IMS programme runs on schedule	Both	% of scheduled management-review and internal-audit slices completed in the month due	[NEEDS INPUT: first programme quarter]	[ORG-DECISION: e.g. 100%, with any slip recovered next month]	Schedule register (with Management Review Log and Internal Audit Log)	{{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}}	Monthly

Each row above is mirrored by a row in the Objectives & Targets register with Level = Company-wide; the register carries current result, last-measured date and status, and is never the authoritative statement. The documented information for objectives follows the IMS three-tier model: this section (Documents) holds the authoritative statements, the register (Registers) is the live index, and evidence of results accumulates in Records per section 3.2.2.

3.2.2 Objective planning¶

Before an objective is set to Active, company-wide and sleeve alike, it carries a worked plan, and the plan lives in machinery this document already runs:

The plans below (or the sleeve section, for a sleeve objective) state the concrete actions that will move the measure from baseline to target, and the resources those actions require; the register row's Plan field summarises both. The actions are folded into existing routines: job close-out, the monthly programme slices, the training cycle. A bureaucracy running parallel to the business is never part of a plan.
The Owner role column, mirrored by the register's Owner Role field, names the single role answerable for delivery.
The Measure and Review cadence columns fix the indicator and how often it is read; the register's Next Review date marks when the result falls due and completion is checked.
The Proposed status holds any objective whose plan needs resources {{ORG_NAME}} has not yet provided: it stays Proposed until {{ROLE_TOP_MANAGEMENT}} commits them.
The objectives slice of the rolling management review sets the result against the target once the objective is Active, per management-review-procedure.

The plans for the company-wide objectives:

CW-1: request feedback on every completed job [ORG-DECISION: mechanism, e.g. a standing post-job feedback email]; {{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}} logs entries in the Customer Feedback & Complaints register as they arrive and computes the period average at each quarterly objectives slice. Resources: the existing register and feedback channel.
CW-2 / CW-3: {{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}} reviews the Nonconformity & CAPA Register monthly for new delivery-related nonconformities and overdue actions; quarterly counts and closure rates are computed from register fields. Resources: the existing register; no new tooling.
CW-4 / CW-5 / CW-6: {{ROLE_OHS_COORDINATOR}} maintains the Incident and Hazard Registers as events are reported (the hazard/incident report form is the worker channel), triages new hazards within [ORG-DECISION: working-day window], and reports the three measures at each quarterly objectives slice. Resources: the existing registers and form.
CW-7: the monthly training reminder automation prompts completions; {{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}} reads the currency percentage from the Training Log against the Training Curriculum at each quarterly slice.
CW-8: the Schedule register drives monthly prompts; {{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}} reports slice completion at each monthly review session.

Where objectives and plans live. The IMS three-tier model applies unchanged. Documents: this document holds the authoritative objectives and plans. Registers: the Objectives & Targets register indexes their live status, and between review snapshots that status is index, not evidence. Records: the review cycle produces the evidence, snapshotting the register into docs/records/management-reviews/ at each objectives review slice, with the session minutes recording results, evaluations and decisions.

3.2.3 Communication and updating¶

Objectives are communicated to the people whose work they depend on — at induction, and through the internal communication arrangements defined in communication-consultation-participation-procedure (the register's Communicated Via field records the channel used per objective). Objectives are updated when review results, context changes, or risk-assessment updates show they should be: changes are made to this document through the PR lifecycle and mirrored to the register, never the other way round.

3.3 Offer catalogue as organisational context¶

{{ORG_NAME}}'s product × market offers are defined in product-market-offer-definitions and indexed in the Product & Market Offers register. That catalogue is an input to understanding the organisation and its context and the needs of interested parties (each offer implies a buyer group with its own jobs and expectations), and it feeds the context review in context-interested-parties-compliance-obligations.

Strategy fence. Decisions about which markets to serve and which offers to develop are made outside this management system and are considered here only as organisational context; commercial measures such as revenue, win rate or pipeline are not quality objectives and are not recorded in the Objectives & Targets register.

Accordingly the catalogue carries no commercialisation dates, launch milestones or pipeline statuses: it is the set of offers {{ORG_NAME}} has defined, not a sales pipeline. Every offer's Objective Coverage field is visibly set — Company-wide is the complete and sufficient default; only offers selected at management review additionally carry a sleeve (section 3.4).

3.4 Offer-level objectives — the sleeve method¶

A sleeve wraps one offer from the Product & Market Offers register in its own quality definition and 3–5 additional objectives. Sleeves exist to improve what a specific buyer group experiences — they add focus, never replace the company-wide objectives, which continue to apply in full (section 3.1).

The method:

Select. At a management-review session, {{ROLE_TOP_MANAGEMENT}} decides to pilot a sleeve for one offer, applying the selection criteria [ORG-DECISION: e.g. delivery volume, strategic priority, distinctness of buyer needs, existence of a usable data source]. No more than [ORG-DECISION: N, default 1] pilot sleeve(s) run concurrently. The decision is recorded in the review minutes in docs/records/management-reviews/; without that recorded decision no sleeve exists, whatever the register says.
Build on the offer definition. The sleeve builds on the offer's existing definition in product-market-offer-definitions — its jobs and outcome statements — rather than restating it. Where the sleeve shows the definition needs sharpening, that change is made in product-market-offer-definitions through its own lifecycle.
Check obligations. The {{ROLE_OHS_COORDINATOR}} and {{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}} check the Compliance Obligations register for requirements specific to this market or delivery context; any found shape the sleeve objectives, and any gap is raised per compliance-obligations-procedure.
Set 3–5 objectives. Each sleeve objective is complete against every planning element in section 3.2.2 and has a data source that already exists — an objective whose measurement would require building new instrumentation is not adopted; the missing data source goes to the improvement pipeline (section 3.6) instead. OH&S-relevant sleeve objectives clear the same two links before going Active as the company-wide ones (section 3.2.1).
Register and communicate. Each objective gets an Objectives & Targets row with Level = Product x Market, linked to the offer. The sleeve objectives are communicated to the team delivering the offer through the channels in communication-consultation-participation-procedure.
Monitor and review. Sleeve objectives are monitored per the IMS monitoring arrangements (monitoring-measurement-calibration-procedure) on their stated cadence and reviewed in the rolling management-review programme alongside the company-wide set.
Act on misses. A missed sleeve target raises a row in the Nonconformity & CAPA Register, handled per nonconformity-corrective-action-improvement-procedure — sleeves generate corrective actions, not silent target rewrites.
Retire honestly. When a sleeve has served its purpose, its data source degrades, or review shows it is not driving improvement, management review records a retirement decision: the offer's Objective Coverage is set to Sleeve — retired, its objective rows are set to Retired with final results captured in the review snapshot, and the offer returns to company-wide coverage — which never lapsed.

Graduation rule. Sleeves 1–3 live as sections of this document (section 3.5 holds the first). From the fourth sleeve onward, each established sleeve gets its own Plan-type controlled document (one per sleeve, referencing this method), so that this document does not grow without bound.

3.5 Sleeve 1¶

[ORG-DECISION: replace this worked example with the organisation's first real sleeve, selected at management review. Everything in this section — the offer, the objectives, and all figures — is fictitious and illustrative only.

Offer: Scheduled equipment inspections — facility-manager clients, as defined in product-market-offer-definitions §3.4.1 (Product & Market Offers row: "Scheduled equipment inspections — facility managers", Objective Coverage: Sleeve — pilot). This sleeve builds on that definition — the jobs and outcomes facility managers value — and sets measurable objectives to improve against them; it does not restate the definition.

Sleeve objectives:

#	Objective	Discipline	Measure	Baseline	Target	Data source	Owner role	Review cadence
S1-1	Inspections happen in the agreed window	Quality	% of inspections performed within the client-agreed window	82% (last two quarters of job records)	95%	Job files — scheduled vs actual dates, tallied quarterly	{{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}}	Quarterly
S1-2	Reports arrive in time to act on	Quality	Median working days from inspection to issued report	9 days	5 days	Job files — inspection and issue dates	{{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}}	Quarterly
S1-3	Inspection work is set up safe, every time	OH&S	% of inspection visits with a completed pre-start hazard check	74% (sampled job files)	100%	Job files — pre-start checklist present; gaps logged to the Hazard Register	{{ROLE_OHS_COORDINATOR}}	Quarterly

Each objective carries a full section 3.2.2 plan in its Objectives & Targets row; S1-3 links the relevant Risk & Opportunity Register rows and the consultation record in docs/records/consultation/ in which the inspection crew shaped the pre-start check measure.]

3.6 Improvement pipeline¶

The management system is itself something {{ORG_NAME}} keeps making better at its job. Continual improvement here means standing questions, asked at every review: is the IMS producing the results we run it for, and does it still match, in shape and in size, the work we actually do? The effort points where it pays: quality and OH&S performance that measurably lifts, a health and safety culture people strengthen rather than endure, better outcomes for customers, and fewer incidents and fewer nonconformities in the first place. The pipeline is deliberately simple:

Inputs. Candidate improvements come from the outputs of the system's own activities: trends in the Nonconformity & CAPA Register, management review outputs, sleeve results and retirements (section 3.4), analysis and evaluation of monitoring results (monitoring-measurement-calibration-procedure), suggestions raised by workers through the consultation and participation arrangements, internal audit findings, and compliance evaluation outcomes.
Selection. Candidates are weighed and selected at management review, per management-review-procedure — the review minutes record what was considered, what was selected, and what was consciously declined. Not every good idea is adopted; the pipeline is a filter, not a backlog of guilt.
Tracking. Every selected improvement becomes exactly one of:
a row in the Objectives & Targets register (an objective or target change, or a new objective — handled per sections 3.2/3.4), or
a row in the Nonconformity & CAPA Register (a discrete corrective or improvement action), handled per nonconformity-corrective-action-improvement-procedure. There is no third, untracked place for improvement work to live.
Evidence without extra writing. The pipeline leaves its own trail: the objective snapshots and management-review minutes in docs/records/management-reviews/, with the closed register rows those snapshots capture, are the standing record of what continual improvement has achieved; worker involvement in delivering improvements is evidenced in docs/records/consultation/.
People in the loop. An improvement that touches people's work is delivered with those people in it, their involvement scaled to what the improvement itself calls for: the arrangements in communication-consultation-participation-procedure bring the workers concerned into the delivery, and the same channels carry the results back to them and to worker representatives where the workforce has them, normally alongside the management-review outcomes those results belong to.

Document	Relationship
`quality-ohs-policy`	Objectives must be consistent with the policy; the policy provides the framework the objectives fill in
`risk-opportunity-hazard-methodology`	Source of the risk-assessment results and opportunities that OH&S objectives take account of, and of the Risk & Opportunity Register rows they link
`nonconformity-corrective-action-improvement-procedure`	Handles missed targets and discrete improvement actions selected by the pipeline
`management-review-procedure`	The forum where objectives are reviewed, sleeves are selected and retired, and improvements are selected and their results recorded

4. Ownership and Review¶

Aspect	Value
Owner	{{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}}
Reviewer	{{ROLE_OHS_COORDINATOR}}
Approver	{{ROLE_TOP_MANAGEMENT}}
Status	Draft, version 0.1
Next review date	2026-08-15
Review trigger	Annual, or immediately upon any material change to IMS scope, organisational structure, sites, services, legal/regulatory requirements, or after a significant incident or nonconformity.

The Draft → Under Review → Approved lifecycle runs through GitHub pull requests as defined in the Document & Record Control Procedure.

5. Revision History¶

Version	Date	Author	Description of Changes	Reviewed By	Review Date	Approved By	Approval Date
0.1	2026-07-16	{{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}}	Initial draft	—	—	—	—

6. Document Control

Document	`{{ORG_PREFIX}}-005`
Type	IMS Core Document
Version	0.1
Status	Draft
Owner	{{ROLE_QUALITY_MANAGER}}
Reviewer	{{ROLE_OHS_COORDINATOR}}
Approver	{{ROLE_TOP_MANAGEMENT}}
Next Review	2026-08-15
Classification	Internal

Held in the document frontmatter, mirrored to the Document Register.