Options for Managing Compliance Task Traceability in Enablon Compliance Module (RCM)

Author: Julie Taccino

Enablon’s Compliance Module allows for the creation of compliance tasks along with the compliance driver for the task. For example, an air permit might require operator inspections, or a regulation might require the submission of a report. However, planning how to structure compliance tasks can significantly affect usability and the level of effort required to implement and maintain the system. In this blog, we’re going to review a few options for the creation of compliance tasks that can be traced back to permit or regulation compliance drivers along with high-level advantages and disadvantages for each option.

Options for Structuring Compliance Tasks

Option 1 – Use Permits/Conditions and Regulations/Citations and Multiple Requirements

• Advantages: Very detailed ability to trace back and understand what is the reason for a particular compliance task
• Disadvantages: Very time- and energy-intensive to set up and maintain

Although Option 1 (a fully traceable compliance task, shown above) is often the goal for companies and sites, in my experience this often requires more time and resources than companies have the ability to implement and support. It’s often a better business decision to implement a more streamlined option that is more reasonable to maintain and execute.

Option 2 – Use Regulations/Citations and Multiple Requirements

• Advantages:
  • Aligns with content providers like Enhesa
  • Less effort to implement and maintain than Option 1
• Disadvantages:
  • Implementation does not include permits or permit conditions or related compliance tasks

Option 2 often makes sense for companies and sites where compliance tasks are largely driven by regulations rather than site specific permit requirements or that are already using content provider content for other parts of their Enablon platform such as Audit questions. The tasking and data can be optimized for regulations, and regulations and citations often apply to multiple similar sites within a company.

Option 3 – Use Permits/Conditions and Multiple Requirements

• Advantages:
  • More straightforward to implement than Option 2 as sites usually have their permits which can be deconstructed
  • Less effort to implement and maintain than Option 1
• Disadvantages:
  • Implementation does not include regulations or citations or related compliance tasks
  • Does not work with content providers

Option 3 is the best option for sites with compliance tasks mostly driven by permits and permit conditions. More effort is required than Option 4 for both initial implementation and maintaining revised permits, so it is recommended for companies with fewer but more complex sites or with permits that are rarely updated.

Option 4 – Use Permits/Conditions and only one requirement per permit

• Advantages:
  • More straightforward to implement than Option 2 as sites usually have their permits which can be deconstructed
  • Lowest effort to implement and maintain
• Disadvantages:
  • Least traceability of options
  • Implementation does not include regulations or citations or related compliance tasks
  • Does not work with content providers

Option 4 is the best fit for sites that have site-specific permits such as air permits which are very different between sites and are updated comparatively frequently. This approach minimizes effort to get the site compliance tasks loaded into a system and to update the tasks when permits are revised.

These are high-level options for how to implement content in the Compliance module. The Enablon Compliance module is complex to implement and maintain, and selecting the correct option can maximize value while minimizing ongoing maintenance. If you would like to discuss in more detail, please contact Julie Taccino at jtaccino@all4inc.com or (281) 201-1247.