Integration Of Management Systems Management EssayFor assignment help please contact
at [email protected] or [email protected]
The purpose of this study was to highlight the similarities of different
management system standards and consider the integration of them into
a single simpler management system that could be implemented into a
small construction company that will be assessed for the purposes of this
research.
This section will include a review on the literature related to
management systems, the implementation of those management systems
such as standardised ISO management systems and the associated
benefits of implementation to a company. It will also focus on the
similarities and differences, benefits and obstacles of the standards and
the best approach to integrate together to devise a single integrated
management system for a small construction company to manage their
quality, environmental and health and safety requirements.
A practical example of how one procedure can be handled an integrated
system is a procedure for welding, where the quality demands for the
welding process are described together with the way in which waste
produced is handled while also taking into consideration what kind of
health and safety rules and equipment the employee has to apply.
(Jørgensen et al. 2006)
Quality, environment and health and safety are the content of the three
most
often used management systems,(Hines, 2002)
Management Systems
The objective of the implementation of any management system is to
improve the performce of the business which is the direct repsonsilbility
of the top management. .(Smith 2002)
An integarted amangement system is designed to improve the
performance and it must be effective , efficient and should be able to
deliver better results to all stakeholders. If it does not do this it has failed
its purpose and objective, and is likely to be merely a bureaucratic
burdern with fancy badges attached to it. [1] .(Smith 2002)
Every company, whatever size has a management system, however
simple, as it is the way in which any business operates in order so that
they achieve their objectives. Not all management systems are formalised
or even written down. (David Smith, 2001). All companies have aims,
objectives and their own means, but until relatively recently many of
them were unlikely to have these means formalised into a systematic
approach that they could use to control their activities or measure their
progress towards achieving their objectives, which is now known as a
management system. (Hines, 2002)
Management systems govern many issues that are widely recognised as
benefiting from a systematic approach. (Hines, 2002).
As the size of the company increases, the complexity of the management
system to achieve their objectives does also. (David Smith, 2001). The
system formalises their intentions enabling them to make informed
decisions to set out the way in which they can achieve these intentions by
documenting the necessary processes and procedures required to be
followed. Reviewing of these management systems
Allows the company to assess whether the set procedures being carried
out as they should and whether the objectives set are being achieved
(Hines, 2002)
Correctly implemented, a management system will define clear
objectives, be able to communicate those objectives to all stakeholders
including employees, seek commitment from employees particularity
senior management, utilise all employees into the system by
incorporating all into maintaining and improving the system, provide
training and reviews of progress of the system, and ensure that the
system remains responsive to the continuing needs of the company or
organisation. (Hines, 2002)
When management systems fail to achieve the objectives it is generally
due to common pitfalls of management system implementation. These
common failures arise from inadequate resources or a lack of
commitment from senior
management, poor training or incorporation of employees and weak
communication
channels . (Hines, 2002)
When an organisation fails to fully achieve it's objectives set out in one
management system, the systems is not implemented correctly and if a
further system is required
it is likely that the other management system will also fail to be correctly
developed or implemented. (Hines, 2002)
Management Systems / ISO Background
The International Organization for Standardization, is a voluntary
developer of standards that defines specifications that are applicable to
all forms of businesses. ISO, derived from the Greek word 'isos', meaning
equal was the abbreviation given, so that whatever the country, whatever
the language, ISO is always the abbreviation used to globally and
therefore is globally recognised, standardised across the world (ISO,
2012)
ISO was founded in 1947 and has since published over 19000
international standards that now cover almost all aspects of technology
and business, made up by a network of national standards bodies that
represent ISO in each country. The National Standards Authority of
Ireland (NSAI) is the national standards body for Ireland and publishes
Irish Standards. The Central Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland,
coordinates the system and the 164 countries and the 3335 technical
bodies. ISO exists to design, develop and promote standardisation to
facilitate the trade of goods and services throughout the world, and to
develop cooperation in science, technology, academic sector and
economic activity. [2] (ISO, 2012)
ISO standards
The specifications defined by ISO, that are applicable to all forms of
businesses are formalised into a standard, a published document with the
technical specification or criteria designed to be used as a guideline or
rule in order to increase reliability and effectiveness of any product,
service or activity (British Standard Institution, 2010). The development
of standards result from either or a combination of market demands, the
interests of producers, consumers, governments, and the scientific
community, based on expert global opinion, or other stakeholder
consensus, then exploring the formulation of the international standards
through the technical committees by gathering consensus between the
member countries.
ISO standards serve as technical agreements providing framework for
compatible technology and are applicable across the globe. ISO has more
than 19000 international standards and related documents that are
applicable to various business and service sectors including agriculture,
construction, engineering, manufacturing and distribution,
transportation, medical and health care, and communication and
information (ISO, 2010).
Development of ISO
Over recent years, as world has developed, further standards were
therefore required to be developed, whilst also, the older versions of
standards required new revisions to be made. The development and
advancing of standards in ISO have now created a path towards the
compatibility between management standards with the ability to cross-
reference and integrate many aspects within different management
system with common properties. Jørgensen et al, 2006)
It is
apparent that these systems having been developed more recently are
less
prescriptive and formalised, and include flexibility for interpretation to
occur.
Management systems should, after all, be moulded to fit a company, not
vice
versa.(Hines, 2002)
All three systems have the basic structure of aims, objective and
procedures, of
training, monitoring and reviewing the progress the system is making,
using
essentially- the plan, do, check, act approach.(Hines, 2002)
now include a similar commitment to training and competence
and to the importance of communications. Given the similarities between
these
systems, and the recent revisions of EMAS, ISO14001, ISO 9000 and the
development of BS 8800 and ISO (OHSAS 18000), it is clear that the
integrated
approach would seem to offer those businesses wishing to tackle all these
issues
(and others) a chance to reduce the burden of proliferation and allow
them to
concentrate on the benefits that integration might offer. .(Hines, 2002)
An example of this is the development of the 1994 versions of the 9000
quality management system series, the revisions meant that the paper
work is significantly decreased, which was considered one of the most
difficult components of the system. (Zeng et al, 2010) The quality
mamangment series was updated in 2000 to ISO9000:2000, this was in
response to years of criticism by businesses that the original standard
was over complicated and inflexible. The update reduced the "paper
chase" of documentation burden and procedural overload.(Hines,
2002).The revisions also meant that the standards structure now followed
that of other newer standards, such as 14000 and 18000, introducing the
concept of system integration. (Zeng et al, 2010)
Today, there is a move towards companies actively implementing
standardised management systems "The implementation and certification
of quality (ISO 9001), environmental (14001) and occupational health
and safety (OHSAS 18001) systems have been an important activity for
many organizations and become a widespread practice around the world
(Asif et al., 2009; Nakashima et al., 2006; Rocha et al., 2007)."(Zeng et al,
2010
Environmental management systems were developed during the early
1990's following rasied environemtantl issues such as the Rio Earth
Summit in 1992 anda lso due to the business demands to introdeuce a
sytemcatic approach to manageing their environmental aspects. (Hines,
2002)
ISO 9001
Quality
The first formailised quality management system standard was developed in the UK by the British Standards Institute, standard BS5750.
This system was the first complete systematic approach to the management of
quality in the industrial process, and was quickly followed by an international
standard based on the BS5750 platform, but developed by the International
Standards Organisation (ISO), this was coded as ISO9000. ISO9000 provided
companies with a complete structure of guided pointers and areas of concern
that could be addressed by the development of procedures within the company.
There were criticisms of ISO9000 especially where the system began to take
over the organisation, rather than the organisation using the system to achieve
its quality objectives (Sheldon and Yoxon, 1999:5).
The first widely introduced management systems were those that were
developed to manage quality issues in businesses in order to meeting
specified requirements set by the customer. The first formalised quality
management system standard was developed in the UK by the British
Standards Institute, standard BS5750. This system was the first complete
systematic approach to the management of quality in the industrial
process, and was quickly followed by an international standard based on
this BS5750 standard, but developed by the International
Standards Organisation (ISO), and is known as the ISO 9000 series.
ISO 9001:2000 is based on the following eight quality management
principles: (1) customer-focused organizations; (2) leadership; (3)
involvement of people; (4) process
approach; (5) system approach to management; (6) continual
improvement; (7) factual approach to decision making; and (8) mutually
beneficial supplier relationships (Casadesus and Karapetrovic, 2005).
Based on these eight guiding principles, ISO 9001:2000 defines five main
management requirements: (1) quality management systems, (2)
management responsibilities, (3) resources management, (4) product
realization, and (5) measurement, analysis, and improvement (Padma et
al., 2008). ISO 14000 is a series of standards and guidelines (Zeng et al,
2010)
The first two editions of the ISO 9000 series published in 1987 and
revised in 1994 had a system that focused on enabling the enterprises to
produce the same quality of products every time by specifying the policy,
procedures and instructions in a quality handbook. With the revision in
2000 of ISO 9001, the focus on customers and continuous improvements
became stronger. The circles and arrows in ISO 9001:2000 symbolise a
dynamic and continuous process (see Fig. 1).
With focus on the customers, their demands and the satisfaction of those
demands, the organisation has to be more oriented towards the product
chain in which it operates. ISO 9001:2000 has also been aligned with ISO
14001:1996 ''in order to enhance the compatibility of the two standards
for the benefit of the user community'' [3]. By the end of 2003, more than
half a million ISO
9001 certificates had been issued in 149 countries [4]. (Jørgensen et
al.2006)
basic condition for an integrated management
system is a shared understanding of organisations and
how they operate. In textbooks on quality management,
the old versions of ISO 9000 have always been
illustrated as a pyramid e symbolising a stable organisation
with clear policy, procedures and instructions on
the strategic, tactic and operational levels. The bureaucratic
organisation is concerned with producing the
same quality of products every time. Therefore, ISO
9000 was often criticised for being static, resulting in too
much paperwork and having too much focus on the
system. (Jørgensen et al.2006)
however, was demand more from companies in their
commitment to actual quality management, whilst lessening the burden
of
documentation and procedural overload. The other major change in the
standard
was its inclusion of the term 'continual' as applied to improvement,
rather than
'continuous' that appeared in the original standard. The requirements of
the
continuous improvement principle was traditionally interpreted as the
evaluation
of the opportunity for improvement, where "auditors typically only
required an
evaluation of the indicators available, such as corrective and preventive
action,
and were looking for areas of improvement" (Beynon, 2002). The new
approach
of continual improvement should be expected to demonstrate positive
movement
across the entire system, even if it is incremental (ibid.) The new
standard has
much greater emphasis on the necessity to measure the effectiveness and
competency of resources, and the need to follow - up actions to ensure
progress
is made. (Zeng et al, 2010)
ISO 14001
) "Development of movements on quality and environment in the 90's
caused appearance of the management quality system (QMS - ISO
9000:2000), environmental management system (ISO 14000), risk
management system (ISO 17000) and other being under
preparation". [3] (Rajković et al, 2008)
The first environemtal management systens was developed in the UK as
BS7750 in 1994, which was then developed further by ISO to be replaced
as ISO 14001 in 1997 (Hines,, 2002)
The ISO 14000 series comprise five aspects: (1) environmental
management systems, (2) environmental auditing, (3) environmental
labelling, (4) environmental performance evaluation, and (5) life cycle
assessment (Zeng et al., 2005).
The standards are classified into two main types: guidance notes and
specifications. All standards except ISO 14001 belong to the former. They
are descriptive documents and not prescriptive requirements. Its
adoption is voluntary. As a subset of ISO 14000, the environmental
management systems take a systematic approach and provide a tool to
enable organizations for controlling impacts of their activities, products,
or services on the environment (Low and Tan, 2005). (Zeng et al, 2010)
The ISO 14001 was first published in 1996, and a revised version was
published in November 2004. The transition period for adoption of the
new version is until
May 2006. An environmental management system is: ''part of an
organization's management system used to develop and implement its
environmental policy and to manage its environmental aspects'' [5]. ISO
14001 is not necessarily established independently of existing
management systems, and in some cases it is possible to comply with ISO
14001 by adapting existing management system elements [6]. By the end
of 2003, more than 66,000 ISO 14001 certificates had been issued in 113
countries [4]. ]. (Jørgensen et al.2006)
The changes in ISO 14001:2004 are relatively minor [7]:
_ Improved coherence with ISO 9001:2000;
_ More focus on complying with regulations and other
environmental provisions;
_ Objectives and targets must be measurable (not
qualitative as today);
_ Registrations are moved to a joint paragraph;
_ The management review is described, point-bypoint. ]. (Jørgensen et
al.2006)
the ISO 14001 standard, which is
always illustrated as a spiral with a focus on the iterative
process of activities such as policy, planning, implementation,
etc. in order to create continuous improvements. ].( Jørgensen et al.2006)
ISO 18001
Systems to manage health and safety are not uncommon in businesses
but it wasn't until 2002 that ISO developed OHSAS 18000, the eternally
certifiable management sytem standard. OHSAS 18000 was developed
based on the previous British Standard, BS8800. (Hines 2002).
The standard on Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series
(OHSAS) 18001:1999 aims to create and to maintain a safe working
environment, while protecting and maintaining safety and health of
workers (Low and Chin, 2003). It is important that organizations should:
(1) establish occupational health and safety management systems for
minimizing risks to its employees and other affected parties; (2)
implement, maintain, and continuously improve occupational health and
safety management systems; (3) assure itself of its conformance with its
stated occupational health and safety policy; (4) demonstrate these
conformances; (5) seek certifications/registrations of its occupational
health and safety management systems by an external organization; and
(6) make self-determination and declaration of conformance within
specifications (Zeng et al., 2008a). (Zeng et al, 2010)
OHSAS 18001 was formulated by international certifying bodies with the
basis in BS 8800 and was first published in 1999. OHSAS 18001 can be
described as a de facto standard and is used as the basis for certification
of occupational health and safety management systems. ISO has voted
twice about whether to develop an ISO standard in this field and both
times, the proposals have been turned down, and therefore, ISO
currently, has no plans to develop such a standard. OHSAS 18001 was
developed to be compatible with ISO 9001:1994 and ISO 14001:1996 in
order to facilitate the integration of quality, environment as well as
occupational health and safety management systems, if organisations
wish to do so [8]. With the new quality and environmental management
standards, OHSAS 18001 should be revised, in order to remain
compatible [9]. ].( Jørgensen et al.2006)
INETGRADTED Management Systems
The concept
The UK Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) define
Integrated
Management Systems as
"the integration of matters such as organisational structures, strategic
decision
making, resource allocation and the processes of auditing and reviewing
performance" (http://www.iosh.co.uk, accessed 2002)
It
should place training and other activities designed to reinforce inclusivity
as a
high priority, and should ensure a regular training and team based
approach to
the solution of problems.(Hines, 2002)
There remains a perception amongst business people (see
below), that integration means little more than a together of putting
procedures
(in one manual rather than three). Instead, the fundamental differences
between
alignment and integration are what will determine to a large extent the
nature of
the system that is developed, the degree to which it can be truly inclusive
and the
potential danger than exists for the spreading of problems and
duplication of
problems across a multitude of badly stuck together systems, rather than
one
fully integrated one.
The differences between alignment and integration are summarised in
Figure 3.(Hines,2002)
Integration
Teamwork
Full Integration
Single Message
No Confusion
Inclusion of all
employees in all
Alignment
Individual Approach
Same Language
Same Structure
Focus on Separate Issues
an effective integrated system will be more efficient than nonintegrated
systems in that it is designed to be proactive
provide a more
effective means of identifying problems before they really occur and
identifying
correct solutions more easily
employees to
become more confident in their ability
decisions based on their own judgement and understanding of the
business,(Hines, 2002)
FACTORS EFFECTING IMPEMENTATION
But although there is increasing interest in implementing an integration
of management systems, small and medium sized enterprises are
considerably less interested than larger organisations, according to
Hines . "In a research project conducted in South Wales in the UK
including 12 small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and seven large
enterprises, it was found that the SMEs were less interested in IMS than
the large organisations.( [4] Hines,2002 )
Other issues than size such as such organisation structure market
competition and regulatory demands have a decisive influence whether
an organisation decides whether to integrate or not, as well as the level
of actual integration.( Jørgensen et al. 2006)
WHY INTEGRATE
Although all management systems are designed to address a different set
of issues and concerns with a particular company, the history of the
development and the functions they are designed to fulfil mean that, in
general, there are many close similarities between many systems.(Hines,
2002)
Interest developed to further integrate manangement systems by the
possibility of combining the most commonly used management systems,
implemented along side each other in companies, into one integrated
system, thus enabling
a company to have a more coherent view of the way in which they carry
out the entire business process. .(Hines, 2002)
Most companies certified to a formal standard will have introducted the a
qulaity standrd, with the implementation of the systems of the 9000
series to intrdoce qulaity sytandrds. .(Smith 2002) "Many companies
have quality management systems certified to international standards"
(Hines, 2002). And now, with the growth of environmental system
implementation "The past decade has seen the development of
Environmental Management /Systems, and there has been a relatively
rapid increase in certification to international standards, such as the ISO
14001".(Hines, 2002)' There begins to be an overlap from the
implemtation of two management systems alongside each other.(Smith
2002)
As standards developed and simiarities were observed within the
standards itself, it was observed that integration could reduce
duplication of the similarities, caused by multiple assessments and
surveillances which would be avoided. .(Smith 2002) Separately, ISO
9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 require all working procedures to be
traceable and auditable. This means to be able to meet the ISO
satisfactory requirements, each management system creates vast
documentation, procedures and control checking. This proves to be a
great challenge when multiple standards are in implementation, to meet
the requirements of the three separate management systems to ensure
compliance. The development of Integrated Management System was to
try and amalgamate separate systems into one functioning system. (Zeng
et al, 2010)
BARRIER TO INTEGARTION
Companies that perceive the
IMS in terms of alignment rather than integration will fail to understand
that the
barriers that they may have encountered in implementing previous
management
systems, or any programmes or initiatives for that matter, will occur
again and
again unless they tackle the company's management culture and
communication
weaknesses.(Hines, 2002)
One of the risks from integration of multiple systems is the possible
creation of different levels of priority, more attention could be paid to
one of the systems integrated together, attention foccing on quality more
than to the environmental or safety issues.
If an company's culture does not embrace the change and understand the
bigger picture of what intregration means and requires can cause a
barrier. Managers or employees of separate departmemts may be
uncivinced of benefits of initegratrion with fear of job loss and extra work
to implement. Failures occu when the basic concepts and pronciples are
ignored or misunderstood. (Hines, 2002)
Human factors can create huge barriers for integration and are also very
difficult to manage. Training and empowerment of staff is required to
incorporate everyone in the development of the integrated
mamangement system even before implementation can begin. Team work
is a huge factor that can contribute to the success of integration,
allowing communication across the whole company and addressing
issues quickly as they arise in order to allow all aspects to be mamgedin
an inclusive way.Otherwise the implantation will be likely to fail as it is
not enough to merely align the sytems as the objectives can not be met
without understanding the underlaying princples and what the sytems
needs to work(Hines, 2002)
ADVANTIAGE OF INTEGARATION
On the other hand, the potential is that environment or health and safety
can climb higher up on the agenda of organisations, both if combined
with an ISO 9001 quality system; and also if the organisation handles the
responsibilities in a coordinated way. .( Jørgensen et al. 2006)
Typically, the organisation already has a quality management system and
then later it integrates environmental procedures etc as stated above,
but if the environmental management system is added to the existing
quality system by simply trying to ''cut and paste'' the additional areas to
the system, it creates a risk of neglecting or underestimating the
environmental issues compared to quality system in place .( Jørgensen et
al. 2006)
ALAMALGAMATE NOT INTEGARET?
Although the standards have developed to contain similarities between
them, in practice, differences in structure amd even terminolgy create
problems in standardising one system. Total integration in the form of a
single overall standard instead of indivisual ISO standards for qulaity,
evboronemtna and health and safety is not always practical and instead,
amanagamation of systems standras should work towards allignemnt of
standards. Defintions and vocabulary should be consistant and a common
structure followed across the standards. The coomon elements can be
then mamanged as an enitty eith the specific rtequirements being clear
from each discipline.(Smith 2002)
To start by elmalgamating two discplines without refernce to an overall
intergrated system is to invite failure. For the implementation to be
succesful the head of the organisation must be seen to be heavily
involved. (Smith, 2002)
Due to the differences within the standards, the guide, IDO Guide 72 was
publised to assist the creation of management systems to ensure
compatibiluty with integration.(Smith 2002)
The use of common terms amd definitions and potential for usuing
common numbering system for claues within standrdas could leaed to
systems being approx 70% standardised and therefore the framework of
consolidating multiple standards into one management system can be
achieved to meet the company's goals and requirements efficiently and
effectively. (Smith 2002)
BARRIER TO INTEGARTION
In an ideal world management systems would be one simple system that
could govern every aspects of a company but in practice most companies
keep their management systems separate and therefore add to cost and
reduce effectiveness due to the perception to the difficulty in the
integration. (David Smith, 2001)
There should be advantages in avoiding parallel requirements both
internally in terms of control, audit etc and also externally in respect of
multiple assessments and surveillances. In practice, David Smith states
that there are difficulties giving a visual description of a difficult jigsaw
that just could not fit together in places after first seeming simple to fit
together. [5] . (David Smith, 2001)
Benefits of management systems
In smaller companies, there can be reluctantly in adopting management
systems and formalising procedures and records to their company which
are under the impression is operating fine without them. However, once
in operation, they gain greater control and can identify weaknesses and
where improvements are required to benefit the company by knowing
what is going on in the whole company. (David Smith, 2001)
"So far, these management systems have received major attention within
organizations to create competitive advantages and contribute to a
sustainable development (Esquer Peralta et al., 2008; Gudonavicius et
al., 2009; Jørgensen et al., 2006)" (Zeng et al, 2010)
Why integrate?
To standardize operations, for example to assess safety risks and
environmental aspects in a similar format and scored in a similar way
with priorities that are fixed in a balanced way; .( McCourt, 2009)
Harmonisation of different systems for control of for non-conformities,
assessments,
document control, corrective/preventive actions into one. [6] .( McCourt,
2009)
Resource reduction through the simplification for management. The
reduction of the number of reviews , number of audits, the number of
procedures, the number of tools to be used through the use of one
management system used thereby minimising resources. .( McCourt,
2009)
Competitiveness and positive image of organisations improvement in
connection with the positive improvements through integration for all
quality, environment, occupational health and safety. The association
with a maangment system shows responsibility and concern to
stakeholders. ( Jørgensen et al., 2006)
Why Integrate?
Low and Tan (2005) argued that the revised ISO 9001: 2000 serves as an
opportune platform for enterprises to consider certification to ISO 14000:
1996 and OHSAS 18001: 1999 through an integration exercise.( Zeng et
al, 2010)
CASE STUDIES
MOTIVATION
Zeng et al, 2010 carried out a studyin China, within certified companies
to explores the motivations and benefits in implementing IMS for the
Chinese enterprises. They observed that the motivation factor to satisfy
customers' requirements" was ranked first in the motications to
implement. The motivation factor "To respond to governments appeal"
was graded second.
There is a difference of motivation between ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 .
ISO 9001 is greatly customer-driven while ISO 14001 is more driven by
all stakeholders, the community and regulators, while a focus of the
standards on customers and continuous improvements does remains
strong (Ubius & Alas, 2009; Urbanskiene et al., 2008).( Zeng et al, 2010)
BENEFITS
Zeng et al states that the main benefits for implementation were
investigated in Salomone's, 2008 paper and highlighted the main benefits
as 1) simplify certification process; 2) save human resources; 3) decrease
paperwork; 4) decrease management cost; 5) decrease complexity of
internal managmeent; 6) increase cultural compatibility; and 7) facilitate
continuous improvement. Zeng et al's paper and
The benefit to simplify certification process was ranked first in Zeng et
al's research.
Integration is seen as the possible delivery mechanism for reduced
investment in time and effort, optimisation of resources and more
effective and strategic
decision making by management to ensure a rapid response to changing
demands on companies.(Hines, 2002)
The reasons for incorporating an integrated management system are to
combine the safety, health, environmental performances into one system
in order to compy with regulatory requirements and also aid in gaining
business and works and from qualification through tendering. The image
of the company is enhanced and provides customer trust and satisfaction
and over time there will be increased efficiency and therefore increased
profits. .( McCourt, 2009)
OBSTICLES
Zeng et al. (2007) revealed that the major problems for enterprises to
operate multiple parallel management systems included: causing
complexity of internal management, lowering management efficiency,
incurring cultural incompatibility, causing employee hostility, and
increasing management costs. (Zeng et al, 2010)
CULTURE
Hines discusses that team-based approaches to the integration of
management systems, with problems and solutions being delath with real
input of ideas from all employees into the management structure and
procedures promotes the functionality of the management system. This
suggests that integration is more about the company culture and
employees than it is about common system elements and generic
processes.( Jørgensen et al.2006)
Integrated management system require continuous change, to build and
updating as situations change. A system without the ability to pick up on
changes through understanding will not be able to feed back into the
system and function as required. A positive system culture will enable
these improvements and be able to identify adjustments and change
required, however, culture and learning is a blind spot for ISO standards
and it dependent on the companies themself to incorporate the system
process and responsibilities into the heart of the company's culture.
(Jørgensen et al, 2006)
Management commitment, employee motivation and participation,
changes in routines and traditions etc. are the challenges in order to
have IMS institutionalised throughout the organisation and within its
stakeholder relations. ].( Jørgensen et al..2006)
Obstacles of integration
SEPARATE CERT
One of the main obstacles towards integration is that currently quality
management systems ISO 9001, environmental management systems ISO
14001 and occupational health and safety management systems OHSAS
18001 require to be all certificated separately, causing difficulties to
keep separation to meet requirements for certification. ( Zeng et al,
2010)
FUTURE
The way to increase integration will require the need for certification
bodies to begin to adopt joint certifications through combined auditing.
As the standards of quality, environmental and safety system audits are
different, the procedures are similar which cause unnecessary waste of
resources managing the systems to accommodate the audits . ( Zeng et
al, 2010).
Integrated Management Systems
A prerequisite for integration is an understanding of the generic
processes and tasks that occur in each of the management systems. Each
system operates around 'the plan, do, check, act' basis and the first step
towards intergartation is the potential coordination of these processes.
( Jørgensen et al, 2006)
COMPATIBILITY
With the revisions and new additions of standards, many of management
systems have an increased number of similarities. In 2000, the new
edition of ISO 9001 brought about a focus on continuous improvements,
a change introduced that is one of the foundations of the environmental
as well as the health and safety management systems, while later in
2004, the new edition of ISO 14001 developed further to improve the
coherence with ISO 9001. Although an integrated standard is not
currently on the agenda for ISO, the revisions have improved the
compatibility among the different
Standards. ( Jørgensen, 2006)
Integration of Q,E,H&S
CROSS REFERECNING
Compatibility, cross-references and internal coordination of the key
elements of the management systems are obvious first steps
By study copies of the ISO standards, ISO 9001;2008, ISO 14001;2004
and OHSAS 18001:2007, I was able to cross-references the similarities
and formulate a table of compatibilities, illustrated in Fig
With similar management principles, the ISO9001, ISO14001 and
OHSAS18001 provide a complete series of standards for establishing an
effective documentation system. Each management system consists of
similar elements including: (1) policy, (2) aims and objectives, (3)
organization, (4) documentation, (5) plans (programmes), (6) procedures,
(7) records, (8) audit, and (9) review.
Documentation is intended for communication, operation, traceability,
and evaluation. Although quality, environmental and occupational health
and safety management systems are characterized by the same common
key elements, they operate independently. Under some circumstances,
elements for managing activities and processes that affect quality,
environmental and occupational health and safety could be integrated by
the implementation of IMS (Zeng et al., 2007). The companies
implementing IMS can get rid of being trapped in a controlled
bureaucracy with limited effectiveness. (Zeng et al, 2010)
This first step can reduce the resources issue of different parallel
management systems in one company as stated having different
standards to comply with is likely to result in administrative burdens, and
unnecessary duplication of paperwork.(Zeng et al, 2010)
From the cross referencing of the standards of ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and
OHSAS 18001, it can been seen that each standard requires companies
to formulate specific policies, define roles and responsibilities, and
manage the processes. In reality, implementing these standards side by
side therefore creates unnecessary duplication and it appears to make
clear sense to move towards implementing an integrated management.
(Karapetrovic and Casadesus, 2009; Molina-Azorin et al., 2008; Zeng et
al., 2007)
The next step is to have aa common understanding of all the processes
and the coordination
within a company and all the tasks involved in management. Basing the
system on each of the management systems view on: policy,
planning, implementation, corrective action and management
review, otherwise known as the 'plan, do, check act,' systems.( Jørgensen
et al.2006)
The basis for the integrated system builds on the generic process
elements to incorporate the specific demands required by each of the
standards for quality, environment and occupational health and safety..
( Jørgensen et al.2006)
It was seen from the cross referencing that the similarities in each
management system are:
top management commitment, definition of a policy, planning of
objectives and targets, procedures for training of employees,
communication procedures, audits, documentation and records control,
control of non-compliance, corrective and preventive actions, and
management review.( Jørgensen et al.2006)
Obstacles of integration
SMALLER COMPANIES
Although ISO considers there standards as generic as it can be applied to
any organisation in any sector, in reality, implementation of the
standards, especially in small and medium-sized enterprises faces
challenges and smaller companies tend to prefer to introduce simpler
management systems and therefore cannot achieve external certification
to the ISO standards ( Jørgensen et al..2006)
Benefits of integration
Benefit obtained in implementing an IMS is an important criterion for its
sustainable implementation (Holdsworth, 2003). (Zeng et al 2010)
Objectives and targets are established, coordinated
and balanced; Organisation and responsibilities are defined in one
place. (Jørgensen et al. ,2006)
CASE STUDIES
CHINA
It is revealed that the main motivations for implementing IMS are: to
satisfy customers' requirements, to respond to government's appeal and
to cope with stress from competitors. The noticeable benefits obtained
are: to simplify certification process, decrease management costs and
decrease paper work. (Zeng et al, 2010)
The second and third greatest benefit of an integrated management
system implementation is the decrease in management costs and the
decrease in paper work according to the Zeng et al research.
The benefit in the reduction in human resources. is ranked fourth, That is
supported by Salomone (2008). An IMS can reduce human resources
needed to manage the three systems (for example, by aggregating
management for record keeping, internal audit, board reviews and
training). (Zeng et al, 2010)
These management systems can create competitive advantages for firms
and contribute to a sustainable development. Implementing these
standards in parallel often results in some problems. Hence, IMS are
being advocated. It was revealed that the main motivations for
implementing IMS were: .To satisfy customers requirements. To respond
to government's appeal. and .To cope with stress from competitors.. The
significant benefits achieved were: .Simplify certification
process., .Decrease management costs. and .Decrease paper work..
(Zeng et al, 2010)
Certification:
Auditing
To enable companies, consumers and also ISO itself to establish whether
the standard is being implemented adequately, companies undergo
conformity assessments which are used to prove that a product, service
or system are approved by ISO by meeting specified requirements. ISO
itself does not perform the conformity assessments. By showing that a
product, service or system does meet the ISO requirements results in the
company being accredited to the ISO standard can result in many
benefits for the company such as providing clients or consumers with
added confidence competency. It gives the company a competitive edge
and it also aids regulators ensure that health, safety or environmental
conditions are being met. The main forms of conformity assessment are
certification, inspection and testing. (ISO, 2012)
WHY GO FOR CERTIFICATION?
Certification according to the three management standards, ISO 9001,
ISO 14001, and OHSAS 18001 provide the assurance about the ability of
a company to satisfy the quality,
environmental or occupational health & safety requirements that need to
be followed in order to gain accreditation.( McCourt, 2009)
Reasons to certify?
"With certification from the International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), you can bypass many procurement processes,
making bidding for contracts quicker, easier and cheaper. Accreditation
to ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 automatically prove that you
meet certain standards in health and safety and environmental and
quality management, removing the need to answer lengthy
questionnaires about your business processes or compile reams of
paperwork."( Jane Dronsfield, 2010.)
"Furthermore, in working to secure ISO certification, your business itself
will improve, becoming more efficient, safe, cost-effective and customer-
focused. Every aspect of your management processes will be evaluated
on an ongoing basis, with problem identification and solving built into
your business processes." (Jane Dronsfield, 2010.)
The most logical step towards ISO accreditation is implementing a
suitable Integrated Management System (IMS) that formalises all your
business processes in health and safety and environmental and quality
management and sets you up for continuous improvement. (Jane
Dronsfield, 2010.)
Disadvantages to certification?
Implementing standards across a company can be a complex, time-
consuming and a very costly undertaking, especially for the majority of
Small or Medium sized Enterprise who do not employ internal experts
across the three areas of health and safety, environment, and quality.
There is also not a standardised certification to an integrated standard
and therefore in order achieve certification in each area, three sets of
certification is required. "However, most small companies do not run an
IMS because they cannot afford to employ experts in all of the above
areas; and, since most business consultants do not offer an IMS either,
you would likely need to employ a separate set of consultants to cover
each discipline, which would be very expensive. [7] ( Jane Dronsfield,
2010.)
. Apart from focus on overall system improvement, joint audit systems
will result in cost savings, better allocation and use of human, material
and information resources, as well as a unified problem solving approach
that will increase efficiency and effectiveness of other interlinked
systems.(Zeng at al, 2010)
IMS Spain
CASE STUDY SPAIN
As discuused, over recent years the standards for management systems
have become more compatible, and made integartion possible to create
IMS standards.
This lead to Dansk Standard and AENOR, the Danish and Spanish
organisations for
standardisation, to develop IMS's. .( Jørgensen et al.2006)
In Denmark, more than 50% of the organisations with a certified
environmental management system (ISO 14001 or/and EMAS) also have
been certified to a quality management system. and most of these
organisations have chosen to integrate quality and environment into one
system. Out of approximately 165 organisations certified according to
OHSAS 18001 and with the possibility of integrating with ISO 9001
and/or ISO 14001, the estimation is that more than 50% of the
organisations have integrated at least parts of the systems.( Jørgensen et
al.2006)
''One organisation, one system'' is the slogan for the development of an
integrated management standard in Denmark.
( Jørgensen et al.2006)
SPAIN
According to a study about the status of integration in Andalucı´a (a
region in the south of Spain) approximately 55% of the organisations
with certified quality and environmental management systems have
developed an integrated system. . Almost 30% of the organisations have
implemented an IMS for quality, environmental and occupational health
and safety management system ( Jørgensen et al.2006)
AENOR, the Spanish organisation for standardisation, understands
integration as the evolution of the different management systems in an
organisation. ( Jørgensen et al.2006)
AENOR has given an answer to the market need by launching the
''Integrated Management Systems Certification.'' This certification can be
used for organisations with an integrated mamangeemt system for
quality and environment. The certification does not however include for
occupational health and safety yet. ( Jørgensen et al.2006)
The guide has the following structure: first it recommends an initial
check of the organisation regarding the current situation of the
management systems and regulatory requirements as well as of needs
and expectations of all stakeholders and identification of existing
resources.
Afterwards, the organisation has to analyse the advantages and barriers
of implementing IMS and, finally, with these data the organisation can
choose the most suitable type of integration Quality, environment and
health and safety are the content of the three most
often used management systems,according to its structure.
There are two recommended models of integration in the guide:
Model 1: Partial integration. Integration of some common procedures
from the three management
systems;
Model 2: Total integration. This model goes beyond common procedures
and involves an integration
based on a process approach and continuous improvement like in ISO
9001:2000.
WALES
Hines carried out a research project to assess the views company
managers in South Wales,UK, felt towards the potential for integrated
mamangeemtn sytems. His research uncluded a small number of SME's
as well as a small number of large companies. His researched states that
the SME's felt under pressure to adopt environemtal and health and
safety mamagenet systems from their customers. Most held ISO 9000
alreadya d felt the addition of ISO 14001 was "a waste of money" and
were rather rensentful of the customer pressure. The SME's were in
favour of integration, a system that combined everything.
The importance of compant culture and understanding of system
principles didn't not appear to be fully realised by the SME manaegers.
Their reason to want an integrated system was to save money, to save
timeand resources and achieve certification easily.
Relunctance to implement for fear of incurring expense and loosing
contrcts to lower bids of companies without certification.
This approach is towards allignemnt rather than integreation
Larger companies views were seen to be different in Hines' research.
Many of the larger companies had already implemented ISO 9001 and
ISO 14001 with a health and safety management system in place yet
were not eager to move towards integration.
There was a greater underdtanding of the concept of integration within
the larger companies.
Departmental managers were against integegration of departments with
fears of department job losses whereas in senior managers, the move
towards integration with the reaslision that the strategic could build the
company.
Company culture importance was yet again seen to be an important
factor, with the larger companies with positive culture being more likely
to succeed in system integration.
It was still an issue that there was confusion between system alignment
and actual inegartion.
CONCLUSION
It considers the issue of true integration as opposed to the alignment of
systems whereby processes and procedures are brought into line with
each other, but are not truly integrated in their application to the
business.(Hines, 2002)
Integration is the solution and depending on the understanding and level
of ambition behind an integrate management system, it is a solution to
many different problems.
Integration as correspondence between different standards with cross-
references and perhaps even a common handbook can give several
administrative benefits for organisations such as to save time and
resources and to secure an alignment between the demands of the
different standards. Correspondence is a solution to the problems related
to bureaucracy, duplication of work tasks, and confusion between
different standards. ( Jørgensen et al..2006)
Integration as coordination which is based on a common understanding
of the generic processes of policy, planning, implementation, checking
and corrective action, and management review gives potential benefits
such as description of responsibilities, examination of synergies and
trade-offs, alignment of policy, objectives and targets etc.
Coordination is a solution to problems related to managing tasks and
projects across different functional units and departments. A standard for
IMS comprising the different areas of responsibility in the organisations
and their stakeholder relations might be the next step for ISO to develop.
( Jørgensen et al..2006)
Management commitment, employee motivation and participation,
changes in routines and traditions etc. are the challenges in order to
have IMS institutionalised throughout the organisation and within its
stakeholder relations. ( Jørgensen et al..2006)
In any case, competitive advantages can be achieved, if the organisations
combine the new focus on customers in the quality system with a focus
on the products in the environmental management system. This can
create a synergy between quality and environment (and health and safety
and social aspects) as well as more focus on continuous improvements
and product innovations e compared to the traditional focus on the
production process. ( Jørgensen et al..2006)