Search results

This study attempts to examine the performance differences between firms with and without integrated management systems (IMSs), and the impact of three integration strategies (i.e. implementing quality management system (QMS) first, then environmental management system (EMS) (QMS + EMS); implementing EMS first, then QMS (EMS + QMS); implementing QMS and EMS simultaneously (QMS − EMS)) on firm performance to reveal the IMS–performance relationship and provide empirical evidence.

Two panel datasets were collected during 2009–2019. This study used the Mann–Whitney non-parametric test and a sample of 33,155 observations from 4,316 Chinese listed firms to compare the performance differences between the IMS and non-IMS groups through performance indicators. This study also examined the effects of three integration strategies on firm performance using a cross-sectional time-series feasible generalized least squares (FGLS) regression model and a sample of 11,289 observations from 2,037 firms.

The results show that significant performance differences exist between IMS and non-IMS firms; however, the performance of firms with an IMS is not always better than that of firms without IMS. Furthermore, the simultaneous integration strategy has a positive impact, whereas sequential integration strategies (QMS + EMS and EMS + QMS) negatively affect firm performance. Compared with the EMS + QMS strategies, the QMS + EMS strategies have a more prominent effect on firm performance. Simultaneous strategies are more effective than sequential strategies.

Firms should fully consider the potential benefits and costs associated with the difficulties of IMS implementation and the implementation order of different management systems and the potential effects of the management systems in different conditions. Firms also should try to develop internal capabilities through implementing different integration strategies.

By comparing performance differences between firms with and without IMS, this study enriches the understanding of the performance benefits of IMS implementation in the Chinese context. By examining the impact of integration strategies that follow different sequences on firm performance, this study promotes an in-depth understanding of the integration strategies and their performance implications beyond simple descriptions and also provides new insights into operations strategy models.

Management systems and standards have become a key part of the organisation's lifeline and a prerequisite for survival in the twenty‐first century. Systems for quality environmental and occupational health and safety (OHS) now form the three main pillars of the organisation, the fourth one being financial accounting. In light of the increasing pressure and demands from different stakeholders, it is becoming necessary for organisations to adopt the different systems/standards. However, to achieve the benefits from the implementation and subsequently maintenance of these systems it is only a practical and logical step that the existing management systems/standards be integrated into a single system.

This paper presents the experiences of three Australian‐based organisations that have successfully undertaken the integration of their management systems/standards. Data for this paper were collected through in‐depth interviews conducted with the managers responsible for quality, environment and OHS systems.

The interviews revealed a number of quantifiable and unquantifiable benefits experienced by the companies from operating one integrated system, such as saving of dollars, better utilisation of resources and improved communication across the organisation, to name a few. However, for the benefits to be realized it is essential that organisations are aware of the challenges and obstacles accompanying integration of systems/standards. If these challenges are not addressed early in the process they can delay the completion of the integration process.

Recommendations for other organisations contemplating integrating their management system include: obtaining commitment from the top management; having adequate resources to integrate the systems; having communication and training across the organisation in aspects of integration; and, last but not the least, having integrated audits. Implementation of these recommendations may vary from one organisation to another; however, it would result in lesser resistance for the organisations following them.

The purpose of this paper is to study how the expression “integrated management systems” is interpreted in literature, what it means to have an integrated management system (IMS) and what the results of this are.

A literature review was conducted based on Scopus using the search term “Integrated Management Systems.” In the chosen articles, effects of integration, scope, level and extent of integration and if the approach is inside-out or outside-in, have been analyzed.

Most articles on IMS conclude that integration is beneficial regarding cost saving, operational benefits and improved customer satisfaction. The general approach in the articles, describes an inside-out approach with focus on integrating existing management standards. The scope of integration covers typically management systems for quality, environment and occupational health and safety.

An IMS is found to be a system that integrates existing management standards based on an inside-out approach. This indicates possibilities for both practical improvement and research in exploring how integrated stakeholder needs could be managed, possibly as process-based IMSs.

This paper sheds light on the ambiguous interpretation of the IMS concept.

Despite the widely recognized benefits of integrating management systems, many multi-certified organizations continue to implement two or more systems separately. This can happen either through ignorance or by deliberate intent. Focusing on the second reason, the purpose of this paper is to examine a number of factors that can lead an organization to consciously choose not to integrate all of its management systems.

The paper presents a case study of a construction company that has integrated the environmental management system and the occupational health and safety management system – which implies that the company is familiar with the practice of integration – while choosing to implement the quality management system separately from the other two.

The findings of this study show that the reasons that led the company not to integrate all of its systems are not so much related to the compatibility of these systems, but are much deeper and have implications that touch upon its basic principles and values. Despite the occurrence of some organizational and operational problems (such as complexity of administrative issues and bureaucracy), the separate implementation of the systems allowed the company to preserve both the balance between the powers of its executives and the ability to attach special importance to each area: quality, environment, health and safety.

This study will be useful in order to understand that selective integration of management systems is based on the belief that integration is not a de facto desirable goal, especially when the estimated cost-benefit ratio of non-integration is better than that of integration.

In the past few years, management systems implementation and certification has become a common practice among different types of organizations. In this context, quality management systems certification, according to the ISO 9001 standard is in the spotlight, due to over than 1.000.000 certified organizations by the end of 2009. Quality management systems can be integrated with an increasing variety of other subsystems implemented according to other standards, including environmental systems, health and safety, social responsibility, R&D, risk, or human resources, and subsystems raised from specific standards designed for specific activity sectors (HACCP, automotive or aeronautics, medical devices, pharmaceuticals and software). Due to this evolution, careful attention should be taken on how these different subsystems have been and should be articulated, harmonized and integrated. Thus, this paper intends to approach different strategies to achieve integration, with several levels of intensity, depth and authenticity between the different subsystems, and report some final recommendations related with good practices assuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the integration process.

A case study methodology has supported this research. Three case studies were conducted on Portuguese companies that have an integrated quality, environmental and safety management system.

If the companies' strategy is to implement more than one management system, there is a clear advantage of doing it supported on an integrated approach, avoiding the development of organizational “islands” related to each subsystem. This organizational “archipelago” structure is completely far way from any global optimized solution, based on a holistic perspective.

Based on the conclusions that we were able to find out, this paper is an important contribution to the integrated management systems research area, because it states different integration approaches and levels of integration and what are the features that characterize each one of those approaches and levels.

This paper discusses how a systems approach to management can be used to facilitate the development and implementation of an integrated management system (IMS) in an organization. It is argued that any solution to address the rapidly growing need for the integration of function‐specific management systems requires two elements: a conceptual model and a supporting methodology. While the research on IMS modelling is fairly advanced, evidenced by a number of existing models that would probably qualify to provide the basis for integration, development of methodologies to achieve fully‐integrated systems is still lacking. This paper therefore provides a set of criteria for selection of the most appropriate IMS model, followed by a discussion of one such model based on the systems approach. The presented model can be used to integrate the requirements of existing and upcoming function‐specific management system standards, and provide a foundation for the top‐down integration of internal systems that these standards describe. Subsequently, a short discussion on the issue of the IMS methodology is given, and the paper concludes with a list of questions that will help researchers design a comprehensive IMS methodology.

The realm of standardized management systems (MSs) has expanded greatly over the last two decades. This expansion has highlighted the need for structured approaches to facilitate the integration of these systems. The purpose of this paper is to explore the integration of standardized MSs through a meta‐management approach.

An extensive survey of literature was carried out. Based on the literature review, a comprehensive framework was developed to guide the integration of standardized MSs. The framework is based on the “direction‐consistency‐coherence‐feedback” cycle.

A critical review of existing models and methodologies for the integration of standardized MSs highlighted the need for a systems‐oriented approach to integration based on stakeholder needs. The review further highlighted that the integration of MSs must be carried out at the meta‐level of organisational control. This focuses integration efforts on a higher level of abstraction, logic, and inquiry than is typically the case in efforts focused at the intervention or modeling level.

The framework will be of interest to both researchers and practitioners in the integration of standardized MSs because it provides a systematic way for addressing various stakeholder requirements. It describes how organisations could handle integration at various organisational levels and how an infrastructure for continuous improvement could be established.

The paper makes several contributions. It presents a unique approach to integration that has not been addressed in previous publications. The paper elaborates how to carry out integration of standardized MSs and how to develop a business management system for the whole organisation.

This paper relates the main findings of a literature review of integrated management systems (IMS). In general, integration has been discussed in the literature dealing with quality, environmental, and health and safety management. The need for an IMS has arisen as a result of the decisions of organisations to implement an environmental management system and/or an occupational health and safety management system in addition to a quality management system. A number of differences have been identified in the interpretation of what integration means and how it should be accomplished. This leads the authors to conclude that the need for definitions is of some urgency. It is also pointed out that the current emphasis is on achieving compatibility between the standards to facilitate alignment.

The need to create integrated management systems (IMS) in order to handle the proliferation of management system standards is undeniable. There is also evidence in literature and practice that organizations are slowly starting to tackle the IMS issue, mainly by putting an integrated quality and environmental management system in place. Due to the existence of internationally accepted standards covering these two fields, namely ISO 9000 and 14000 series, such a scope of integration comes as no surprise. However, can and should other systems, for example, the ones for occupational health and safety, dependability, social accountability or complaints handling, be included? What would such an integration mean for the existing organizational structures and how could be it be accomplished? When we attempt to address IMS issues, do we really talk about the integration of standards, systems, both or neither? These and other important questions regarding IMS are addressed here. By means of an example from the nuclear industry, this paper focuses in particular on the integration of a safety management system within an IMS framework. Since safety is of such a paramount importance in nuclear plants, it makes sense to integrate safety requirements within a quality management system, as a possible first step in the integration efforts. Subsequently, other function‐specific requirements may be included to form a “real” IMS.

Due to the proliferation of function‐specific management systems and related standards, a need has emerged to somehow integrate them in order to reduce wasteful redundancies and possibly generate synergy effects. While the integration of the requirements of standards, for example ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, does not represent a major issue, doing the same for internal management systems may present a few obstacles. This paper discusses various ideas for the development of an integrated management system, together with the supporting audit methodologies. A two‐pronged model based on systems thinking is suggested for future work in this exciting area of research and practice.