Integration Of Management Systems

Management Essay
For assignment help please contact
at help@hndassignmenthelp.co.uk or hndassignmenthelp@gmail.com
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. (Jrgensen 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. Jrgensen 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]. (Jrgensen 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. (Jrgensen 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] (Rajkovi 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]. ]. (Jrgensen 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. ]. (Jrgensen 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. ].( Jrgensen 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]. ].( Jrgensen 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.( Jrgensen 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.
.( Jrgensen 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 .
( Jrgensen 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; Jrgensen 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. ( Jrgensen 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.( Jrgensen 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. (Jrgensen 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. ].( Jrgensen 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.( Jrgensen 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. ( Jrgensen, 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.( Jrgensen 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..( Jrgensen 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.( Jrgensen 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 ( Jrgensen 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. (Jrgensen 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. .( Jrgensen 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.( Jrgensen et al.2006)
''One organisation, one system'' is the slogan for the development of an integrated
management standard in Denmark.
( Jrgensen et al.2006)
SPAIN
According to a study about the status of integration in Andaluca (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 ( Jrgensen et al.2006)
AENOR, the Spanish organisation for standardisation, understands integration as
the evolution of the different management systems in an organisation. ( Jrgensen 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.
( Jrgensen 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. ( Jrgensen 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. ( Jrgensen 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. ( Jrgensen 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. ( Jrgensen et al..2006)