Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8

The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1463-7154.htm

BPMJ
10,6

Systems thinking for the


integration of management
systems

608

Jan Jonker
Nijmegen School of Management, University of Nijmegen, Nijmegen,
The Netherlands, and

Stanislav Karapetrovic
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Keywords ISO 9000 series, Quality, Business environment, Safety, Management techniques
Abstract 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.

Business Process Management


Journal
Vol. 10 No. 6, 2004
pp. 608-615
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1463-7154
DOI 10.1108/14637150410567839

Introduction
Standardised management systems, such as ISO 9000 for quality and ISO 14000 for
environment, have become a widespread phenomenon the world over. According to a
survey conducted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO, 2004),
global ISO 9001:2000 registrations surpassed the 500,000 mark at the end of 2003,
while the number of ISO 14001:1996-registered companies approached 70,000. In
addition, the growth in registrations over the last several years confirms the fact that
companies have embraced management system standards (MSS). At the same time,
they are also struggling with the rapidly growing number of standards they have to
comply with. Occupational health and safety (OH&S), information security, and even
corporate social accountability standards are quickly gaining international acceptance
and are becoming a necessary condition for doing business. Indeed, management
system (MS) implementation and auditing is a multibillion-dollar industry.
It is due to the proliferation of function-specific MSS and the related costs of
implementation and assessment that business organizations, many of which already
have or are about to have these systems in place, have begun questioning the
introduction of MSS as completely separate entities. Consequently, a growing need has
emerged to somehow integrate both the standards and the internal management
systems that they describe in order to reduce wasteful redundancies, facilitate
implementation and possibly generate synergetic effects. However, practical experience

and research (e.g. Karapetrovic, 2002) shows that the integration of standards, on the
one hand, and management systems, on the other, are two clearly separate issues. While
the integration of MSS remains under the auspices of standardization bodies (for
instance, ISO), it is up to each individual company to make the decision of whether or
not to align internal function-specific management systems. Although ISO is making an
effort to harmonize the structure of the existing and emerging MSS, a fully integrated
international standard is not to be expected anytime soon. Adding to this problem is the
time variation in the publication of MSS. Namely, the standards are introduced at
different times (ISO 9000 series in 1987, ISO 14000 in 1996, OHSAS 18000 in 1999), and
there is virtually no way of knowing what standards will be in place over the next five
or ten years. ISOs rejection of a proposal to publish an occupational health and safety
MSS (originally placed in the ISO 18000 series and later issued by the British Standards
Institution as OHSAS 18001) is an example of this uncertainty.
Interestingly enough, even if an international integrated standard were available
(and it may not be possible to design such a standard at all!), it would only be capable of
covering several functions in an organization, for instance quality and environment.
Any new function-specific MSS would consequently require its revision and expansion.
Existing examples of such integrative standards include the Norwegian (NTS, 1996)
and Australian (AS/NZS, 1999) national documents, with their scope limited to quality,
environment and occupational health and safety management. Therefore, what
organizations really require is not an integrated standard in itself, but a conceptual
model that is able to accommodate the inclusion of any currently existing and
potentially emerging management system standards. At the same time, this model
should be able to harmonize the differing requirements of function-specific MSS. This
flexibility is particularly important because, when striving to integrate systems with
different and sometimes even contradictory objectives, scopes and purposes, companies
face tremendous difficulties. The inability to find common denominators for diverse
business functions, and the loss of unique identities of functions, which causes
hesitation and outright rejection of integration efforts by function-oriented
organizational groups, are but a few examples of such problems. Coupled with the
lack of meaningful and solid guidelines for the actual implementation of multiple MS,
these problems are partly to blame for a relatively slow acceptance of MSS that are not
explicitly oriented towards product quality. For example, in Canada and Holland, ISO
14000 registrations represent only 11 per cent of the ISO 9000 ones (ISO, 2004). The
situation is similar in the USA (9 per cent) and the UK (11 per cent), while the numbers
are much higher in countries with somewhat stronger environmental pressures (e.g.
Japan at 24 per cent and Sweden at 104 per cent). Nevertheless, it can be expected that
growing awareness and external pressures from governments, non-government
organizations, consumer associations and society in general for the adoption of
international non-product quality MSS will only increase in the future.
Considering these facts, it is evident that any solution aimed at facilitating the
integration of management systems in organizations will have to contain two parts:
(1) A model to analyse, harmonise, align and integrate specific standard
requirements. This model should provide a flexible framework for the
introduction of function-specific MSS modules, under the overarching generic
system at the executive management level.

Systems
thinking

609

BPMJ
10,6

610

(2) A methodology to support the conceptual model and to guide an organization


towards the integration of internal management systems. This methodology
should be able to provide an answer to the question of how to build your own
integrated management system (IMS).
In this paper, it is argued that both the model and the methodology for IMS should be
based on the systems approach to management. Therefore, a description of the systems
model originally proposed by Karapetrovic and Willborn (1998a) for the integration of
management systems is provided. This is followed by a brief analysis of the
methodology to accomplish an IMS. Finally, some lingering questions in the area of
IMS, including the meaning, scope, organization, and sequence of integration activities,
as well as the different integration levels, will be brought forward. These questions are
aimed at IMS researchers to help them design a successful methodology in the future.

A systems model for IMS


Background
When considering the problem of the integration of management systems and related
standards, one may think that it would be common sense to accomplish such
integration using a systems approach or a model. After all, it is systems that are being
put together, albeit for the management of different aspects of organizational
performance. This requires a simplified representation of each already existing
management system, in other words, a model. However, common sense may not be
as common as one may think. Not a single MSS is currently based on the systems
perspective or model. For example, the sustainability standards, including ISO 14001
(ISO, 1996) for environmental and OHSAS 18001 (1999) for occupational health and
safety, are based on the plan-do-check-act approach, which, although similar to the
systems perspective, only provides a process for continual improvement. The
standards from the customer-focused or product quality group are all based on the
so-called process approach, which fosters running an organization as a set of
interdependent processes. This group includes, for instance, the following MSS: ISO
9001 (quality), ISO 10012 (metrology), ISO 10018 (complaints handling), as well as IEC
60300 (dependability). As a consequence of the ISO directive to make quality-related
systems mutually compatible, these MSS follow the same four-element structure:
(1) management responsibility;
(2) resource management;
(3) product realisation; and
(4) measurement, analysis and improvement.
As described in these standards, the process approach shares many common
characteristics with the systems thinking, but these two are not quite identical. In fact,
a set of eight quality management principles which provides the basis for the ISO 9000
(ISO, 2000) series, and, in a slightly different format, for most business excellence
models, distinguishes the process and system approaches as two separate principles.
Furthermore, a focus on the policy and objectives, which in reality define and drive a
management system, as well as the integration of resources into the process
framework, are largely missing from the process approach. Similar remarks can be

made about the new and rapidly emerging generation of social responsibility
standards (e.g. SA 8000 or AA 1000), which is certainly of concern.
Regardless of which of these models lends itself to be the most appropriate for use in
a function-specific MSS, only one model is required to provide the foundation for an
IMS. Such a model should be able to, at a minimum, meet a number of criteria crucial for
the development of a solid IMS in an organization. In other words, the model should be:
.
Able to incorporate all the common elements of function-specific management
systems. For example, the new ISO Guide 72 (ISO, 2001) on MSS quotes policy,
planning, implementation and operation, performance assessment, improvement
and management review as core elements of an MS.
.
Generic, in other words universally applicable to all organizations and all MSS.
This characteristic is important for the provision of the possibility to include
management systems emerging in the future.
.
Flexible, meaning that it must have the ability to meet the specific requirements of
quality, environment, safety, social accountability or any other management system.
.
Fully compatible with the function-specific MSS models (e.g. the process and
PDCA approaches), in order to provide seamless transition from the generic to
the specific model, and vice-versa.
.
Supportive of the related methodology to implement, assess, maintain and
improve an IMS in an organization. For instance, allowing for the inclusion of
appropriate auditing practices is extremely important, since no true IMS can
exist without a simultaneous alignment of audits. In fact, many benefits of an
IMS come directly from the reduction of auditing resources (Karapetrovic, 2002).
Although several generic management models have been proposed in literature, most
prominently Seghezzis St Gall model for integrated management (e.g. see Seghezzi and
Schweickardt, 2001), the systems model, suggested by Karapetrovic and Willborn
(1998a, b), meets all of the above criteria for a solid IMS model. For example, as it follows
a universal cycle of stakeholder satisfaction, from the determination of stakeholder and
company goals, to the design and implementation of processes and incorporation of
resources to achieve those goals, the systems model is able to provide a common
umbrella for the function-specific MS elements. It is also generic, as it can be applied to
a variety of industry sectors, including manufacturing (see, e.g. Karapetrovic and
Willborn, 1998b) and service (see, e.g. Karapetrovic and Willborn, 1998c). The systems
model is flexible, because the requirements particular to a management system or
standard can be easily handled by forming a function-specific module or sub-system
under the same underlying framework. Since it contains processes as one of its three
main elements, and continuous improvement as one of its primary objectives, the
systems model described below is compatible with the process and PDCA approaches of
the current MSS. Finally, as Karapetrovic and Willborn (2000) have shown, this model
can be used to integrate supportive function-specific auditing systems.
Model
The systems concept looks at a problem as a whole, rather than as a collection of
independent elements. It defines everything of theoretical and practical nature as a
system, or at least a part of one. A system can be defined as a composite of inter-linked

Systems
thinking

611

BPMJ
10,6

612

Figure 1.
The systems model for
IMS

processes that function harmoniously, share the same human, material, information,
infrastructure and financial resources, and are all directed towards the achievement of
set goals (policies, objectives and targets). Because of the wide use of this concept in
different disciplines and countries, the systems model is particularly helpful in
attempting to harmonise standards in many diverse management functions. It is
important to note that the systems approach conceptualises an organization (for
example a hotel or a steel company) as a single system, rather than as a set of
independent function-specific management and operational systems. Therefore, it
provides a top-down view of the organization. This is not only desirable for the
executive management of a company, but also for the overall effort to build an IMS, as
top managers must be the first ones to wholeheartedly accept the idea and later lead
the effort. Furthermore, quality, environment, safety and other management systems
are viewed as different forms (derivatives) of the same system, tailored to address the
particular needs of different stakeholders (Figure 1).
For example, a quality management system is established to satisfy customer
needs, while a corporate accountability system addresses certain specific requirements
of the society. In this manner, integrating separate function-specific management
systems in effect returns them to their natural state of a unique amorphous system
that changes its form depending on the objectives to be fulfilled and the prevalent
stakeholders. This level of integration represents the ultimate step in any such effort, in
other words a full amalgamation of management systems, where integrated systems
lose their separate identities. Several intermediate steps are also possible, including a
common IMS core with separate, but interrelated functional modules.
The systems approach is also very useful for the examination of interdependencies
(and feedback loops) not only among the main elements of each management system,
namely goals, processes and resources, but also among different function-specific

systems. An example from the tourism industry will be used to illustrate this benefit
(Karapetrovic and Willborn, 1998c). One of the goals of hotel management can be to
optimise costs for the required performance and to upgrade service. If these costs are
cut by substantially downsizing the reception service, the availability of receptionists
to customers will decrease, which will cause longer check-in times, which in turn will
cause customer dissatisfaction and ultimately a loss of customers and revenue. This
will have a negative impact not only on the cost-effectiveness goal, but also on the
goals of customer satisfaction and continuous improvement of hotel services. This is a
fine example of a negative feedback loop in system dynamics, the loop that crossed all
three main elements of the hotels quality management system. System dynamics can
also help in understanding some apparent contradictions that will occur while merging
different systems. For example, good environmental and corporate citizenship may
prompt a hotel to reduce paper use by providing printed bills only on request, but it
may ultimately result in customer dissatisfaction (and a negative impact on the quality
system), since customers typically expect itemised bills on checkout.

Systems
thinking

613

Application
For the particular application of integrating the requirements of function-specific MSS,
the systems approach provides the basis for grouping of different elements into a
common framework. In this manner, we can combine the requirements of, for example,
product quality and sustainability standards. Figure 2 illustrates how this is
possible for the ISO 9001 (ISO, 2000) and ISO 14001 (ISO, 1996) standards.
Let us consider the integration of the policy, objectives and targets element of an
IMS consisting of quality and environmental functions. Sections 5.3 and 5.4.1 of ISO
9001 (ISO, 2000) and 4.2 and 4.3.3 of ISO 14001 (ISO, 1996) address these requirements
for quality and environmental management, respectively. In the first instance, the
shared requirements of the standards can be integrated in a core element (e.g. to set,
communicate and review a policy), whereas the requirements specific to an MS may be
placed in a functional module (e.g. to have a quality policy). This way, certain
differences between the standards (e.g. who is actually involved in setting and
reviewing the policy) can easily be reconciled. In the second instance, broader
requirements of one standard can be used as a common denominator for an IMS
requirement, without the need to separate functional modules. For example, we

Figure 2.
Integration of ISO 9001
(ISO, 2000) and ISO 14001
(ISO, 1996) requirements

BPMJ
10,6

614

included targets in this element of an IMS, although ISO 9001 (ISO, 2000) does not
specifically require the setting of quality targets.
A methodological analysis of IMS
Background
As described in the previous section, the systems approach can provide the foundation
for aligning function-specific MSS, and consequently help in establishing an IMS within
an organization. However, it does not (and cannot) guarantee an efficient transition from
the existing separate systems to a single and fully integrated management system. For
this transition, a methodology, in other words a roadmap, is required. Although the
end-point in the transition is the same for all companies (it is the full IMS), the starting
points can be quite different. Some companies may have already integrated several
management systems (e.g. environment and safety), while others may have established
them in a completely independent manner. Some organizations may only have one
system in place (e.g. quality or environment), while others may have more than one, or
none at all. Therefore, the actual paths on the road to an IMS will be different, even
though the roadmap, represented by the systems approach, may be the same. In addition,
the required levels of integration, the sequence of systems to be added to the common
core, the actual elements to be integrated, and a myriad of other factors differ from one
business to another. It then stands to reason that it is not possible to develop the
universal methodology that will work in all cases. Instead, contingent approaches based
on a common (systems) model and a set of principles that will guide an organization
towards an IMS are required. Some questions crucial to the development of a
methodology for the integration of management systems will now be addressed briefly.
Questions
.
What are the required integration levels? For example, Jonker and Klaver (1998)
mention five: policy, conceptual, system, normative and pragmatic.
.
How should an IMS be developed? Integrating documentation, followed by
aligning of internal objectives, processes and finally resources is one possible
approach. The interested reader can consult Karapetrovic (2002) for a more
thorough discussion on this issue.
.
What elements of each management system should be included? Some
companies integrate parts of MS documentation (e.g. policies), others aim for full
integration of objectives, process and resources. Therefore, both partial and full
integration are possible.
.
What management systems should be included? This depends on the need and
the availability of supporting standards. Quality, environment and safety are the
most common, as the underlying standards are readily available. Corporate
social responsibility is also around the corner. Additional management systems
and corresponding standards will inevitably appear.
.
In what sequence should the chosen management systems be introduced? This
depends on the existing systems and focus. Quality, followed by environment
and safety is the most common order. Other possible sequences are discussed by
Karapetrovic and Willborn (1998b), as well as Karapetrovic (2002).

What should be the underlying organizational philosophy? Probably, full integration


is required at the top and bottom organizational levels, while in the middle aligned
but still separate systems may suffice. However, full integration across all levels is
also possible. This would essentially create a single system with multiple functions,
which is theoretically possible and even desirable. However, the practicalities of this
ultimate level of integration will probably be debated for a long time.

Systems
thinking

615
Conclusion
This paper discussed how systems thinking could be used to facilitate the integration
of function-specific management systems. It was argued that any solution to this
problem requires a two-prong approach. The first prong is focused on the application
of a systems model to provide a flexible basis for the integration efforts. The second
prong involves the development of a contingency-based, but systematic methodology
to guide an organization towards an integrated management system.
References
AS/NZS (1999), AS/NZS 4581 Management System Integration Guidance to Business,
Government and Community Organisations, Standards Australia, Sydney, and Standards
New Zealand, Wellington.
ISO (1996), ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems Specifications with Guidance for
Use, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (2000), ISO 9001: Quality Management Systems Requirements, International Organization
for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (2001), ISO Guide 72: Guidelines for the Justification and Development of Management
System Standards, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (2004), Year of transition for ISO 9000 and confirmed growth for ISO 14001, press release,
3 September, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Jonker, J. and Klaver, J. (1998), A methodological perspective on integration, Quality World,
August, pp. 22-3.
Karapetrovic, S. (2002), Strategies for the integration of management systems and standards,
TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 61-7.
Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (1998a), The systems view for clarification of quality
vocabulary, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 15 No. 1,
pp. 99-120.
Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (1998b), Integration of quality and environmental
management systems, TQM Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 204-13.
Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (1998c), Connecting internal management systems in service
organizations, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 256-71.
Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (2000), Generic audit of management systems:
fundamentals, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 279-94.
NTS (1996), Management Principles for Enhancing Quality of Products and Services,
Occupational Health and Safety, and the Environment, Norwegian Technology
Standards Institution, Oslo.
Seghezzi, H.D. and Schweickardt, S. (2001), Integration of quality management into business
management: an IAQ project report, in Sinha, M.N. (Ed.), The Best on Quality, Vol. 12,
ASQ Quality Press, Milwaukee, WI, pp. 3-50.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen