Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture http://pib.sagepub.

com/

Management system standards: The key integration issues

G Wilkinson and B G Dale Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 2000 214: 771 DOI: 10.1243/0954405001517838 The online version of this article can be found at: http://pib.sagepub.com/content/214/9/771

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Additional services and information for Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture can be found at: Email Alerts: http://pib.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://pib.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://pib.sagepub.com/content/214/9/771.refs.html

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011

771

Management system standards: the key integration issues

G Wilkinson and B G Dale* Manchester School of Management, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, Manchester, UK Abstract: This paper has identied ve key issues and four major questions regarding the integration of quality, environmental and occupational health and safety management systems and standards. These issues and questions were tested, using four distinct methods, in order to assess their relevance and to determine their importance. One of the major ndings is that what organizations mean by integration depends to a great extent on what they want it to mean. However, if the culture and climate do not match their aims then the resulting integrated management system is likely to be no more than a merging of system documentation. The ndings have also revealed two approaches to integration which reect both the dierences in culture and the needs of organizations. They are a merging of the documentation (the aligned approach), and implementation of an integrated management system (IMS) through a total quality approach. Keywords: integrated management systems, total quality management, integration approaches NOTATION BSI BSIQA EFQM EMS ETBPP HSE IiP IMS IOSH ISO OH and SMS PDCA QMS TAG TQ TQM British Standards Institution British Standards Institution Quality Assurance European Foundation for Quality Management environmental management system Environmental Technology Best Practices Programme Health and Safety Executive Investors in People integrated management system Institute of Safety and Health International Organization for Standardization occupational health and safety management system plan, do, check, act quality management system Technical Advisory Group total quality total quality management 1 INTRODUCTION

The MS was received on 26 November 1999 and was accepted after revision for publication on 31 January 2000. *Corresponding author: Manchester School of Management, UMIST, PO Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK.
B10999 # IMechE 2000

The subject of integrated management systems (IMSs) in terms of quality, environmental and occupational health and safety management is becoming increasingly seen as part of the organization's management portfolio; for details see Riemann and Sharratt [1], Shillito [2] and Tranmer [3]. Management standards and systems such as ISO 9001 [4], ISO 14001 [5] and BS 8800 [6] have been developed and introduced to deal separately with quality, environmental and safety issues, but ensuring that they align with the organization's strategy is not straightforward, as described by Karapetrovic and Willborn [7]. The need for an IMS has primarily arisen as a result of the decision to implement an environmental management system (EMS) and/or an occupational health and safety management system (OH and SMS) in addition to a quality management system (QMS). It is clear from the literature that integration is viewed in a number of dierent ways: from the implementation of a system throughout the whole organization, to the combining of two or more systems through similarities in their structure and to company-wide integration of all three systems with the policy and objectives of each system aligned to the overall company policy. It is suggested by authors such as Karapetrovic and Willborn [7] and Shillito [2] that increased integration gives improved benets, but few companies are planning full integration, and those that do are likely to have extensive
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 214 Part B

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011

772

G WILKINSON AND B G DALE

Table 1 Company details

Company A B C Manufacturing activity Gas measuring equipment Castings Healthcare products Company type Subsidiary of US company Subsidiary of Japanese company UK owned group of companies Number of employees 230 100 900 Annual sales turnover 45m 4m 85m Existing certication system ISO 9001, ISO 14001, BS 8800 ISO 9002, ISO 14001, IiP ISO 9001, ISO 14001, BS 7000: Part 2, IiP

IiP, Investors in People.

experience in introducing total quality management (TQM) initiatives. From analysis of the literature and the examination of the various models of integration, Wilkinson and Dale [8, 9] have identied a number of key issues and questions regarding management system integration. These are summarized below: Issue 1. When applied to quality, environmental and occupational health and safety management systems, there are dierences in understanding of the term `integration', and the range of approaches adopted. This suggests that integration is taking place in a number of dierent ways and at dierent levels. Issue 2. Integration into a single merged standard is not favoured by either standard writers or users, and the current focus of attention by the British Standards Institution (BSI) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) is on achieving compatibility between the standards, in order to bring about their alignment. The objective is to increase understanding of and to simplify the terminology used and, as a result of this, many organizations believe that reduced administration and audit costs will be possible. Issue 3. The systems concept suggests that dierences in the scope of the systems could hinder their integration. Issue 4. Focusing on alignment and the possibility of reducing administration and audit costs has distracted attention from the view that integration through a total quality (TQ) approach could oer more substantial benets. Issue 5. Culture is seen as important and an enabler for the improvement of business performance, but neither the standards nor the systems concept addresses issues such as motivation and cooperation. Increasing the compatibility of the standards will therefore not overcome their failure to address culture. The ve issues lead to four fundamental questions: Question 1. What do organizations expect to achieve from integration and how will they know when they have achieved it? Question 2. What is hindering or assisting integration?
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 214 Part B

Question 3. Have dierences in the scope of the systems hindered integration? Question 4. What eect is culture having on integration and what degree of culture change has already been brought about by the introduction of ISO 9001/2/3 [4], ISO 14001 [5] and other systems such as QS 9000, TL 9000, AS 9000 or quality initiatives? This paper deals with the major ndings from the testing of these issues, in order to assess their relevance and to determine what is important, what is less important, what is unchanged and what is new. Four separate methods have been adopted in this testing: Method 1. Semi-structured interviews were held with managers responsible for the quality, environmental and health and safety systems in three companies. All three companies have been involved in the integration of their management systems and some of their managers have featured prominently in the integration debate (e.g. Wright [10] and the Environmental Technology Best Practices Programme (ETBPP) [11, 12]). The main features of these companies are summarized in Table 1. Method 2. A one-day BSI seminar on IMS was attended. As part of the seminar the delegates were requested to outline the issues which concerned them with respect to system integration. This list has been classied by the researcher into four broad themes and subsequently analysed; see the Appendix. Method 3. Following the seminar, discussions were held with David Smith of MacGregor Associates, who was the principal speaker on the subject of IMS, when the researcher had the opportunity to raise three specic points: 1. The dierences in scope between ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 could make integration dicult. 2. A company-wide total quality approach to integration might be the best way forward. 3. Many delegates are interested in how organizations have integrated their systems and reduced administration costs and wish to copy the documentation used. This approach ignores culture and climate, yet these appear to be the very issues which concern
B10999 # IMechE 2000

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS: THE KEY INTEGRATION ISSUES

773

them the most and none of the speakers at the seminar had addressed the importance of culture. As a result of these discussions an analysis was made of the results of two surveys contained in a study carried out for BSI by MacGregor Associates in 1996 and made available by BSI to the researcher. `The project was initiated by BSI with the key objective of establishing the common elements of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 management systems and to determine whether it was possible to integrate or align these and other management system standards to the benet of their users in industry, commerce and elsewhere'. The report study [13] has played a major part in the forming of BSI's views on the integration of management systems and is based on surveys carried out in June and November 1996. The initial survey, which received 157 replies from 300 distributed questionnaires, was carried out `to determine the view of industry' on IMS. In the summary, it was `indicated that there was an overwhelming demand for greater compatibility of standards. The major thrust was towards an integrated/aligned approach'. The second questionnaire was intended `to establish attitudes to single assessment and the benets of integration/alignment'. This was sent to organizations who are certicated to both quality management and environmental management standards and also to major trade associations. The covering letter indicated that it was being sent to respondents to the rst questionnaire and the results would be used to present the UK position on the matter of integration/alignment to the ISO Technical Management Board. Only 14 replies were received out of the 40 questionnaires distributed and this was `attributed to the fact that relatively few organizations have both quality and environmental systems certicated'. In view of the failure by seminar delegates (method 2) to indicate a preferred approach to integration, and the limitations of an analysis based on one-line statements of the key issues, it was thought appropriate to examine the results of these two surveys in more detail. However, the report [13], as indicated earlier, does not address the wider issues that concerned delegates to the BSI seminar and only looks at integrationalignment of standards and the need for compatibilityharmonization. Method 4. The views of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and the Institute of Safety and Health (IOSH) on integration were also sought and the results of discussions with three managers in these organizations analysed. The purpose of the discussions with these authorities was to obtain views on three specic statements which had also been used earlier when interviewing managers in the case study companies: 1. Integration through the standards ignores the differences in the boundaries which occur when the
B10999 # IMechE 2000

QMS is not company wide. ISO 9001/2/3 can be limited to those areas which the organization or its customers require; ISO 14001 is generally specic to a site and BS 8800 [6] and IiP [14] should involve everyone in the organization. Trying to integrate standards which have dierent boundaries is like trying to match a circle with a square; there will always be parts that are left out of the integrated system. 2. There is an urgent need to reduce audit and administration costs and integration through the standards oers a way of doing this. The savings achieved are real and this is the main reason why an IMS should be implemented. 3. Integration through the standards is an easier option than integration through total quality. 2 COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE THREE COMPANIES

In comparing the ndings it is recognized that those in companies A and B are for specic single sites and subsidiaries, but company C gives a group headquarters perspective only. While this additional view could be useful, it is also recognized that it could be a reason for the dierences found. The ndings are summarized in two separate tables, where Table 2 is a comparison of the scope of integration while Table 3 provides a summary of the views expressed in relation to the issues being tested. ISO 9001/2, ISO 14001, BS 8800 and IiP are the principal systems being integrated and companies A and B have achieved, or plan to achieve, single rather than multiple audits of the ISO standards integrated. The motivation for an IMS in company C is primarily one of control because of the way the group of which it is a part has expanded. Reduction of costs is not mentioned as a benet and the IMS is being used to ensure that all sites adopt the same systems and that they are all documented in the same way. By way of a contrast, in A and B, the introduction of an IMS is viewed as a logical step, which builds on the success of the existing QMS and EMS and presents an opportunity to expand these advantages into every chosen area of the business and thus simplify management procedures. The desire to reduce audit and administration costs is stronger in B than A, with the latter viewing audits as a way of learning and securing further improvements rather than a cost. Company C sees the ability to appreciate and understand the dierences and common features in the systems being integrated as important, and the desire to integrate must also be present. For companies A and B, a culture and climate which support integration, simple systems and a critical level of involvement and support from top management are important.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 214 Part B

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011

774

G WILKINSON AND B G DALE

Table 2 Scope of integration

Company A Integration Achieved Auditing arrangements ISO 9001, ISO 14001, BS 8800 Currently three separate audits by BSIQA, but single audit planned Frequency of audits has doubled Building on the successful QMS; securing further improvements Simplied management; opportunities for further improvements in all areas of the business Culture dierences; complex systems Simple systems; the appropriate culture and climate; total or near total involvement; support Company B ISO 9002, ISO 14001, IiP Single audit by BSIQA from the outset Building on the successful QMS; securing further improvements; reduction of costs Administration and audit cost savings; integration of employees into the business Culture Total or near total involvement; support; simple systems Company C ISO 9001, ISO 14001, BS 7000: Pt 2 [15], IiP Separate audits by BSIQA and SGS Yarsley Control and desire for common documentation Improved control and management through a common approach; a tool to manage change and improve performance Failure to understand dierences in the systems Understanding the common features in the systems; the drive to establish an IMS

Motivation for IMS

Benets of IMS

What hinders integration? What aids integration?

In all three organizations, the IMS has been based on similarities in the standards and the lack of compatibility has not presented a problem. An aligned approach to the integration of the systems has been adopted and this has meant that the dierences in scope of the management

system standards have not hindered the merging integration of the documentation. For implementation of the IMS, however, companies A and B believe that a TQ approach is needed, but company C sees the IMS as being the driver which forces all concerned to conform

Table 3 Testing the issues

Issues tested Dierent approaches are being adopted Company A Aligned approach based on the ISO 9000 series for documentation. TQ approach for implementation No Yes, but audit costs are not important No Yes Company B Aligned approach based on the ISO 9000 series for documentation. TQ approach for implementation No Yes, but reducing all costs is important No Yes Company C Aligned approach based on the ISO 9000 series for documentation. IMS is the driver for implementation No Yes, but this is not an important issue No Not an issue

The need for greater compatibility of standards Integration allows administration and audit costs to be reduced Dierences in the systems scope hinder integration A TQ approach could oer more substantial benets than alignment Culture is important

Yes; it is hindering implementation at other company sites Signicant Securing improvements in other areas of business

Yes; it is crucial

No, but despite this it is clearly an issue for the company Uncertain Better control and management Improving management performance; managing culture Subjective only

Degree of culture change prior to IMS Objectives of integration

Signicant Securing further improvements Integrating employees into the business Self-assessment and award processes A successful QMS/EMS; a TQ approach; culture; support

Measurement of these objectives

Internal benchmarking but recognizes need for formal assessment A successful QMS/EMS; a TQ approach; culture; an IMS which meets business needs

The key issues for integration

Control and standardized documentation; use of the IMS to manage culture and bring about change
B10999 # IMechE 2000

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 214 Part B

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS: THE KEY INTEGRATION ISSUES

775

to the requirements. Companies A and B also recognize that a TQ approach can oer more substantial benets than an aligned one, but for company C a TQ approach is not essential and not an issue. While companies A and B agree that their IMS allows administration and audit costs to be reduced, company C only accepts that this is possible and does not see it as important. For company B all cost savings are important, but company A views audits as a way of learning rather than a cost. Culture is an issue in all three companies. Managing culture is seen as crucial in companies A and B, and company C is using the IMS to bring about a culture change. It was claimed that a signicant culture change (e.g. increased levels of employee involvement and employees volunteering to trial quality management tools and techniques and be involved in teams) took place in companies A and B prior to the introduction of an IMS, when a TQ approach was rst introduced, and they both had a QMS which was either company wide, as in B, or almost company wide, as in A. In company C, however, the degree of culture change brought about by earlier initiatives is uncertain. It has not adopted a formal TQ approach as typically described by Dale [16] and the QMS is not company wide, but there are indications that it could eventually become so as a result of the IMS. Companies A and B are both seeking improvements in all areas of business covered by the IMS, including (for company B) a reduction in all costs, but company B also seeks to use the IMS to increase the level of involvement of its employees in the company's objectives. Company C's objectives are improved control and performance, and the IMS is also seen as an aid to the management of change. The measurement and monitoring of objectives and the benets of an IMS had not been thought through in company C; company A carries out internal benchmarking but recognizes a need for formal self-assessments against the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model and company B is already actively involved in this process. For companies A and B, a successful QMSEMS, a TQ approach, culture and the management of culture are seen as issues which aect integration. Company A also sees an IMS as being exible, where the degree of integration should reect their business needs. Company B stresses the importance of support from within both the site and corporate headquarters, but this can be seen as a requirement for any new initiative and one that should be addressed by the culture and climate of the whole organization. Company C sees the need for control and standardized systems as important and feels that the IMS can be used as a tool which can help to bring about change, a view which can be seen as similar to company A's belief that the IMS should reect business needs.
B10999 # IMechE 2000

SEMINAR ISSUES

Dierences in the scope of the systems and culture were the two main concerns raised, but concerns about weaknesses in an organization's existing systems, which might be amplied by integration, the need for adequate training, the possible lack of support from top management and doubts about ownership of the IMS were also mentioned. Many of these items would apply when introducing any new initiative or change in the organization and are likely to have been equally relevant when rst introducing ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. They are therefore not peculiar to integration; they are issues which are not addressed by the standards and will still be problem areas after compatibility of the standards is brought about. The issues raised by the delegates also indicate that, while dierences in the standards are recognized, they are seen as dierences in principle and concept rather than terminology and can be gathered together under the general heading of scope. It would seem therefore that the recommendations made by ISO Technical Advisory Group (TAG) 12 [17] that `the relevant terms and denitions should be identical and terminology should be consistent; system standards should be made compatible; auditing standards should be integrated; and future revisions and development of the standards should be co-ordinated', are not the only issues which standard writers should address, and dierences in the scope of the systems are also seen as important. Information about the actual systems or quality initiatives implemented by the delegates, or their organizations, is not known, but it is reasonable to assume that, since the seminar addressed the introduction of an IMS, those attending would already have implemented separate systems/standards and, from the feedback given, they were still having problems with these systems. There is also an indication that the introduction of an IMS may be seen as `avour of the month' and another `quick x', where no real changes in the organization's culture have taken place since the implementation of the QMS/EMS standard. 4 ANALYSIS OF THE TWO SURVEYS

Respondents to the rst survey were asked to give their views on statements made under the following headings: 1. The need for greater compatibility of the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 series of standards. 2. Convergence of assessment procedures (with the object of achieving `one-stop' certication). 3. In the future, ISO members might agree that management systems standards in other topics should be developed (e.g. in occupational health and safety management systems).
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 214 Part B

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011

776

G WILKINSON AND B G DALE

Views were requested on a ve-point scale: strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree and strongly agree. For simplicity, the results were reduced to agreement, disagreement and neither agree nor disagree. From their results it was concluded, by MacGregor Associates, that:
Management system standards should be compatible (very strong agreement). They should denitely either be integrated or aligned (no clear preference) and the eventual aim should be one-stop certication. If any other standard is developed it should be either aligned or integrated with the ISO 9000/14000 series (no clear preference which). The development of other management systems topics in the ISO 9000 format or the ISO 14000 format was not strongly supported but their development in a new format was strongly opposed.

The wording of the questionnaire used in the second survey is likely to have inuenced the results achieved and the conclusions. Respondents felt that integration/ alignment of the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 series of standards would be a valuable improvement (as they had also done in the rst survey), and that one-stop surveillance would be an advantage. They were then told that the integrated approach was not practical because of the dierences in scope (which the overwhelming majority had not seen as a problem when introducing quality and environmental management system standards), and alignment was then oered as the way of achieving one-stop certication (which they clearly wanted). The claim was made that the rst survey showed that the aligned approach was the preferred one, when in fact there was no clear preference for either alignment or integration, and the aligned approach was oered as an easy way of achieving integration. It can therefore be argued that the results of the second survey were unreliable and not an accurate reection of the respondents' requirements/views. 5 HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE, AND INSTITUTE OF SAFETY AND HEALTH RESPONSES

he did not accept that the end result was integration, and the proper starting point for the implementation of an IMS would be a company-wide QMS. The Head of Technical Aairs at IOSH expressed the view that integration through the standards was possible, that dierences in the boundaries might present a problem, but a company-wide QMS would not be a prior requirement for integration. With respect to integration being the facilitator to achieving reduction in audit and administration costs, the overwhelming view was that the memberships of HSE and IOSH had accepted, albeit reluctantly, the need for more audits. It was believed that integration was inevitable and that it would reduce these costs. However, focusing only on the reduction of audit and administration costs was wrong and documentation should always be made and kept as simple as possible. It was felt better to focus on continuous improvement of all business operations. In summary, the response of these two bodies serves to demonstrate the two main positions which were identied earlier (i.e. integration through an alignment and merging of the standards and integration through a TQ approach). They also indicate that IOSH members, who are generally seen as very much involved in both health and safety, and environmental issues, are not yet considering the integration of these systems.

ANALYSIS OF THE ISSUES ARISING FROM THE FIELD RESEARCH

After identifying the issues which concern practitioners in three companies and delegates to the BSI seminar, examining the results of two surveys carried out for BSI and seeking the views of managers in the HSE and IOSH the ndings will now be analysed. This will be done by taking each of the ve key issues arising from the literature and models of integration and comparing them with the actual issues identied by the eldwork in order to determine what is important, what is less important, what remains unchanged and what is new. Issue 1. Practitioners are treating `alignment' as meaning the same as `integration' and the introduction of the phrase `an aligned approach to integration' by MacGregor Associates has neither helped to remove this confusion nor avoided the need for a denition of an IMS. However, two approaches only have been identied, (a) integration through the standards and (b) integration through a TQ approach, rather than a range of approaches, and both are clearly shown in the discussions with HSE and the three companies. Integration through the standards is in eect the aligned approach, since the alternative of a core standard, which is the BSI's `integrated approach', is not available, and the end result is a merging of the
B10999 # IMechE 2000

The following is a avour of the responses of the managers interviewed. The view of integration of the senior manager in the HSE of the particular oce in which the interviews were conducted was very clear. He started by saying that `. . . it depended on what was meant by integration. Was it integration of the standards, or was it integration through a TQ approach?' He described the former as `the fancy manuals approach' which was only concerned with a merging of the documentation, but the latter required the implementation of a philosophy, which would involve everyone in the organization. He accepted that it might be possible to merge and combine systems but
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 214 Part B

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS: THE KEY INTEGRATION ISSUES

777

documentation. All three of the companies studied have used the aligned approach for their documentation, but two have used the TQ approach for implementation of their IMS, and they and the HSE recognize that merely merging the documentation does not bring about a true IMS. The seminar delegates also saw business needs and culture, rather than understanding, as inuencing the approach adopted and the degree of integration achieved, and the relationship between business needs and the scope of the IMS is also stressed by company A. This suggests that issue 1 should be restated as follows. There are dierences in understanding of the term integration and the two approaches being adopted suggest that integration is taking place in two ways and at dierent levels. The two approaches are a merging of the documentation through the aligned approach and implementation of the integrated system through a TQ approach. These two approaches reect dierences in culture and the dierent needs of organizations. For system certication purposes, merging of the documentation through the aligned approach is being adopted, but the scope of the IMS and the level of integration will also be reected by the needs of the organization and the extent of the culture change achieved. Issue 2. An examination of the two surveys carried out by MacGregor Associates for BSI raises doubts about users not favouring a single merged standard and this could mean that the needs of a signicant number of companies are being ignored. Delegates to the BSI seminar also gave no indication of either a preferred approach or the need for compatibility, but they believe that an IMS oers the opportunity to simplify documentation and to reduce costs in general, rather than only audit costs. It is not clear, however, whether they associate alignment and simplied terminology with simpler documentation and reduced administration and audit costs. Any lack of compatibility in the ISO 9001/2/3 and ISO 14001 standards has not hindered integration in the three companies, and, while audit costs were relatively unimportant in two of the three companies examined, company B saw reduction of all costs as important. Respondents to the two surveys were clearly interested in one-stop certication and it is reasonable to expect that as a result of this they expected audit costs to be reduced. This suggests that issue 2 should be revised as follows. The words `either' and `or users' in the rst sentence should be deleted. The following sentence should also be added: `The lack of compatibility in the standards has not prevented companies from merging their documentation however, and some are looking for more than reduced audit and administration costs from their integrated systems.' This nding suggests that achieving compatibility is less important than thought.
B10999 # IMechE 2000

Issue 3. For the three companies, dierences in the scope of their systems did not present problems when drawing up the documentation of their IMS, because they all adopted the aligned approach. This conrms the view of Wilkinson and Dale [9] that dierences in scope can be handled by the aligned approach. The advantages of a company-wide QMS are recognized, however, but this is based on the culture change that it induces, rather than its eects on the documentation. Therefore, although dierences in scope did not aect integration of the documentation, they are seen as having an eect on implementation of the IMS. The views of seminar delegates have also suggested that `scope' should be seen as meaning more than differences in the boundaries of the systemsstandards and that dierences in philosophy and aim etc. within the boundaries are also important. These points suggest that issue 3 should be amended as follows. Dierences in the scope of the systems do not hinder merging of the documentation through the aligned approach, but implementation of an IMS is likely to be adversely aected by these dierences. This suggests that dierences in scope are more important than dierences in terminology and denition. This nding also supports the view that achieving compatibility is less important than the literature suggests. Issue 4. Two of the three companies examined (companies A and B) recognized the value of a TQ approach, which they believe has the potential to give more than reduced audit and administration costs and allows more eective implementation of the IMS. In advocating the aligned approach, MacGregor Associates [13] have stressed that greater compatibility of the standards is still required and this has led to the move to remove dierences in terminology and denition, but scope can be viewed in a wider sense, where compatibility means more than simply making the terminology and denitions consistent. When viewed in this way, adopting a common philosophy, approach and aims may be more important to users, and, although seminar delegates made no specic reference to a TQ approach, it can be seen as providing the common approach and philosophy that they feel is necessary. The eldwork indicates that issue 4 is still important and that the focus of attention should be on nding a common philosophy, approach and aims rather than achieving compatibility of the terms and denitions, and the TQ approach oers a way of doing this. It also indicates that compatibility is less important than thought. Issue 5. The views of seminar delegates and the three companies indicate that culture is seen as an issue for the organization rather than the standards and serve to support this statement, but, while they may not expect the standards to address the issue, this does not mean that it can be ignored. Focusing eorts on
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 214 Part B

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011

778

G WILKINSON AND B G DALE

compatibility will still leave culture as an important issue and, since there are currently no indications that ISO or BSI are likely to change this, the issue of culture remains one for practitioners to address. The ndings therefore indicate that issue 5 is still an important one. Question 1. What do organizations expect to achieve from integration and how will they know when they have achieved it? Company C's objective was dierent from those of companies A and B and it clearly saw integration and the IMS as a way of controlling and standardizing its systems and as a tool for bringing about change. However, this dierence could arise from the predominant group headquarters perspective given. Companies A and B, however, expected to build on the successes already achieved by their existing systems and by expanding them into any chosen area of the business. Simplication of systems and cost savings were important to these two companies and also the seminar delegates, with the latter expecting integration to remove some of the dierences in the systems being integrated. However, simplication had already been achieved in companies A and B prior to the introduction of an IMS, and, if this is an objective, then a good starting point might be to consider rationalization of the QMS documentation. Doing this could help to reduce opposition to the system, to reduce costs and to help in the culture change process. Only companies A and B recognized the need to measure and monitor expected improvements. Question 1 is still an important one because the answer could determine the approach adopted, the degree (level) of integration required and how much support is given. Question 2. What is hindering or assisting integration? Dierences in scope and culture were the two main concerns raised by seminar delegates, but fears about how well their existing systems are embedded, the need for support from top management and training and ownership of the IMS are also mentioned, and these are likely to have been concerns when the original systems were introduced. The conclusion therefore is that support, ownership, training and the successful implementation of existing systems are additional key issues. Question 3. Have dierences in the scope of the systems hindered integration? This question was discussed in considering issues 3 and 4 and is no longer considered relevant. Question 4. What eect is culture having on integration and what degree of culture change has already been brought about by the introduction of ISO 9001/2/3, ISO 14001 and any other systems or quality initiatives? The ndings show that culture is important because it limits the approach adopted and restricts the benets
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 214 Part B

gained, and, while it is unlikely to hinder merging of the documentation, it will aect implementation of the IMS. Companies A and B had brought about a signicant culture change prior to the introduction of an IMS by adopting a TQ approach and a company-wide QMS, and, as discussed when considering issue 3, the advantages of a company-wide QMS arise from the culture change that it induces. Although issue 5 recognizes the importance of culture it does not address the signicance of the culture change achieved prior to introduction of the IMS which can now be seen as another key issue. 7 SUMMARY

In the light of the ndings it can be argued that what organizations mean by integration depends to a great extent on what they want it to mean. What becomes integrated depends on what they want to integrate, what their objectives are, what they want to control and guide and how much support they are prepared to give to achieve this, but, if the culture and climate do not match these aims, then the resulting IMS is likely to be no more than a merging of the documentation. In addition to pointing to the need for a denition of an IMS, the ndings reveal two approaches to integration which reect both the dierences in culture and the needs of organizations. They are a merging of the documentation (the aligned approach) and implementation of an IMS through a TQ approach, and the relevance of the ndings for each of these approaches can be summarized as follows. Integration through the standards (the aligned approach) is being used for certication purposes and the end result is a merging of the documentation with the objective of reducing audit and administration costs. This approach is being oered as an alternative to a single integrated core standard and, in order to bring about alignment of the standards, BSI and ISO are focusing on achieving compatibility between them. However, the claim by BSI that users do not favour a single integrated core standard is placed in doubt by the ndings and the lack of compatibility in the standards has not prevented organizations from merging their documentation. In proposing the aligned approach, BSI could therefore be failing to meet the needs of many organizations and compatibility may be less important than thought. Dierences in the scope of the systems can be handled by the aligned approach; it is not an important issue and has not prevented merging of the documentation. While the degree of culture change achieved is important because it restricts the approach adopted, there is no evidence that it has hindered merging of the documentation. Culture is, however, seen as an issue for organizations rather than the standards and, in the absence of any indication that ISO or BSI
B10999 # IMechE 2000

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM STANDARDS: THE KEY INTEGRATION ISSUES

779

is likely to change this, it remains an issue for users to address. For companies who only wish to integrate their documentation, compatibility, scope and culture are therefore not major issues but they are important for the successful implementation of an IMS. Integration through a TQM approach oers potential for more than reduced audit and administration costs and allows more eective implementation of an IMS, as well as the additional benets which many users are looking for. The ndings indicate that achieving a common philosophy, approach and aims are more important than achieving compatibility of terms and denitions, and it is helpful to view scope in a wider sense than the physical boundary of a system. Scope can then be seen as including the philosophy and aims of the system, where compatibility means more than making the terminology and denitions consistent, and a TQ approach oers a way of doing this. As indicated above, culture is an important issue when implementing an IMS and one which organizations rather than the standards should address. In doing so it is also important to consider the degree of culture change achieved prior to introduction of the IMS and support, ownership, training and the successful implementation of existing systems also need to be considered. The ndings support the view [9] of the need to develop and test models of an IMS based on a TQM approach which recognize the issues identied, oer potential for overcoming the limitations inherent in the aligned approach and give guidance to companies on the implementation of their IMS. Models will be tested with organizations for value and validity and, since the BSI's claim that users do not favour a single integrated standard has been questioned by the ndings, their views will also be sought on this point.

7 Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. Integration of quality and environmental management systems. TQM Mag., 1998, 10(3), 204213. 8 Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B. G. Integrated management systems: an examination of the concept and theory. TQM Mag., 1999, 11(2), 95104. 9 Wilkinson, G. and Dale B. G. Models of management system standards: a review of the integration issues. Int. J. Managmt Rev., 1999, 1(3), 279298. 10 Wright, A. Integrated management systems. Environmental Policy and Procedures. Special Report, Croner Publications, Issue 32, 1998, pp. 38. 11 Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. In Environmental Management Systems in Foundries, 1996 (ETBPP Publications, Harwell). 12 Environmental Technology Best Practice Programme. In Environmental Improvements Reduce Costs: Case Study GC59, 1996 (ETBPP Publications, Harwell). 13 MacGregor Associates. Study on Management System Standards, 1996 (British Standards Institution, London). 14 Investing in People, Ref. IIP 28, 1991 (Employment Department, Sheeld). 15 BS 7000: Part 2: 1997 Design Management SystemsGuide to Managing the Design of Manufactured Products, 1997 (British Standards Institution, London). 16 Dale, B. G. (Ed.) Managing Quality, 3rd edition, 1999 (Blackwell, Oxford). 17 ISO TAG 12: 1998 ISO/TAG 12, ISO 9000/ISO 14000 Compatibility, July 1998. http://www.iso.ch/presse/presse19.htm.

APPENDIX The points raised by delegates (a) General points

REFERENCES
1 Riemann, C. and Sharratt, P. Survey of industrial experiences with environmental management. In Environmental Management Systems (Ed. P. Sharratt), 1995, Ch. 5 (Institution of Chemical Engineers, Rugby). 2 Shillito, D. Grand unication theoryshould safety, health, environment and quality be managed together or separately. Environmental Protection Bulletin 039, Institution of Chemical Engineers, November 1995, pp. 2837. 3 Tranmer, J. Overcoming the problems of integrated management systems. Quality World, October 1996, 714718. 4 ISO 9001: 1994 Quality Systems: Specication For Design/ Development, Production, Installation and Servicing, 1994 (International Organization for Standardization, Geneva). 5 ISO 14001: 1996 Environmental Management Systems Specication with Guidance for Use, 1996 (International Organization for Standardization, London). 6 BS 8800: 1996 Guide to Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems, 1996 (British Standards Institution, London).
B10999 # IMechE 2000

1. Is health and safety managementenvironmental management just the latest avour of the month? 2. The style of ISO 14001 and BS 8800 is `friendlier' than the ISO 9000 series. 3. ISO 14001 and ISO 9000 are both internationally accepted, BS 8800 is national. 4. Recognition that there is not a single denition of integrated management systems. 5. The level of integration achieved will reect business needs and culture. (b) Integrating standards

6. The standards have dierent boundaries. 7. BS 8800 and ISO 14001 are both structured around plan, do, check, act (PDCA), ISO 9001/2/3 are currently not. 8. The standards have dierent auditing requirements. 9. The standards require dierent skills and knowledge levels. 10. There is a greater emphasis on continuous improvement in BS 8800 and ISO 14001 than ISO 9001.
Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 214 Part B

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011

780

G WILKINSON AND B G DALE

11. The impact of legislation is greater in some standards than in others. 12. The emphasis on stakeholders is greater in some standards than in others. 13. The standards have dierent philosophies. 14. Some standards contain requirements that are less rigorous. 15. Health and safety management is mandatory, environmental can be and quality is not normally. (c) 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. Integrating management systems The advantages of single processes Nominate one champion for implementation. The opportunity to simplify the paperwork. How to nd a balance between the work involved in the dierent systems. The impact of business needs on the separate systems. The impact of the type of business you are in. The education of system users. Persuading others to get involved, with wider responsibilities. The danger of weakening the strong parts of the separate systems. Any weaknesses in existing systems might be reinforced in the IMS. Systems need to be adaptable now and in the future. Systems have dierent drivers; internal and external.

28. Mistrust. 29. Apathy. 30. Rivalry. (d) 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Organizations Resistance to change. People attempting to protect what exists. The impact of the organization's structure. How the systems manager's time is to be divided in an integrated system. Coping with combined audits. Seeing audits as a part of business improvement. Ownership of the systems. The relationship of the people involved in the dierent systems. Document control. The internal promotionselling of integrated systems. The impact of changes in organization structure. The drive to reduce costs. The implications of combining system managers' roles. The skillsknowledge needed in each of the integrated systems. The user friendliness of an integrated system. Issues that are not addressed in any system. Knock-on eects with other parts of the business when integrating systems. Leadership of the integration project.

Proc Instn Mech Engrs Vol 214 Part B

B10999

# IMechE 2000

Downloaded from pib.sagepub.com by guest on May 6, 2011