Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Process Embedded Design of Integrated Management Systems
Process Embedded Design of Integrated Management Systems
Process Embedded Design of Integrated Management Systems
net/publication/242344577
CITATIONS READS
132 1,894
5 authors, including:
All content following this page was uploaded by Harm-Jan Steenhuis on 15 August 2015.
Process
Process embedded design of embedded design
integrated management systems of IMS
Muhammad Asif, Erik J. de Bruijn and Olaf A.M. Fisscher
School of Management and Governance, University of Twente, Enschede, 261
The Netherlands
Cory Searcy Received May 2008
Revised August 2008
Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Ryerson University, Accepted September 2008
Toronto, Canada, and
Harm-Jan Steenhuis
Management Department, College of Business and Public Administration,
Eastern Washington University, Spokane, Washington, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide a process-based design of integrated management
systems (IMS) implementation.
Design/methodology/approach – An extensive survey of peer-reviewed literature was conducted.
Based on the literature review, a comprehensive methodology for the design and implementation of an
IMS was developed.
Findings – A critical review of the strategies employed and of difficulties encountered in IMS
implementation reveals the need for a context- and process-based design of IMS. At the operational
level core activities are first designed from the perspective of stakeholders’ requirements and then
treated with operational excellence tools to strip away waste. The transformed core processes are then
integrated with mainstream individual management systems to form one composite and holistic
management system. The institutionalisation of IMS needs to be addressed in its design (through
process embedded design) as well as at the users’ level (through education and training of employees).
Practical implications – The paper provides the process-based strategy for IMS implementation
and institutionalisation.
Originality/value – The paper should be useful for practitioners searching for a recipe to integrate
management systems, for government regulatory agencies seeking to facilitate the integration of
management systems, and for researchers as a future area of research.
Keywords Management techniques, Integrated manufacturing systems, Quality management,
Environmental, Occupational health and safety, Corporate social responsibility
Paper type Literature review
1. Introduction
Integration is the complete harmony and alignment of strategy and operations of an
organisation. It means that different departments and levels speak the same language
and are tuned to the same wavelength (Garvin, 1991). In the literature, integration of
management systems has been discussed as the merger of the quality management International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management
Vol. 26 No. 3, 2009
An earlier version of this paper appeared in Proceedings of POMS 19th Annual Conference at La pp. 261-282
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Jolla, California, USA. This article benefited greatly from the invaluable comments of Ambika 0265-671X
Zutshi at the School of Management and Marketing, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia. DOI 10.1108/02656710910936735
IJQRM system (QMS), environmental management system (EMS), and occupational health
and safety management system (OH&SMS) (see, for example, Fresner and Engelhardt,
26,3 2004; Karapetrovic, 2002; Labodova, 2004). Indeed, to survive and thrive in a period of
global competition, organisations need to look at every aspect of their processes,
including cost cutting, wellbeing of their employees, the working environment, and the
impact that organisational operations have on their neighbours and on the local
262 community. Moreover companies must address these issues while continuing to
provide quality products and services. The concept of integrated management systems
(IMS) has arisen from this need.
However, difficulties are also faced in the integration of management system
standards (MSS) having diverse scopes and compositions. Guidelines for the
implementation of individual management systems, such as QMS, EMS, and OH&SMS
do exist but there is no formalised standard, such as one developed by International
Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), for IMS. Similarly guidelines/models for
business excellence, such as the European Foundation for Quality Management
(EFQM) award and the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (MBNQA) also
exist. Therefore an elaborated strategy for IMS implementation would be helpful. With
that in mind, the purpose of this paper is to develop a strategy to design and implement
an IMS. To achieve this purpose, this paper starts with a survey of literature to
highlight the commonly accepted meaning of IMS in literature and in practice. This is
followed by a discussion on what difficulties are faced in the integration of MSS and
their implementation and what strategies are commonly employed to achieve
integration. It provides the basis for the development of a “Process embedded design of
integrated management systems” (PEDIMS) which forms the next section. In the final
section conclusions are presented.
2. Literature survey
IMS has been discussed extensively in the literature. Owing to a growing number of
management systems, their integration is a relevant topic of research. Implementation
(of IMS or any other system) is viewed as a process of organisational change from one
state to another. The IMS implementation process could therefore be viewed from the
perspective of “three essential dimensions of change” as described by Pettigrew and
Whipp (1991) and shown in Figure 1. In the IMS perspective, these three dimensions
could be described as:
(1) The content of IMS (what).
(2) The context of IMS: The internal and external environment (where).
(3) The process of IMS implementation (how).
The following section describes a survey of IMS-related literature. The discussion is
presented in the perspective of these three dimensions of change to understand the
bigger picture of IMS.
The implementation model described by Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) is
comprehensive; however another commonly used model to describe the change
process is one developed by Beyer and Trice (1978). The latter describes change
process to take place in three steps: adoption – deciding to pursue a strategic program
and choosing a methodology to achieve that goal; implementation – characterised by a
mental shift and changes in activities involved in putting the strategic program to
Process
embedded design
of IMS
263
Figure 1.
Three dimensions of IMS
Implementation
practice; and institutionalisation – which ensures that strategic programs become part
of the regular routines of the organisation:
(1) Content. There is no specific mention of what constitutes an IMS or what should
be the components of IMS. Karapetrovic and Willborn (1998 cited in
Karapetrovic and Jonker, 2003) define IMS as a composite of interdependent
processes that operate harmoniously, share the same pool of human, material,
information, infrastructure, and financial resources, and are all aimed towards
the fulfilment of set goals. Although some authors have suggested the
integration of other management elements into an IMS (see, for example, Matias
and Coelho, 2002; Raouf, 2004), most of the published work concentrates on
integration of quality, environment, and health and safety management
systems (Karapetrovic, 2002). More recent literature also focuses on the
inclusion of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as an essential component of
IMS (see, for example, Jonker and Karapetrovic, 2004; Karapetrovic, 2002, 2003;
Karapetrovic and Jonker, 2003; Rocha et al., 2007). These management systems
constitute the pillars of an organisation’s management structure. Inability to
address any of these constituent systems may result in regulatory, social,
operational, or corporate non-conformance. It is expected that new standards
will continue to emerge and existing standards will undergo periodic updates.
The choice of which management system to implement always depends on the
unique circumstances faced by the organisation and an IMS is required to
ensure that each of them is integrated into the mainstream business
infrastructure (Rocha et al., 2007). In order to achieve full realisation of the
potential benefits of individual management systems it is imperative to
integrate them into one system (Zutshi and Sohal, 2005).
(2) Context. The “context” dimension of an IMS implementation process could be
viewed in terms of an “internal” or “external” context. The internal context
includes an organisation’s resources, capabilities, culture, and politics whereas
the external context includes economic/business factors, external politics, and
social factors (Pettigrew and Whipp, 1991). The consideration of the context
dimension is crucial since it plays an important role in management’s decision
IJQRM to integrate the MSS and the course of implementation process. This is because
26,3 IMS implementation is dependent on the availability of resources and expertise
(see, Zeng et al., 2007; Zutshi and Sohal, 2005) and on the organisational culture
(see, Jorgensen et al., 2005; McDonald et al., 2003; Rahimi, 1995). The role of
important factors influencing IMS implementation has been discussed in the
sections “difficulties in integration” and “IMS enablers”. However, due to its
264 vital role in IMS implementation, a brief mention of the culture is imperative.
Culture is usually viewed as internal (organisational/corporate culture) or
external (national culture). There is an intimate relationship between national
culture and organisational culture since companies cannot develop an
organisational culture that differs substantially from the prevailing cultural
factors of the country in which it operates (Lagrosen, 2003). This problem is
notably poignant for multinational firms since they conduct their operations in
many different countries with varying cultures (Lagrosen, 2003). The
importance of addressing the culture in IMS implementation was highlighted
by Wilkinson and Dale (1999), who noted that organisational culture is the key
issue in integrating management systems. Sigler and Pearson (2000) noted that
culture is occasionally considered as one of the reasons behind the success (or
failure) of an implementation. The cultural aspect has also been highlighted by
Jorgensen et al. (2005, p. 718) who noted that “integration is more about culture,
learning, and employees than about common system elements and generic
processes” and by Zutshi and Sohal (2005, p. 225) who noted that “to practise an
integrated system it is essential that the organisation has a culture that is
willing to embrace change”.
The reason why cultural transformation is so important could be understood
by considering the core values of IMS. Essentially at its core, IMS consists of
certain underpinning values such as customer satisfaction, leadership
commitment, full participation of employees, education and training, facts
based decision making, continuous improvement, employees’ health and safety,
and realisation of social responsibilities as described in the individual
management systems. Successful implementation requires that these values be
aligned with the values of organisation. However it is not easy as the values are
grounded in the organisational culture. The IMS implementation thus requires
the cultural transformation. The culture transformation could also be viewed in
terms of formation of different subcultures within an organisational culture and
overall organisational culture that fosters learning and IMS implementation
process. There is a relationship between management systems’ scope and
culture, and the differences in scope are likely to lead to different sub-cultures in
the organisation. These different sub-cultures may hinder the development of a
strong common culture that emphasises the values of co-operation and
involvement (Wilkinson and Dale, 2002; Zeng et al., 2007). IMS implementation
thus requires a strong common culture that fosters the learning process.
(3) Process. The third dimension in the change process described by Pettigrew and
Whipp (1991) is the process by which an implementation takes place. In
contrast to “what” (content) and “where” (context), the process represents the
“how” part of implementation. The IMS implementation process could be seen
as a flow of activities and in essence achieving an objective. However, before
moving to the “implementation process”, a review of “difficulties encountered in Process
the implementation process” and “currently employed strategies of integration” embedded design
is imperative to better understand the nature of problem.
of IMS
2.1 Difficulties in integration
Integration depends on a number of factors in addition to cost, expertise, and
availability of resources. These factors include complexity of the company 265
(single/multiple sites, national/multinational, small/large), nature of the business,
whether management is looking for alignment of few standards or full integration of all
management systems, and the nature of operations of the organisation. The difficulties
in the integration and implementation of IMS, frequently reported in the literature, are
noted in Table I.
The challenges faced during IMS implementation could broadly be categorised as:
.
Different nature of individual systems. The individual management systems in
the IMS have their own foci. QMS is the oldest available management system
meant for achievement of customer satisfaction, EMS is geared towards
environmental protection and pollution prevention, OHSAS 18001 is aimed at the
proactive control of risk and hazards to improve the health and safety of
employees. Since individual management systems are meant for different
purposes and thus vary in their composition and their scope, difficulties are faced
in their integration into one management system. ISO approved standards exist
for QMS and EMS but no ISO approved standard exists for occupational health
Supporting literature
Difficulties in integration
Reduced flexibility after integration Crowe (1992)
Increase in bureaucracy (due to intertwining) Matias and Coelho (2002), Wright (2000)
Rejection of new system by employees Matias and Coelho (2002), Zutshi and Sohal (2005)
Employees’ resistance during integration (due to Karapetrovic (2002)
loss of individual functions)
These difficulties are partially caused by
Unavailability of formal standard for integration Labodova (2004)
of management systems
Unavailability of common denominator (common Karapetrovic (2002)
characteristics)
Different scope of individual systems Wilkinson and Dale (2001), Zeng et al. (2007)
Different structure of individual systems Karapetrovic (2002), Seghezzi (2000)
Inadequate audit methodologies Karapetrovic (2002)
Risk of not assigning the right level of importance Salomone (2008)
to each function (such as quality, environment,
and health and safety)
Misunderstanding of integration concepts Salomone (2008), Wilkinson and Dale (2001)
Insufficient financial resources Zutshi and Sohal (2005)
Lack of information and knowledge of how to Salomone (2008), Zeng et al. (2007), Zutshi and Table I.
integrate Sohal (2005) Difficulties in integration
Cultural aspects (requires cultural transformation) Jorgensen et al. (2005), Wilkinson and Dale (1999), of individual
Zeng et al. (2007) management systems
IJQRM and safety and for CSR. ISO has voted twice about whether to develop an ISO
26,3 standard for OH&SMS, the proposals have been turned down, and therefore, ISO
currently, has no plans to develop such a standard (Jorgensen et al., 2005).
Similarly there is no ISO standard for CSR, but ISO has decided to launch the
development of an international standard providing guidelines for social
responsibility (SR). The guidance standard will be published in 2010 as ISO
266 26000 and would be voluntary to use. Indeed, ISO is finding a midpoint between
regulative and voluntary approach towards development of a standard for CSR
so that creativity and development is not stifled (ISO, 2008). Despite this middle
or soft approach to CSR, the business sector is sceptical to ISO’s initiatives
because in their perception the ISO guidance standard could result in more
regulative efforts.
.
Employees’ resistance. Employee resistance to change is a well-documented
phenomenon of organisational psychology (see, for example, Dent, 1999; Kotter,
1979, 1995, 1996; O’Toole, 1995) that affects implementation of a new system.
Because of this resistance to change, it is difficult for key users to communicate
and explain their system requirements and explain how their systems may be
best integrated with other system(s). However this problem may be addressed, at
least in part, by training and education (Holdsworth, 2003). Resistance is also
faced from the people who fear to lose their workplace ownership in the course of
integration.
.
Lack of resources. Lack of financial and knowledge resources is an important
impediment in the integration of individual management systems and their
implementation. Indeed, the integration of individual management systems is an
approach that does not come easily; it requires dedicated efforts on behalf of
management and employees as well as the allocation of human and financial
resources. Further costs are incurred in obtaining certification by a third party.
Many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have insufficient resources to
implement an IMS (Zutshi and Sohal, 2005). Moreover, when an external source
of help is solicited for the IMS, it can only facilitate the implementation process
but its internalisation and maintenance is the function of key users, who (for
example, in the case of SMEs) may not have the required level of expertise.
.
Lack of strategy for integration. Unavailability of a formal management
system/standard and of a strategy for integration of management systems and
their implementation is another impediment. Furthermore, empirical research in
many countries such as China (Zeng et al., 2007) and Australia (Zutshi and Sohal,
2005) has revealed that the problem of insufficient expertise/knowledge is also
faced in IMS implementation. In such circumstances operational managers are
left with no option except to integrate the individual MSS based on their
perceptions and experiences, even when they have strong personal commitment
for an IMS. The need for an IMS implementation strategy has thus been
envisaged.
.
Post-IMS implementation difficulties. Failure to effectively design and implement
the IMS may precipitate the danger of reduced organisational flexibility. Crowe
(1992) noted that in manufacturing, systems integration has reduced the
flexibility. Systems that are expected to be flexible turn out to be even worse
after integration. This is due to use of hard integrated systems where Process
information interfaces are tied together in a fixed and rigid manner. Wilkinson embedded design
and Dale (1999) have suggested that this happens when those responsible for a
system lose sight of its objectives. True flexible integration thus must be of IMS
planned, designed, and implemented by the firm for the firm. Matias and Coelho
(2002) have explained that the problem of increased bureaucracy may occur due
to the complexity of intertwined systems. These problems arise primarily due to 267
inability to effectively design and implement the IMS.
268
Table II.
IJQRM
and implementation
Strategies of IMS design
Strategy of integration Broader category Explanation
of IMS
269
Table II.
26,3
270
Table II.
IJQRM
Figure 2.
Vertical and horizontal
integration of IMS
IJQRM Figure 2 describes the vertical and horizontal integration of IMS implementation
26,3 strategy across various organisational levels. At the top IMS implementation is steered
by management consciousness and commitment. The management commitment
would appear in more formal terms in the form of strategic objectives, plans, and
actions. As Zeng et al. (2007) note, strategy stimulates an organisation’s values,
mission, and vision. These values then permeate organisational structure, resources,
272 management processes, and operational processes. This vertical translation is
represented by the term “consistency” in Figure 2. A clear strategy at this stage
provides sustenance to the IMS implementation endeavours at other functional levels
of the organisation.
Synergy in resources (both human and financial), values, common beliefs, and
management actions is the next step in order to transform the strategic plans into
operational processes. The important point to consider here is that integration at this
stage is meant for efficient allocation and utilisation of resources, and also making sure
that true benefits of integration are transferred to the operational level through these
management actions (synergy of resources, values, common beliefs, and learned
lessons). The synergy at this level thus aims to integrate the resources and efforts
towards achievement of an integrated system.
The next step in translating strategic objectives downwards is the horizontal
integration across operational processes and associated documentation. Essentially the
purpose of integration at this level is to integrate the different requirements of
individual management systems into one composite activity. Similarly, integrated
documentation is to be developed rather than separate multiple documents which make
an operator’s job more difficult. Integration at the level of operational processes has
been represented by term “coherence” in Figure 2 and is discussed in detail in what
follows.
273
Figure 3.
Process embedded design
of IMS (PEDIMS)
Top management commitment Rocha et al. (2007), Zeng et al. (2007), Zutshi and
Sohal (2005)
Strategic planning Rahimi (1995)
276
Tailor-made IMS design Fresner and Engelhardt (2004), Holdsworth (2003),
Karapetrovic and Jonker (2003), Matias and
Coelho (2002), McDonald et al. (2003)
Employee training Rahimi (1995)
Cultural change Jorgensen et al. (2005), McDonald et al. (2003),
Wilkinson and Dale (2002), Zeng et al. (2007)
Performance measurement and reward system Rahimi (1995)
Key users’ support Hines (2002), Holdsworth (2003), McDonald et al.
Table III.
(2003), Rahimi (1995)
IMS enablers and
supporting literature Experts’ (or consultants’) support Zeng et al. (2007), Zutshi and Sohal (2005)
implementation. This also ensures that the organisation continuously adapts to new
challenges and the system never rolls back to its initial position. With that in mind,
a schema for IMS implementation is illustrated in Figure 4. This schema is based on
the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle. It derives stimulus for IMS implementation
from a diverse number of motives, including regulatory, financial, marketing, social,
and operational drivers. Once the decision to implement the IMS is made, it follows
the evaluation of the management systems that are needed. In any case it is the
responsibility of top management to decide with functional managers which
functions and standards to include. The “plan” stage is followed by the
implementation stage (“do” stage) and then monitoring of the process (“check and
act” stage).
Finally Figure 4 shows a brief list of the results (benefits of IMS), as described by
Douglas and Glen (2000), Jorgensen et al. (2005), Zeng et al. (2007), and Zutshi and Sohal
(2005) that could be reaped from successful implementation of IMS.
277
Figure 4.
IMS implementation
roadmap based on PDCA
IJQRM management systems is that they are not effectively implemented and so are not
26,3 completely harnessed. Even the advanced management systems like “total quality
management” appear to many practitioners as a faded star (Williams et al., 2006)
and jaded tree (Dale, 2003). Sathiendrakumar (1996) has expressed similar concerns
about sustainable development. Dale (2003) and Sandholm (2005), however, noted
that there is nothing wrong with strategic improvement programs; rather the
278 problem arises in the way they are implemented. This is the same case with an
IMS. It is thus imperative to appropriately harness the IMS so that it appears as a
potential reality rather than a quick passing fad. The need for enhanced
familiarisation and acceptance of a system by the users is also represented in
literature by the notion of “appropriation”. Essentially meant for increased
internalisation of newly implemented system; appropriation describes the
construction of a social process whereby mutual sharing between a system and
its users takes place and subsequent transformations take place in both system and
its users. These transformations result in a social system in which actions and
thoughts of the user are shaped by the system, while the meaning and effects of the
systems are shaped through the users’ actions. Beyer et al. (1997) mentioned that
process of institutionalisation is complete when something becomes both accepted
and taken-for-granted as part of the way people feel and think, and the way they
usually do the things. They further noted that institutionalising a planned change
requires establishing new structures and routines, and changing the culture.
The institutionalisation of IMS can be described at three levels. At the first level lies
the fact that some of the internalisation is inherent in the IMS itself. As Douglas and
Glen (2000), McDonald et al. (2003), and Zutshi and Sohal (2005) noted, IMS has the
potential for making key users’ jobs simpler and easier which in turn increases its
acceptability and internalisation. But this is not sufficient and failures associated with
poor IMS implementations have been widely reported in literature (see, for example,
Karapetrovic and Jonker, 2003; Wilkinson and Dale, 1999, 2002; Zeng et al., 2007;
Zutshi and Sohal, 2005). We thus need to go beyond this basic level. Institutionalisation
also comes from the PEDIMS design of IMS as the PEDIMS is designed over the core
activities of organisation and thus promotes greater buy-in by employees. As is the
case with PEDIMS; designing IMS with the support of key users and designing the
IMS to the specific needs and competencies of the organisation will better serve the
purpose of the organisation than any generic IMS system (Fresner and Engelhardt,
2004; Matias and Coelho, 2002; McDonald et al., 2003). So such a system (as the
PEDIMS is) promotes firm internalisation of the IMS and prevents it from rolling back
to its initial state. This is the second level of institutionalisation. The third level is
embedding the IMS at the level of employees, particularly the key users of the IMS.
This need is evident from the previous discussion that emphasises that significant
resistance is faced from key users. This could be facilitated by incorporating users’
feedback in the design and redesign of IMS, training, education, and motivation so that
they do not feel alien to the new system. Three levels of IMS institutionalisation have
been shown in Figure 5. Institutionalisation of the IMS is an important concern because
in the past many organisations suffered from this problem and that mistakenly led to
the notion of “management systems as quickly passing fads”. Failure to embed the IMS
may put the whole effort and resources at stake.
Process
embedded design
of IMS
279
Figure 5.
Various levels of IMS
institutionalisation
4. Conclusions
Integration of management systems is seen as a viable organisational approach to cost
reduction, operational improvements, employee motivation, efficient management and
utilisation of resources, and a means to better compliance to social obligations and
different stakeholder’s requirements. However difficulties have been faced in IMS
implementation (integration of individual management systems and their
implementation) due to lack of formal MSS for IMS and unavailability of
methodologies for IMS implementation. Due to the varying nature of specific core
strengths and competencies of firms, an IMS that works well for one organisation may
not work for another; a true IMS would therefore be one that has been designed
specifically for that organisation. IMS implementation requires complete integration
(vertical and horizontal) across all levels of organisation. Vertical integration
transforms the strategic plans into management processes and then operational
activities. Horizontal integration is meant to provide lateral integration across
operational processes and is achieved through a PEDIMS. PEDIMS erects an IMS over
organisation’s core processes by designing them so that first, they meet all
requirements of quality, environment, health and safety, and social obligations and
second, they are lean and waste free. These transformed core processes are then
integrated in the mainstream management systems to give one composite and holistic
IMS. IMS implementation can be facilitated through enablers such as securing senior
management’s full support, addressing IMS in strategic planning, allocating and
prioritising resources, establishing goals, targets and milestones for IMS, involvement
of end-users in the design and implementation phase, support of IMS experts, fostering
a culture of teamwork, and through employees’ training. PEDIMS approach counts
upon feedback as the dynamising process to design, implement, and improve IMS.
Finally, institutionalisation of IMS is important to take into account because of high
failure rate. PEDIMS approach, however, owing to its specific context based design,
process based approach and involvement of key users throughout the designing phase,
facilitates its internalisation which could further be augmented by the training and
motivation of key users. PEDIMS implementation is based on the PDCA cycle, which
provides a strong backbone for continual improvement and stabilises it by keeping it
from rolling back to its original state.
IJQRM References
26,3 Basu, R. (2004), “Six-Sigma to operational excellence: role of tools and techniques”, International
Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 44-64.
Beyer, J.M. and Trice, H.M. (1978), Implementing Change: Alcoholism Programs in Work
Organizations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Beyer, J.M., Ashmos, D.P. and Osborn, R.N. (1997), “Contrasts in enacting TQM: mechanistic vs
280 organic ideology and implementation”, Journal of Quality Management, Vol. 2 No. 1,
pp. 3-39.
Crowe, T.J. (1992), “Integration is not synonymous with flexibility”, International Journal of
Operations & Production Management, Vol. 12 No. 10, pp. 26-33.
Dale, B.G. (2003), Managing Quality, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.
Dent, E.B. (1999), “Challenging ‘resistance to change’”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,
Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 25-41.
Douglas, A. and Glen, D. (2000), “Integrated management systems in small and medium
enterprises”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 11 Nos 4/5/6, pp. 686-90.
Fresner, J. and Engelhardt, G. (2004), “Experiences with integrated management systems for two
small companies in Austria”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 623-31.
Garvare, R. and Isaksson, R. (2001), “Sustainable development: extending the scope of business
excellence models”, Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 11-15.
Garvin, D.A. (1991), “How the Baldrige Award really works”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69
No. 6, pp. 80-93.
Hardjono, T.W., ten Have, S. and ten Have, W.D. (1996), The European Way to Excellence,
European Quality Publications, London.
Hines, F. (2002), “Integrated management systems – inclusivity of approach or dilution of
problems?”, poster presented at the 10th International Conference of the Greening of
Industry Network, Gothenburg, June 23-26.
Holdsworth, R. (2003), “Practical applications approach to design, development and
implementation of an integrated management system”, Journal of Hazardous Materials,
Vol. 104 No. 1, pp. 193-205.
ISO (2008), “Social responsibility”, available at http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/fetch/2000/
2122/830949/3934883/3935096/home.html (accessed 10 April 2008).
Jonker, J. and Karapetrovic, S. (2004), “Systems thinking for integration of management
systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 6, pp. 608-15.
Jorgensen, T.H., Remmen, A. and Mellado, M.D. (2005), “Integrated management systems – three
different levels of integration”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 14 No. 8, pp. 713-22.
Karapetrovic, S. (2002), “Strategies for the integration of management systems and standards”,
The TQM Magazine, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 61-7.
Karapetrovic, S. (2003), “Musings on integrated management”, Measuring Business Excellence,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Karapetrovic, S. and Jonker, J. (2003), “Integration of standardized management systems:
searching for a recipe and ingredients”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 451-9.
Karapetrovic, S. and Willborn, W. (1998), “Integration of quality and environmental management
systems”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 204-13.
Kotter, J.P. (1979), “Choosing strategies for change”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57 No. 2,
pp. 106-14.
Kotter, J.P. (1995), “Leading change: why transformation efforts fail”, Harvard Business Review, Process
Vol. 73 No. 2, pp. 59-67.
Kotter, J.P. (1996), Leading Change, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
embedded design
Labodova, A. (2004), “Implementing integrated management systems using a risk analysis based
of IMS
approach”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 571-80.
Lagrosen, S. (2003), “Exploring the impact of culture on quality management”, International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 473-87. 281
McDonald, M., Mors, T.A. and Phillips, A. (2003), “Management system integration: can it be
done?”, Quality Progress, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 67-74.
Matias, J.C.D.O. and Coelho, D.A. (2002), “The integration of the standards systems of quality
management, environmental management, and occupational health and safety
management”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 40 No. 15, pp. 3857-66.
Oakland, J.S. (2003), TQM: Text with Cases, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
O’Toole, J. (1995), Leading Change: Overcoming the Ideology of Comfort and the Tyranny of
Custom, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
Pettigrew, A.M. and Whipp, R. (1991), Managing Change for Competitive Success, Blackwell,
Oxford.
Rahimi, M. (1995), “Merging strategic safety, health and environment into total quality
management”, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 83-94.
Raouf, A. (2004), “Productivity enhancement using safety and maintenance integration:
an overview”, Kybernetes, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1116-26.
Rocha, M., Searcy, C. and Karapetrovic, S. (2007), “Integrating sustainable development into
existing management systems”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 18 Nos 1-2, pp. 83-92.
Salomone, R. (2008), “Integrated management systems: experiences in Italian organizations”,
Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 16 No. 16, pp. 1786-806.
Sandholm, L. (2005), “Strategic plan for sustainable excellence”, Total Quality Management,
Vol. 16 Nos 8-9, pp. 1061-8.
Sathiendrakumar, R. (1996), “Sustainable development: passing fad or potential reality?”,
International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 23 Nos 4/5/6, pp. 151-63.
Seghezzi, D. (2000), “Total management systems – why and how”, Proceedings of 44th European
Quality Congress, Budapest.
Sigler, T.H. and Pearson, C.M. (2000), “Creating an empowering culture: examining the
relationship between organizational culture and perceptions of empowerment”, Journal of
Quality Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 27-52.
Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B.G. (1999), “Integrated management systems: an examination of the
concept and theory”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 95-104.
Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B.G. (2001), “Integrated management system: a model based on total
quality approach”, Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 318-30.
Wilkinson, G. and Dale, B.G. (2002), “An examination of the ISO 9001:2000 standard and its
influence on the integration of management systems”, Production Planning & Control,
Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 284-97.
Williams, R., van der Wiele, T., van Iwaarden, J., Bertsch, B. and Dale, B. (2006), “Quality
management: the new challenges”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 17 No. 10, pp. 1273-80.
Wright, T. (2000), “IMS – three into one will go! The advantages of a single integrated quality,
health and safety, and environmental management system”, The Quality Assurance
Journal, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 137-42.
IJQRM Zeng, S.X., Shi, J.J. and Lou, G.X. (2007), “A synergetic model for implementing an integrated
management system: an empirical study in China”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 15
26,3 No. 18, pp. 1760-7.
Zutshi, A. and Sohal, A.S. (2005), “Integrated management system: the experiences of three
Australian organisations”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol. 16
No. 2, pp. 211-32.
282
Corresponding author
Muhammad Asif can be contacted at: m.asif@utwente.nl