Theory and practice of integrating management systems with high level structure

JAN KOPIA*, ANDREAS KOMPALLA, MELANIE BUCHMÜLLER

The Bucharest University of Economic Studies, Romania

*Ph.D student, j.kopia@gmail.com

Abstract

Management system standards are used by many organizations all over the world. Many
companies also implement more than one management system standard. This study focusses
on organizations which operate at least two ISO-based management systems and analyzes the
approaches for implementing and operating of these systems. The authors firstly present
empirical results based on a survey and secondly two case studies which are compared
regarding their approaches. A special focus is being put on the integration aspect in the
context of the high level structure of ISO-based management system standards.
The result shows that most companies with more than one management system standard try to
integrate the management systems making use of the Annex SL. Despite the given high level
structure and main processes, there are many differences in the integration of the analyzed
companies. On the basis of these findings the authors suggest improvements of Annex SL.

Keywords

Management systems, management system standards, quality management, ISO 9001, ISO
14001, ISO 27001, Annex SL, high level structure, IMS, integrated management systems

Introduction

Management systems and the introduced standards such as ISO 9001, ISO 14001, OHSAS
18001 (soon ISO 45001), ISO 27001 etc. are used globally from companies in many different
industries. ISO standards are being revised constantly. The management standards 9001 and
14001 mentioned above were updated in 2015, ISO 27001 will most likely be updated in
2016, ISO 45001 will replace the OHSAS standard also in 2016. 1.5 million certifications of
ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 worldwide were announced by ISO in 2014 (ISO, 2015). Besides
these wide adopted standards there are several other standards which show an increasing
worldwide adoption rate (e.g. ISO 50001, ISO 22000, ISO 20212, but also not ISO-based
standards such as TQM, Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404, SA 8000, BS 8900, ISO/TS 16949, ISO
26000 etc.).

Organizations which adapt more than one management standard need to ask themselves how
these different standards can be integrated with each other. Integrated management systems
(IMS) can be seen as one united management system which deals with all the different
requirements of other management system. New ISO based management systems use a
generic structure called Annex SL which helps to improve the integration of different
management systems which each other. Annex SL replaces the older ISO’s Guide 83. This so
called “high level structure” of the Annex SL improves the integration by structuring
processes and necessary documentation in a similar way. 31 management system standards
are based on the high level structure (ISO 2, 2015) at the time of creation of this study.
Integration becomes an import topic. Nevertheless there is no standard for an integrated
management system yet which is internationally successfully (even though several guidelines
as PAS 99, UNE 66177, ISO handbook were developed). Also scientific research in that area
is still very limited.
This study will therefore examine success factors for an integrated management system based
on a survey of 32 companies of different industries which are based or have the certified
subsidiary in Germany. The study will also present two case studies of companies which have
an IMS in operation. The results from the survey are compared with the case study. On the
basis of the similarities and differences of the two presented IMSs conclusions for success
factors of IMSs based on the high level structure drawn.

Current research of integrated management systems and the high level structure

Slater (1991) wrote that the basic requirement for the use of different management system is a
conceptual approach to the nature of organizational management which is based on sharing of
resources and combined work processes. Similarities of the management system therefore
help with the integration process. The high level structure of modern ISO management
systems complies with it by providing a similar structure within the management systems
which is divided into topics as follows:

1. Scope 6. Planning
2. Normative reference 7. Support
3. Terms and definitions 8. Operation
4. Context of the organization 9. Performance evaluation
5. Leadership 10. Improvement

Table 1: High level structure of ISO management system standards (source: ISO)

Table 1 shows that several topics within the ISO requirements are equal in all high level
structure-based management system standards. It seems logical to use such synergies of equal
areas in management systems.
The general question whether an IMS will be beneficial for companies were answered by
several researchers (Slater, 1991; Jorgensen et al., 2006; Raišienė, 201, Zeng et al., 2011 etc.)
showing that benefits are mainly driven by the synergies of the systems requirements. Besides
the fact the some management system standards often are a requirement from the market or
the government, an IMS reduces the amount of documentation and bureaucracy, it saves
resources (and therefore costs), it ensures a better focus on the business goals (therefore better
satisfying customer), and creates a better communication and consistency. The drivers for
integration can be categorized in several areas as financial, marketing, regulatory, operational,
social etc. (Rajkovic and Aleksic, 2009; see figure 1).
Figure 1: Corporative motives on implementation of an IMS (source: own elaboration based on
Rajkovic et al., 2009)

The challenges on the other side when companies operate multiple management systems can
be high (Zeng et al, 2007). The initial complexity of introducing an IMS can be high.
Different cultural background of the involved parties, high human resource requirements,
bureaucracy, the unwillingness to share knowledge and other aspects can be challenging.

Despite some controversy about the question whether integration is useful (Renzi at al., 2000,
Hillary, 1997 etc.) scientific research within the last two decades shows an agreement that
there is the need for integration because there are clear benefits (Beechner et al., 1997;
Griffith, 2000; Ahsen et al., 2001; Zutshi et al., 2005; Karapetrovic et al., 2008; Bernardo et
al., 2009; Rebelo 2015 etc.).

Nevertheless there is no still clear consensus about when and how the presented benefits are
achieved. Is it already useful to have an IMS when only two other management systems are in
place? Is there any difference when comparing the industry and the size of the organizations?
Scientific research in that area is growing but still limited. Some suggestions were made by
scientists (Oliveira, 2013; Rebelo et al., 2014; Rössler et al., 2015; Mohammad et al., 2013;
Samy et al, 2015; Bernardo et al., 2016) and certification body (e.g. BSI with its PAS 99,
2015). Implementing an IMS faces similar problems regardless of the location of the company
(Simon and Douglas, 2013). Several scientists analyzed the level of integration. Bernardo et
al. (2009) compared the integration levels of management system standards of different
scientists (see figure 2). A fully integrated IMS (Katniak, 2012) is equivalent to level 3 from
figure 2.
Figure 2: Levels of integration of management system standards suggested by scientists
(Source: Bernardo et al., 2009)

Most companies from existing research try to integrate their different management systems
with each other (see table 2). The trend to integrate seems to be strong because the existing
synergies seem to drive the companies toward integration. Asif et al. (2013) and Tsai et al.
(2009) also confirmed the increasing adoption of IMS within organizations.

Table 2: Research results of management system integration (Katniak ,2012)

Scientist (Mohammad, 2005, Zeng et al., 2007; Salomone, 2008; Khanna et al.,2010;
Raisiene, 2012; Garengo and Biazzo, 2013; Almeida et al., 2014; Gianni and Gotzamani,
2014; Rebello, 2014; Simon et al., 2012;) suggested success factors when integrating
management system standards with each other of which the most important are as follows:

 (Top-) Management and commitment

 Experience in implementing management systems / knowledge
 Step-by-step-approach during the implementation of the IMS
 Proper project management and change management processes
 Internally driven (instead of externally forced)
  Similar to the PDCA-cycle in a single management system the continues improvement
of an IMS is absolutely necessary. The level of maturity should be constantly
measured using a method which fits to the organization (key performance indicators,
balanced scorecard, the EFQM excellence model etc.)

Research also discovered a misalignment between an IMS and organizational goals and
objectives (Zeng et al., 2010; Oliveira et al., 2010). It is necessary that the strategic
management and the management systems are aligned with each other. Understand of the
goals and objectives of an organization including its processes and the mapping of the
organizational strategy to operative strategies.
Research in that area does not cover long term studies so far (Min, 2015) even though it
would be interesting to see whether a mature IMS shows different benefits and success factors
to a company than a IMS which was just introduced. The introduction of management
systems usually take years until they are fully implemented. An IMS project will therefore
need several years until a certain maturity level (e.g. based on the EFQM excellence model) is
reached. It seems naturally that there are differences between an IMS within the
implementation phase is valued differently than a fully working IMS. In a meta-analysis
Rebelo et al. (2014) analyzed the IMS research between 2000 and 2012 and confirmed that
the integration of multiple management systems into one IMS adds value to the present and
future success of companies including its external and internal stakeholders but also stated
that there is still a need for research in many different fields.

IMS implementation can be done in different ways (see figure 3). Either all relevant
management systems can be implemented after each other (resulting in different levels of
integration as mentioned above) or they can be simultaneously implemented into one IMS
(Mitreva, 2015). When the management systems are implemented after each other,
organizations usually start with quality management first. The reason might be that quality
was one of the first topics which were historically addressed with standardized systems.
Quality is also the most widespread topics in the area of management systems because quality
is important in all industries and geographic regions (which is also addressed with different
management systems / approaches such as Total Quality Management etc.).
Figure 3: Two different variants to implement an IMS (source: own elaboration)

Research Methodology and hypotheses

Two approaches were used for this work in order to gain necessary results.
The first methodology is an empirical analysis based on a survey of 32 organizations in the
German market. The companies were selected on the basis of amount of ISO certifications.
All have at least two ISO up to date certifications. The organizations are of different
industries: Energy related industry: 3, manufacturing industry: 19, constructing industry: 6,
and IT industry: 3. The survey was based on X questions with a selection of answers and Y
questions with open answers. The result was used to conclude answers to the hypothesis 1 and
2.
In order to identify results for hypothesis 3 and 4, another methodology was necessary.
Therefore a second study design used an exploratory case study methodology as qualitative
approach with two companies from the energy market. The two organizations were selected
after a review of existing management systems and the existence of an IMS. Prepared
questions which were formally sent to the corresponding people within the organizations were
used to conduct semi-structured interviews with several persons responsible for certain tasks
within the IMS-organization. The suggestions of this study emerged as the researcher
evaluated the interviews with the people coming from different contexts and perspectives of
the IMS-organization, especially focusing the differences between the implementation phases
and the operation phases of an IMS.

The hypotheses are as follows:

 H1: Most companies which have more than one management system standard
integrate them to an IMS and integrate one system after the other (compared to
implement an IMS directly)
 H2: The most important success factors of an IMS are management commitment and
the availability of resources.
 H3: There are differences between an IMS in the implementation phase and the later
operation phase regarding the success factors.
 H4: The implementation of an IMS has obstacles which are mainly driven by politics
and internal communication.
Part 1: Analysis

Figure 4 shows that more than 80 % of all companies within the research database do have 3
or more Management Systems. Only 3 % (respectively 1 company) of all enterprises focuses
on a single management systems.

Figure 4: Amount of management systems per company (Source: Own elaboration according
to questionnaire)

In order to define the specifications of the management systems the first question is if
companies are familiar with Annex SL, the high level structure for all upcoming MS. All but 3
companies out of the research database have been familiar with the Annex SL guideline.

Figure 5: Evaluation of familiarity with Annex SL (Source: Own elaboration according to

questionnaire)

In 45 % of the cases the enterprises apply the Annex SL on only one of their total base of used
management systems which means that at least it is not completely an established standard.
Next to Annex SL-based management systems, this research is furthermore focusing on
integrated management systems. According to figure 6 almost three quarters of the companies
who took part in the questionnaire confirmed that they are using integrated management
systems.
Figure 6: Usage of IMSs (Source: Own elaboration according to questionnaire)

As there are different levels of integration these companies have also been asked to rate their
degree. More than the halves of the companies which are using an IMS apply this method to
the full degree (See figure 7). In almost all cases (97 %) they do the integration with the help
of externals and in most cases one after the other (82 % of the cases).

Figure 7: Degree of integration of management systems (Source: Own elaboration according

to questionnaire)

Main drivers for using ISMs are the low amount of documentation and synergies regarding
processes and resources. On the other hand 13 % of the companies explained that the decision
process is slowing down with an IMS (see figure 8).
Figure 8: Drivers and problems of integrated management systems (Source: Own elaboration
according to questionnaire)

In order to improve the Integration one of the main drivers is the resource availability as it
was rated as highly important by 80 % of the companies. Additionally the synergies should
ideally be used from the beginning and external experts are also a significant factor for the
success (see figure 9).

Figure 9: Drivers for a successful implementing IMSs (Source: Own elaboration according to
questionnaire)
Part 2: Case studies

The following table number 3 represents two different IMS cases of company A and company
B structured after topic to make it easily comparable. Company A has over 25.000 employees,
company B under 1000 employees. Both are operating more than one management system
standard and implemented an IMS.
The first part of the cases represents the implementation phase, the second part the operation
phase of the IMSs.

Part 1: Implementation – Starting points

Company A
The introduction of ISO management systems was
mainly driven externally by several stakeholders as a
market sign. The first certification was ISO 9001 in
2002 directly followed by ISO 14001 in 2003.
Both management systems were introduced
simultaneously with the goal to develop an IMS.
Some years later OHSAS 18001, ISO 50001, and ISO
27001 were added.
Implementation – Best Practice
Since two management system standards was
implemented at the same time company A choose one
project team consisting of two representatives, two
coordinators for each area and a project manager
which established a project management methodology
for the implementation project.
Synergies between the first two management systems
were used as much as possible. ISO 9001 in version
2008 was structured to enhance its usability with ISO
14001 (in version 2004). Before that the integration
was more difficult. Since no high level structure
existed during that time, the project team defined
common requirements which were also driven by the
business needs. They analyzed the business needs in
workshops and mapped them with the requirements
given by the standards.
The basis of the integration was the PDCA-cycle
which is similar for ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. Both
standards also require some common documents and
processes:
- Document control
- Training of employees
- Control of non-conformance
- Corrective and preventive action
- Internal and external audits
- Management reviews
- Collecting of records
- Top management commitment through policy
definition
On the basis of the similar processes the project team
created a generic methodology for both systems where
the representatives worked closely together. The goal
was to use as much synergies as possible. The
common elements were mapped with the continuous
Company B
Even though there was no law which requires an ISO-
certification, company B implemented an ISO 14001
environmental management system in 2003 to deal with
several legal restrictions. ISO 9001 followed 3 years
later.
Both management systems were introduced after each
other without any specific linkage at first. The IMS idea
started after the company also certified its energy
management system according to ISO 50001. They
started their IMS with the implementation of the energy
management system and integrated all management
systems into an IMS. The newest management system
which was introduced is ISO 27001.
Company B implemented both management systems
separate from each other. Both topics were driven by
different stakeholders - responsible employees were
also geographically separated from each other. The
structure of the implementation project was similar
consisting of the representatives and employees from
the technical areas. External consultants were hired to
assist in that phase.
The only thing which was shared between the two
implementation projects was the document management
system in which the teams defined a similar structure
and common document templates for the policy
documents. Initiated by the ISO 9001-team the
document control was also defined for both areas.
The reporting structure was not project based but was
kept according to the functional organization which best
fit to the topics environmental control and quality
management - ISO 14001 mainly required control and
monitoring, ISO 9001 required design and development
improvement process based on the PDCA-cycle of all
systems.
They defined one management board for both areas
which met in regular intervals to both topics. Even
though in this phase the implementation was in the
project phase, the board meetings were already part of
the later phases of a mature system. The team defined
a reporting structure which assessed environmental
and quality topics including all necessary measures
which also included KPIs to get a clear idea of the
status of both areas.
The involvement of the management was strong at the
beginning of the project. Resources were approved (2
new positions and time from other employees which
was split between the IMS tasks and their normal
work). Management reviews were done with both
topics at the same time.
All Audits were integrated and included both topics as
much as possible. Even though two auditors (in the
third party audit) were involved the system was seen
as an IMS.
Later management systems as OHSAS 18001 were
integrated into the IMS by using the following
methodology:
1. Analyzing of the differences between the
existing IMS and the new management
system according to given requirements by
performing workshops with trained people
(incl. external specialists) – mainly a
common element analysis and process maps
2. Acquiring the necessary resources (personnel
incl. budget for training)
3. Implementing of only necessary elements
forced by the standard and required by
organizational rules and regulations. The goal
was to not follow the standard step by step
but to adapt those parts of the standards
which were necessary to achieve the
organizational goal (and satisfy the standard’s
requirements)
4. Integrate the new management standard into
the PDCA-cycle by keeping all processes and
structures of the IMS as stable as possible.
of processes. The management was involved in the
regular functional reporting structure.
The management involvement was barely visible but
resources were given in the form of a certain budget for
external consultancy and work time for the management
system tasks was approved. Remaining work in other
areas was shifted to other people. Management reviews
were separated in time as well as the concerning the
people.
All audits were separate from each other. The third
party audit was done by two different auditing
companies. The result was that the costs for both
implementation projects including the external audits
were high.
The management suggested integrating both systems
into an IMS for the next re-certification to use synergies
more efficiently.
Company was not able to integrate both systems as
expected. The main reasons were the different cultures
of the involved people and the old and firm structures
of the organization. It took 8 years to build an IMS
when a new management system standard was
introduced.
New ISO management systems were the ISO 50001.
Changing responsibilities and lesson learnt were the
reason why company B now used the implementation
of this standard to build an IMS. A consulting company
guided company B for almost 2 years on a project based
level which the consultancy lead. The most difficult part
was to change the tasks and procedures (and people’s
minds) of the existing management systems into the
new harmonized IMS.
New roles were established to management this
organizational change with an MSS (management
system standard) task force. Together with the support
of the management and the external consultants a
generic set of processes and documents very similar to
the later developed high level structure by ISO were
created.
All representatives had to structure their management
system according to this set of processes and documents
– common elements were harmonized and generated
together. The MSS task force which consists of different
technical people including department heads of the
areas was established and controlled the IMS.
Harmonization was done in steps, starting from
documentation and control-procedures, internal audit
and management review, and preventive and corrective
action. The first IMS was not practically usable (“too
theoretical”) though and had to be improved in diverse
areas.
The introduction of the high level structure did not
change the IMS since most processes, procedures and
documents were already integrated according the
company’s needs. Because of re-certification and
during the continues improvement cycles company A
will most likely have minor changes to some elements
required by the standards.
Success factors of the implementation of the IMS:
- The involvement of the (top) management
- Enough trained personnel / resources with the
organizational power (empowered) to change
things
- The corporate culture must fit in order to
harmonize different and often very separate
functional areas and responsible people with
each other
- Professional change- and project
management
- Discipline in the IMS-team
The main obstacles were:
- Many different requirements of all the
standards (in the years 2002-2008), e.g. in the
area of performance measurement in ISO
9001 and 14001 in earlier versions
- The certification of an IMS was not an easy
task since certification bodies usually only
deal with their special topics. It is important
to start early with the search for an auditor.
- Missing knowledge of the ISO standards or
the absence of specialists
- Differences between stakeholder expectations
Part 2: Generic statements and practices after years of operation of an IMS
After several years of working with an IMS the following statements and lesson learnt were collected in the
context of success factors of implementation and running of an IMS.
Company A
- The project manager which was originally
responsible for the IMS implementation project left
the ISMS team too early. Even though the project
was officially finished the ISMS organization was
not fully established and able to work.
- The gap between the functional organization incl. its
daily routines and the IMS-requirements should be
defined within the implementation project and not
during the maturity phase. Many things during the
implementation were done quickly and because of
time pressure. After the third party audit was over,
company A still had an IMS in project conditions
with which was not really practically used (even
though certification bodies usually require a
management system to be “active” for a while
before certification)
- Continues improvement really starts when the IMS
is running for several years not within the
implementation phase.
- Several parts of an IMS are still separate depending
on the technical area of the management system
standards. Especially work instructions resulting
from the standards requirements and required
The high level structure did not yet have any effect on
the IMS. Company B guessed that a re-certification on
the basis of high level-based standard will most likely
affect the IMS slightly. The newly required justification
when a new MMS is introduced will be followed
according to the defined process of the newly
established IMS board.
Success factors of the implementation of the IMS:
- The involvement of the (top) management
- Access to resources
- An open organization culture willing to change
- Develop generic and aggregated KPIs for IMS
instead of using separated KPIs for the systems
- Define clear implementation guidelines
The main obstacles of the integration were:
- Differences in document requirements of the
standards, especially regarding a management
system handbook and what documents needs
to be public and which can be kept private
- Different stakeholder’s requirements are not
easy to match (product and service quality as
main goal versus fulfilling environmental or
energy specific laws and regulations).
- Low motivation level of employees and
therefore limited communication between
involved parties
Company B
- If external consultants are hired for the IMS
implementation it is important to have enough time
for a knowledge transfer in order to efficiently
operate the IMS
- Define clear responsibilities especially when the
project is finished.
- The implementation project was driven by a
complete restructuring of existing management
systems and by many necessities which were
theoretical defined but not practically used. It was
almost impossible to use the first defined rules and
regulations of the IMS after the project reached the
last milestone. Involved people often switched back
to older processes which worked for them before
resulting in rework of some IMS guidelines.
- Get the acceptance of the employees in the project
phase not later when all employees have to work
with it.
- Some parts of management systems are harder to
integrate into the IMS. Especially product or service
specific things in the product realization processes,
the risk based approach required by newer standards,
and planning processes are not easily harmonized.
 records. Due to its nature the IMS keeps these - It is necessary to constantly train and motivate
aspects as separate as necessary. people to work in the given set of rules and
- In the project phase the representatives worked regulations required by the IMS
100% of their work time on the IMS, later they
reduced that amount (substantially depending on the
area). Nevertheless a running IMS needs resources
which have time to do their work.
Table 3: Content of two cases of implementing and operating of an IMS (source: own
elaboration)

Results of the empirical analysis

The results of the survey show a trend toward integration as it was confirmed by other
scientists as well. Most companies have implemented more than one (even three to four)
management system standards. Even though Annex SL did not reach all of the adapted
management systems, most companies try to integrate the management systems into an IMS –
almost 50% of them integrate them fully. The most important benefits were seen in the area of
documentation, the synergies of processes, and the efficiency regarding other resources.
25% decided not to use an IMS. An IMS is seen a very big project which involves many
people from all areas of the organization. IMSs are therefore considered as a bureaucratic
which slow down processes. It is also not easy to integrate two systems which have different
goals regarding the stakeholder’s opinion. Quality for instance might be driven by customer
centric strategies with a goal to grow in the market environmental management on the other
side might only be driven by legal requirements. One can be a philosophy (as in TQM), the
other can be seen as a collection of formal procedures. These two different views highlight the
answers to the survey question that different political driven management systems and
different nature of context are harder to integrate. This is also a reason why decisions are slow
(top reason against IMS). If two different organizations cultures have to work with each other
there is a higher tendency for conflicts. Also the way these people work together might reduce
efficient decisions due to a higher possibility of different opinions and discussions. 81% of the
companies which implement an IMS integrated the management systems after each other.
Hypothesis 1 therefore can be positively confirmed on the basis of this study.

Hypothesis 2 cannot be fully confirmed. Resource availability is a success factors most

companies agree with (all rate that topic very high or high). The second highest rating was
given to the importance of the use of synergies between the management systems as early as
possible. This is especially astounding since the majority implements management systems
one after the other where the authors assume that synergies are not used immediately. Since
the answers were given by organizations which already implemented an IMS it seems that the
experience with an operational IMS demonstrates that synergies are usably and useful. This
could be interpreted as suggestion to better integrate as early as possible by using known
synergies as soon as possible. The high level structure might be helpful for this because these
possible synergies are already presented in the structure of the standards. Top management
commitment directly followed by the availability of experts is the next most important aspects
when integrating management systems to an IMS.
Results of the case studies

In order to answer hypothesis three and four the two IMS of the companies presented in the
cases were analyzed. In both companies there was a clear difference between the IMS
implementation and the later phase of operation of the IMS.

Both companies used project management methodologies for the implementation phase of the
IMS. In the first case a project manager was in lead to set up an implementation project. The
management system representatives were part of the project team. External consultants were
involved in running the implementation in the form of a project. A project has different
success factors than a constantly running operation which is confirmed by the case studies.
The main goals are to define ways of working together, gather the project team, coordinate
resource and initiate the processes necessary for the integrated management systems. Most
difficult tasks mentioned in both cases were the analysis of organizational processes and
similar requirements of the standards with the goal to define harmonized management
systems which fits both aspects. Bringing the theory of the standards to live is another
concern which was mentioned by both companies. The project goal is to hand over an IMS
which can be used practically. This is a challenging task. Necessary resources, motivated
employees and top management involvement are crucial for these implementation projects.
In contrast to that an IMS in operation is mainly driven by improving the processes which are
already established and lived for a certain period of time. This constant improvement also
involves integration aspects coming from new management system standards as well as newer
revisions of the standards with new requirements. New management systems, which need to
be integrated, will result in a new project though. The top management still needs to be visible
(Kopia, 2015) but is mainly involved in daily routines such as management reviews, policy
changes etc. Motivation and training of employees is necessary in both IMS-phases.
Hypothesis three can therefore be answered positively.
Hypothesis four was only confirmed by one company. Even though the other company sees
one problem in the different expectations of involved stakeholders, the other company had
much more problems with it. This was also confirmed by other researchers (Wilkinson, Dale,
2002; Tang, 2003; Jørgensen et al., 2004; Patience, 2008; Bernardo et al., 2012; Manzanera et
al., 2013). Cultural barriers and a very traditional and functional oriented management style
resulted in communication problems which could not be solved for a long time.
Hypotheses one and two were confirmed with both cases.

Conclusion

This research mainly confirms the studies of other researchers. Most organizations integrate
different management systems into an IMS. There is a generic trend to adapt an IMS in
various industries. Despite the existence of Annex SL / high level structure, organizations
used in the case study part of this research already integrate management systems for years
and therefore do not see Annex SL as a great benefit for themselves. With the integration of
new systems and within the adoption and re-certifications to new versions of the standard,
Annex SL becomes important again. Most companies are aware of Annex SL but use
management systems which are not fully Annex SL based yet in the adopted version they are
using (before re-certification). As long as Annex SL is not available for all important ISO
based management system standards the beneficial effect might not be visible. At the moment
many management standards are within their transition time between the old and the new
version. At the time of this study all important standards which are usually relevant when
talking about an IMS (ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 45001, ISO 50001, ISO 27001 etc.) are
available with high level structure. The problem which is not yet solved with the high level
structure alone is the gap between the implementation of an IMS and the operation of an IMS.
Even though the high level structure presents similar elements of a management system which
are useful to identify similar documents, processes etc. organizations often need the help of
experts to introduce a management system. At the moment Annex SL only describes generic
questions and a justification procedure which needs to be went through to implement a new
management system. Over 10 years of research in that field give a lot of hints what is
important during the implementation of an IMS and what to prevent. Despite the fact that the
ISO guidelines are supposed to be generic to be fit to all possible cases, Annex SL should
nevertheless include more practical suggestions. This is especially in the following areas:
Generic project management best practices for management integration projects, differences
between an IMS built newly from the scratch and a incremental integration type of IMS,
suggestion of implementation guidelines, concrete suggestions on the availability of certain
resources (such as the representatives in the different phases of the project), change
management procedures, problems regarding organizational and communication etc.
Limitations and future research: This study was founded on the basis of 32 organizations
which should be increased in the future. Even though these organizations are from different
industries, a broader spectrum also of industries might be important to see differences in there
as well. This is also true for the market, since this study was only considering organizations
operating in Germany.

References

Asif, M., Bruijn, E. J. & Fisscher, O. A. M. (2008). Corporate motivation for integrated management system
Implementation: Why do firms engage in integration of management systems: A literature review and
research agenda. In: 16th Annual High Technology Small Firms Conference, HTSF 2008, Enschede, the
Netherlands

Rebelo, Gilberto Santos, Rui Silva, (2014). A Methodology to Develop the Integration of the Environmental
Management System with Other Standardized Management Systems Manuel Ferreira, Computational Water,
Energy, and Environmental Engineering, 2014, 3, pp. 170-181
Agota Giedrė Raišienė, (2011). Advantages and limitations of integrated management system: the theoretical
viewpoint, issn 2029-7564, social technologies 2011, 1(1), pp. 25–36
Ahsen von, A., Funck, D. (2001), Integrated Management Systems — Opportunities and Risks for Corporate
Environmental Protection, Corporate Environmental Strategy, Vol 8 No. 2, pp. 165-176.
Almeida, J., Domingues, P. & Sampaio, P. (2014). Different perspectives on management system integration. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25, 338–351.
Beechner, A.B., Koch, J.E. (1997), Integrating ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, Quality Progress, Vol 30 No. 2, pp. 33-
36.
Bernardo Merce, Casadesusb Marti, Karapetrovicc Stanislav, Herasd Iñaki, (2012). Do integration difficulties
influence management system integration levels? Journal of Cleaner Production 21 pp. 23-33
Bernardo Merce, Castán Farrero José M, Casadesús Martí, (2016). the impact of management systems integration
through the value chain, 1st International conference on Quality of Life June 2016 Center for Quality, Faculty of
Engineering, University of Kragujevac
Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., Heras, I. (2009), How integrated are environmental, quality and
other standardized management systems? An empirical study, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol 17 No. 8, pp. 742-
750.
BSI, 2015, http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/pas-99-integrated-management, accessed 08/08/2016
Garengo, P. & Biazzo, S. (2013). From ISO quality standards to an integrated management system: an
implementation process in SME. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24, pp. 310–335
Gianni, M., & Gotzamani, K. (2014). Management systems integration: lessons from an abandonment case. Journal
Of Cleaner Production, 86, 265–276. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.023
Griffith, A. (2000), Integrated management systems: a single management system solution for project control?,
Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, Vol 7 No. 3, pp 232-240.
ISO 2, 2015, http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/management-standards/mss-list.htm, accessed 08/08/2016
ISO, 2015, http://www.iso.org/iso/annual_report_2015.pdf, accessed 08/08/2016
Jørgensen Tine Herreborg, Mellado Marie Dolores, Remmen Arne, (2004). Integrated management systems,
Working Paper 7, Division of Technology, Environment and Society Department of Development and Planning
Aalborg University Fibigerstraede 13 Denmark-9220 Aalborg Oest, ISSN 1603-9890
Jorgensen, T.H, Remmen, A., Mellado, M. Integrated management systems – three different levels of integration.
Journal of Cleaner Production. 2006, Vol.14 (8), p.713-722.
Karapetrovic, S. (2008), Integrative augmentation of standardized systems. Int. J. Qual. Res., Vol 2, pp 15–22.
Katniak (2012), A Survey Analysis of Integrated Management Systems in the UK, Sheffield Hallam University.
Khanna, H. K., Laroiya, S.C., Sharma, D.D. (2010), Integrated management systems in Indian manufacturing
organizations: Some key findings from an empirical study, The TQM Journal, Vol 22, No.6, pp 670-686.
Kopia, Jan, 2016, Study on integration and leadership styles of Management Systems based on a high level
structure, ICMLG2016-4th International Conference on Management, Leadership and Governance, pp. 431-441
Manzanera, R., Jardí, J., Gomila, X., Ramón Pastor, J., Ibáñez, D., Gálvez, G., Albertí, C., Navarro, A., Uris, J.,
Pomares, A., López, L., Zuazu, C., Sabaté, P., Aguado, I., Domingo, L., Infante, C., Gomis, J., Jover, A., Iglesias, J.
and Mestres, A. (2014) ‘Design of an integrated management system (IMS) in a government-run medical evaluation
organisation’, The TQM Journal, 26(6), pp. 550–565.
Min John Zaw, (2015). The Alignment of Integrated Management Systems and Business Objectives: A Case Study
Approach Applied to Small and Medium Enterprises in Singapore, School of business and tourism southern cross
university Australia, Doctoral thesis
Mitreva Elizabeta, Taskov Nako, Sazdova Julijana, Georgieva Ivana, Gjorshevski Hristijan, (2015). The need for
implementation of integrated management systems (ims) in macedonian companies, quality access to success, Vol.
16, No . 14 7
Mohammad Musli, Osman M.R., Rosnah M.Y. and Ismail N., Strategies for Integrating Quality, Environmental,
Safety and Health Management Systems, Applied Mechanics and Materials Vol. 315, pp. 894-898
Mohammad Musli, Osman Rasid, Rosnah Yusuff & Ismail Napsiah, (2006). Strategies and critical success factors
for integrated management systems implementation. 35th International Conference on Computers and Industrial
Engineering, pp. 1391-1396
Oliveira, J. A., Oliveira, O. J. & Nadae, J. (2010). Integrated management systems in industrial companies of the
São Paulo state–Brazil. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25(1), 129-141.
Oliveira, O. (2013). Guidelines for the integration of certifiable management systems in industrial companies.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 57, 124–133
Raisiene Agota Giedre, (2012). Perspectives of integrated management systems in Lithuania’s enterprises,
Electronic International Interdisciplinary Conference 2012 September, 3. - 7. 2012, pp 28-31
Rajkovic, D., & Aleksic, M. (2009). Corporate motives on implementation of integrated management system
(IMS). International Journal for Quality Research, 3(3).
Rebelo Manuel Ferreira, Santos Gilberto, Silva Rui (2015), Integration of Standardized Management Systems: A
Dilemma?, Systems, Vol 3, No. 2, pp 45-59.
Rebelo, M. F., Santos, G., & Silva, R. (2014). A generic model for integration of Quality, Environment and Safety
Management Systems. The TQM Journal, 26, 143–159.
Roessler Richard, Schlieter Hannes, (2015). Towards Model-based Integration of Management Systems, 12th
International Conference on Wirtschaftsinformatik, March 4-6 2015, Osnabrück, Germany
Salomone R. (2008) Integrated management systems: experiences in Italian organizations. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol.16 (16), p. 1786-1806.
Samy, Gopalakrishnan Muthu; Samy, Chandramohan Palani; Ammasaiappan, Maheswari, (2015). Integrated
management systems for better environmental performance and sustainable development - a review.source:
Environmental Engineering & Management Journal (EEMJ) . Vol. 14 Issue 5, p985-1000. 16p.
Simon A., Karapetrovic S. & Casadesus M. (2012) Evolution of Integrated Management Systems in Spanish firms.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 23(1), 8–19
Simon, A. & Douglas, A. (2013). Integrating management systems, does the location matter? International Journal
of Quality & Reliability Management, 30, 675–689.
Slater, R.H. 1991. Integrated Process Management: A Quality Model. Quality Progress., 1st Edition. Vol. 24.
McGraw-Hill Professional
Tang, 2003, Corporate Culture and Integrated Management Systems: -A case study of the UK Construction
Industry, School of Environmental Sciences University of East Anglia University Plain
Tsai, W.H., & Chou, W. C. (2009). Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: A novel
hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), pp. 1444-1458
Wilkinson, G., Dale, B.G. (2002). An examination of the ISO 9001:2000 standard and its influence on the
integration of management systems. Production Planning and Control. Vol. 13 (3), pp.284-297
Zeng, S. X., Xie, X. M., Tam, C. M., & Shen, L. Y. (2011). An empirical examination of benefits from
implementing integrated management systems (IMS). Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 22(2), pp.
173–186
Zutshi, A., & Sohal, A. (2005), Integrated management system: the experiences of three Australian organisations,
Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, Vol 16, pp 211-32