The work explores the perception of a group of 34 specialists regarding the implementation of Integrated Management Systems (SIG) in Cuban companies. The variables ADVANTAGES, CONDITIONS, PREDICTION and BARRIERS were evaluated. The specialists were classified into two groups: EXPERTS and USERS.
implementation-of-integrated-management-systemsAlmost 100% of the respondents raised a total or high degree of veracity of the hypotheses raised regarding the advantages of GIS for Cuban companies. Half considered that the advantages that arise are applicable to organizations in any sector of production and services. Regarding the time horizon for the materialization of the hypotheses, only 3% considered it immediate. The elimination of redundancy in the documentation is the greatest potential advantage that the integration provides, with respect to the implementation of parallel systems, according to the study carried out.
It is considered that both the internal development of organizations and external pressures promote the integration process, which has been favored with the appearance of the ISO 9000 2000 standards. However, this trend will not be materialized immediately in the organizations, being cultural the major barriers to the implementation of GIS, understood as such: poor leadership and management capacity, ignorance of technical aspects related to quality, protection of the environment and prevention of occupational risks, resistance to change and lack of motivation of staff to undertake new organizational challenges.
Introduction
Every organization develops a set of processes to satisfy the explicit or implicit needs of various parties interested in its performance and of society in general, for which it must fulfill a series of requirements derived not only from the market (quality, competitiveness and profitability requirements). but also legal, environmental and occupational health and safety requirements, among others. In organizations, all activities are closely interrelated and interact forming a network of processes that must be managed with a systemic approach, that is, with a coherent and visible management system that allows compliance with all requirements.
Historically, multiple management systems and subsystems have proliferated in organizations, each of them aimed at completing a series of technical-specialized activities. However, at the base of the organizational structures, what we have is the process, and the personnel who carry it out, which must satisfy the requirements set by each subsystem. Likewise, at the top of the organizational pyramid, management must ensure the planning, organization, execution and control of all activities in order to fulfill the mission and objectives of the organization, satisfying multiple interests.
The usual way of carrying out the management so far has been to plan separately the activities of each functional subsystem and then each individual manager applies this planning to the processes and demands its fulfillment by the personnel involved. However, more and more organizations see the need to plan, organize and control their activities with an integration approach since all of them are part of the management system. Thus, at present, organizations that have implemented some of the standardized management systems (Quality, Environment and Health and Safety at Work), see the similarities between them, in terms of management principles and general requirements, and they tend towards the integration of two or more systems.
Integration, however, is not a spontaneous process, since the implementation of each management system separately and even more so, of an Integrated Management System (IMS) requires a change in the organizational culture, in the way of thinking and the action of workers and managers, who must understand the new requirements imposed by each of the social actors and the need to respond to them in a balanced way, without detriment to one or another requirement, when making managerial decisions.. In the same way, the barriers between functions must be eliminated and the process approach internalized as basic structures that enable the fulfillment of the organization's objectives, with their multiple inputs and outputs and the interrelationships between them.For the management system to be integrated, it is not enough that the subsystems are aligned one next to the other, but they must be intertwined to form a harmonious whole (1,2).
In Cuba there are interesting examples of organizations that have approached the implementation of various management systems, in some cases in an integrated manner (3-5), and in other cases in parallel, but always using the synergies that arise from the existence of processes common. The objective of this work is to carry out an analysis of the criteria issued by a group of specialists in quality and environmental management, referring to the feasibility of the implementation of Integrated Management Systems in Cuban companies.
Chapter 1 Development and definition of GIS
The Quality, Environmental and Safety Management Systems have followed an independent and parallel development. Thus, in many organizations, safety at work depends on the Human Resources function, while quality is directly linked to Production, and the environment is located in the Research-Development areas. However, without being a regulatory requirement or required by customers, the need to integrate Management Systems emanates more and more from the internal development of organizations. Thus, in the last decade, interest in the development of GIS has grown, initially in the quality and environmental areas (6-8) and, more recently, integrating the aspects of health and safety at work.Other authors advocate the convenience of integrating environmental management systems and health and safety at work (9,10). Organizations generally have a single management team, which is why it seems logical to adopt a single Management System that formalizes the organizational know-how, encompassing all the methodologies necessary to fulfill the responsibilities of the Management and the objectives of the institution, as well as the applicable legal requirements.as well as the applicable legal requirements.as well as the applicable legal requirements.
Zutshi and Sohal (11) have published an extensive bibliographic review on different companies that have integrated their management systems. In addition, they themselves studied several cases of organizations that have successfully implemented GIS, identifying the benefits, the key factors for successful integration, as well as the measures taken by the organizations to face their challenges.
To understand what the term Integrated Management Systems refers to, several authors start from knowing what a system is and what it means to integrate (12,13). In the case of management systems, one can speak of a set of interconnected components to achieve a specific objective and the elements that comprise it include: the organizational structure, policies and practices, people, resources (material and financial) and the processes. Integrating, for its part, means combining, merging two or more concepts, currents, etc., divergent from each other, into a single one that synthesizes them, which, taken to management systems, means combining, putting all the practices internal management in the same system, but not as separate components, but intertwined,without there being insurmountable partitions between processes and activities. Thus, a SIG is that management system that integrates all the components of the organization in a coherent system, which allows the fulfillment of its purpose and mission, which must be focused on satisfying the needs and expectations of all interested parties., both external and internal to the organization. For this, everything that has an effect on the results to be achieved by the institution must be part of the SIG. For Omelchuck (14) a GIS results when the organization uses a single formalized management system to manage multiple aspects of organizational performance.that allows the fulfillment of its purpose and mission, which must be focused on satisfying the needs and expectations of all interested parties, both external and internal to the organization. For this, everything that has an effect on the results to be achieved by the institution must be part of the SIG. For Omelchuck (14) a GIS results when the organization uses a single formalized management system to manage multiple aspects of organizational performance.that allows the fulfillment of its purpose and mission, which must be focused on satisfying the needs and expectations of all interested parties, both external and internal to the organization. For this, everything that has an effect on the results to be achieved by the institution must be part of the SIG. For Omelchuck (14) a GIS results when the organization uses a single formalized management system to manage multiple aspects of organizational performance.For Omelchuck (14) a GIS results when the organization uses a single formalized management system to manage multiple aspects of organizational performance.For Omelchuck (14) a GIS results when the organization uses a single formalized management system to manage multiple aspects of organizational performance.
The organization's Management System must logically and consistently integrate all commonly formalized systems that separately focus on quality, health and safety at work, the environment, people, finances, security and physical protection, among other elements.. It is not enough that the components are aligned side by side, but must interlock to form a harmonious whole. Due to the complexity of the integration process, companies may find themselves at different stages on the way to the full integration of their systems or consider their partial integration sufficient.
The SIG can cover all aspects of institutional management, from product quality and customer service, maintenance of operations within a situation of acceptable environmental and occupational health and safety performance, and efficient economic management and accountant. In other words, a GIS would have to achieve:
• the improvement of products and services and customer satisfaction,
• compliance with current applicable legislation and that signed by the organization,
• environmental protection, including the prevention of pollution.
• safety and health in the workplace, as well as the safety of products and services, and all this through the integration of said elements in the general management system of the organization, in a coherent manner, without conflicts of interest or functions.
Among the aspects of quality, environmental care and health and safety at work, there are clear relationships. It is evident that any failure in an industrial-type operation can have effects on the quality of the product, but at the same time it can have effects on the safety and health of workers, and on the environment. It is also true that certain activities that increase productivity or quality can have a negative impact on safety or the environment and vice versa. Although it can be feared that due to the implementation of a GIS there is a risk of abolishing or reducing aspects of safety and protection of the environment in situations that conflict with efficiency and competitiveness, what does seem to be a proven trend is that companies with implemented Quality Management Systems,they are more receptive to Environmental Management Systems and Health and Safety at Work.
The integration of Management Systems has been favored since the appearance of the standards of the ISO 9000 series of 2000 for Quality Management Systems, a unique ISO 19011 standard for audits of Quality Management Systems and Environmental, as well as the increasing implementation of standards for occupational health and safety management systems (15). However, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has not established a single standard for quality and environmental management, considering that although the management methodologies are the same, the expertise required for quality and environmental management is different.. Also,It is recognized that organizations may be interested in implementing a single Management System, for which the existence of separate standards is more useful. Notwithstanding this fact, both the ISO and some national standardization bodies have produced documents that serve as a guide for the GIS implementation process (16). Another factor that will increase the trend towards integration in the future is standardization in the sphere of Corporate Social Responsibility (or Corporate), which requires an integrative vision of all management aspects with an impact on society and on the people themselves. workers (17).Another factor that will increase the trend towards integration in the future is standardization in the sphere of Corporate Social Responsibility (or Corporate), which requires an integrative vision of all management aspects with an impact on society and on the people themselves. workers (17).Another factor that will increase the trend towards integration in the future is standardization in the sphere of Corporate Social Responsibility (or Corporate), which requires an integrative vision of all management aspects with an impact on society and on the people themselves. workers (17).
The similarity in the management principles, with its systemic and process approach, and the ability to make the general management processes of the different aspects of the organization compatible, provides an obvious opportunity to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the organization by extending a single system through all of them. To this compatibility is added a great coherence of requirements that are complementary, in some cases, but never contradictory. For example (18):
• Commitment to a policy,
• Identification of needs or impacts,
• Definition and deployment of objectives,
• Training, awareness and skills,
• Launch of corrective and preventive actions,
• Reviews by Management, etc.
Jonker and Karapetrovic (19) emphasize the need for the systemic approach, initially suggested by Karapetrovic and Willborn (20), to achieve a real integration of the different aspects of management. Figure 1 shows a diagram of the integration of the requirements of ISO 9001: 2000 and ISO 14001: 1996, through the systemic approach (21). This same approach is what has allowed Beckmerhagen and his collaborators (22) to implement a GIS in an industry as complex and with as many legal requirements as nuclear, in addition to facilitating audits of the integrated system (23).
Regarding the approach to management by processes, Omelchuck (24) states that the logic of integration starts from assuming that the processes are the basis of the Management System and that all aspects of management are reflected in them, which in turn are affected by the way processes run which is unique. Mackau (25), for his part, refers to the importance of the participation of managers and workers in the project of integration of management models in small and medium-sized companies, especially, so that it is a project that is maintained and long-term improvement. With this objective in mind, different methodologies were applied, such as the organization's vision and mission analysis workshops, the quality circles and the use of project groups to identify, visualize and review the work processes.
Lamber, Sharp and Castka, discuss in a recent article the important role that the maintenance function plays in the certification by third parties of the GIS and how through the Total Productive Maintenance value can be added to the GIS (26).
The level of integration of the management system is decided by the organization depending on the complexity of its current systems and what it intends to achieve with the integration. It is very common for organizations that have implemented their management systems separately and have reached strengths in this implementation to keep their systems separate, that is, three functional areas, each with its person in charge, with its objectives and challenges that it has to do. front, and with little communication between them. In this case, the disadvantage of duplication of efforts and documentation and possible competition between the functions to fulfill their objectives is clear.
Partially integrated systems (aligned or combined) are frequently formalized in general common management procedures: document control, record control, control of measurement means, internal audit, corrective and preventive actions, and management review. Work procedures can be separate or integrated. In many cases, separate manuals are kept (reflecting the requirements of each standard) and integration is carried out at the operational level and is formalized in the procedures and instructions for each specific activity, at the operator level. However, “disintegration” increases as it escalates at the organizational chart level, making it difficult to make decisions and plan integrated policies and objectives.
When in the presence of fully integrated systems, these are formalized in a single manual and in a single set of procedures and instructions. In this case, for certification for each of the standards, it is desirable to have a list of the documents that fulfill the requirements for each standard. Although the process approach of the ISO 9000 2000 series standards facilitate the integration of the different management aspects at the base, companies that have worked just within the limits of the ISO 9001 requirements will have more difficulties to integrate to the Quality System already implemented the financial, environmental and safety requirements, etc., than those that have worked with the broader approach of ISO 9004. In general,the difficulties are less in small companies where the grouping of functions is necessary and occurs naturally.
In the integration process, in general, changes in the business culture are necessary due to the perceptions that the existing management systems are sufficient and adequate and that no substantial changes or improvements are required, added to the doubts that may exist about the added value of integrating the systems, or even of applying some of the existing management models and a certain feeling of "ownership" over the different functional aspects of management. Changing mentality is difficult and requires time, but it is the basis without which it is not possible to develop and carry out a system where everyone feels a participant in the achievements and improvements in the organization's performance.
Chapter 2 Research Methods
Based on the study of the literature reviewed and summarized in Chapter 1 of this work, a set of 14 hypotheses or judgments regarding the implementation of Integrated Management Systems was established (Annex 1), from which a This survey made it possible to evaluate the following variables:
ADVANTAGES: The opinion of the respondents regarding the potential advantages that GIS represents for the institutions was known. This variable was evaluated by the responses of the respondents to the first 10 hypotheses of the survey in terms of their veracity, feasibility or applicability and the time horizon foreseen for their materialization in the companies.
CONDITIONERS: It refers to those internal or external conditions that dictate the trend towards the integration of management systems. They were evaluated by the responses to aspects 11 and 12 of the survey, regarding their veracity and time to materialize.
PREDICTION: Gives the respondents' vision of the future of management system integration. It was evaluated by the responses to aspects 13 and 14 of the survey, regarding its veracity.
BARRIERS: Refers to those aspects that could slow down the integration of management systems.
The veracity of the aspects of the survey was evaluated in four levels, as follows:
Total: it means that the hypothesis is totally true.
High: there is a discreet disagreement, without taking away the truth of the hypothesis.
Low: when the hypothesis has only one true aspect.
None: when the hypothesis is totally false.
The applicability of the hypotheses was also evaluated at four levels.
Total: fully applicable in organizations of any sector of production and services.
High: there is a real possibility that it can be applied in different organizations.
Low: there is only some possibility of it being applied.
None: it is impossible to apply in organizations.
Regarding the time horizon in which each aspect could be applied in the country's organizations, this was limited in four moments:
Immediate: can be applied immediately.
Short term: it is possible to apply the hypothesis in the short term (less than 5 years).
Long-term: it is possible to apply the long-term hypothesis (greater than 5 years).
Never: will not apply.
Four types of possible barriers were defined:
Economic: the level of the country's economy and organizations.
Technological: technological and infrastructure problems in organizations.
Cultural: poor leadership, ignorance of the subject, lack of motivation, etc.
Regulations: laws, resolutions, regulations, which are in opposition to the hypothesis.
The survey was applied to a sample composed of 34 specialists, chosen according to the criteria of expertise reflected in Annex 2. The surveyed specialists were classified into two groups:
EXPERTS: those surveyed who belong or have belonged to the National and Territorial Offices of Standardization and the National Institute for Standardization Research, which received the highest qualification regarding their expertise (10 specialists).
USERS: those specialists who work in the activity object of the investigation in their respective organizations and who were considered to have a high level of expertise (15 specialists) and a medium (9 specialists).
The responses to the questionnaire were processed with the Statistics Package for Social Sciences SPSS 10.0, calculating the mean values and standard deviation of the responses for each of the hypotheses, the absolute frequencies of each of the responses in general and per question, as well as as the percentages that these frequencies represented of the total responses. The barriers found to the implementation of GIS were tabulated and the Pareto Diagram corresponding to them was drawn up.
The reliability of the scale was verified through Cronbach's Alpha (27) applied to the results of the survey carried out with the 10 experts on the Veracity of the hypotheses raised to evaluate the ADVANTAGES variable, obtaining the following result for this index.
In addition to responding quantitatively to the aspects presented in the survey, the specialists were asked to express their criteria on the aspects evaluated, with a view to having a broader qualitative information on the subject discussed.
Chapter 3 Potential Advantages and Feasibility of GIS Implementation
Tables 1 to 3 show the general results obtained from the answers given by the specialists surveyed for the hypotheses made regarding the ADVANTAGES variable, with respect to its veracity, the feasibility of its application in organizations and the time expected of its materialization. It is observed that in 88.5% of the responses the hypotheses raised are considered to be totally true and practically in 100% a total or high degree of veracity is considered (Table 1). In 50.7% of the responses, in general, it is considered that the hypotheses are applicable in organizations of any sector of production and services, in 30,3% that there is a real possibility that the hypothesis could be applied in a large number of organizations and in 19% it is considered that there is some possibility that it will be applied (Table 2). Regarding the time horizon for the materialization of the hypotheses, the answers are mostly in the long term (50%) and the short term (47.3%), as shown in Table 3.
Table 1 General results on the veracity of the hypotheses raised
Table 2 General results on the feasibility of applying the hypotheses raised
Annex 3 includes the answers given by the three groups of specialists surveyed (experts, high-level specialist users and users mid-level specialists) for the ADVANTAGES variable in average value for each of the hypotheses. Table 4 shows a comparison of the general results of the three groups, noting that there are no significant differences between the results of the groups.
Table 3 General results on the moment in which the hypotheses may materialize
Table 4 General responses to the ADVANTAGES variable by groups of specialists
According to the opinions of the respondents, the aspects that affect the veracity are related to the real efficiency with which the activities are carried out in the organizations, which is directly influenced by the characteristics and training of the personnel involved. The agreement among all respondents (94%) was very high that with the implementation of integrated management systems "the competencies of the organization's staff are increased, individually and for teamwork", since no integration is possible by working in isolation and, on the contrary, this form of management allows all functional areas to exchange opinions and experiences, and learn about aspects of other technical activities that were previously only known to a particular area.Respondents recognize the need for senior management to continuously ensure vertical and horizontal communication between functions in order to adequately develop processes at the base and at all levels of the organization, integrating compliance with all requirements.
Respondents comment that the directorates do not give equal importance to all aspects of organizational performance and this causes them to work separately. This is also influenced by the fact that, although the rules have points in common, they are in themselves independent and it is not always possible to see and interpret them as a feasible system to integrate. In general, quality is seen as the aspect most directly related to the main result of the organization, not the environmental performance and the health and safety of the workers. On the other hand, the organizations already have their structures and functions established separately and it is interpreted that implementing an integrated management system would mean eliminating these structures, relocating and reducing personnel, aspects that are quite difficult to carry out in the state sector.However, it is not always necessary to break existing structures, but it is enough to change ways of thinking, which is sometimes no less difficult.
Regarding the feasibility of applying integrated management systems in Cuban organizations, many of the experts surveyed focused on the current possibilities of their application, given the development achieved in the country in the implementation of standardized management systems. Other experts, however, focused their analysis on the generic characteristics of management system standards that allow their application to any organization. Despite the differences in the interpretation of the variable, interesting conclusions can be drawn from the answers obtained. Most of the respondents consider that the application in organizations of the following hypotheses is totally feasible (see Annex 3):
• The implementation of a SIG improves the image of the organization before its clients, financiers, public authorities and society in general. (60.6%)
• The integration process eliminates redundancy in documentation, achieving greater consistency, ease of use and a reduction in documentation maintenance costs. (58.8%)
• The implementation of a SIG allows harmonizing and optimizing the best existing management practices in the different activities of the organization. (55.9%)
• Integrated internal and external audits are more complete and less expensive. (54.5%)
• GIS eliminate conflicts of responsibilities between functions, improving communication. (51.5%)
50% or more of those surveyed consider that the hypotheses that will have a materialization at least in the short term are the following:
• The integration process eliminates redundancy in the documentation, achieving greater coherence, ease of handling and a reduction in the documentation maintenance costs. (70.6%)
• The GIS facilitate the planning and execution of the strategic objectives of the organization through the implemented processes. (55.9%)
• SIGs allow satisfying the needs and expectations of all interested parties, including legal and regulatory requirements applicable to the organization, by fulfilling the functions and responsibilities at all levels. (56.1%)
• Integrated internal and external audits are more complete and less expensive. (54.5%)
• Human and financial resources are used more effectively and efficiently in a GIS, compared to the implementation of several systems in parallel. (54.1%)
• In IMS, the competencies of the organization's staff are increased, individually and for teamwork. (52.9%)
• GIS eliminate the conflicts of responsibilities between functions, improving communication. (51.5%)
• The reviews by the Management in a SIG help to understand the functioning of the organization as a whole, in its processes and interactions, optimizing and simplifying the decision-making process based on comprehensive data. (50.0%)
Documentation and its "excess" is one of the aspects that causes the most fear in organizations when implementing one or more management systems, however, considering the answers given by the respondents, regarding the veracity, feasibility and horizon time for its possible materialization in Cuban companies, the elimination of redundancy in documentation, is the greatest potential advantage that integration provides, with respect to the implementation of parallel systems.
Regarding the internal or external CONDITIONANTS that dictate the trend towards the integration of management systems, Table 5 shows the responses in frequencies of the respondents on the veracity and time of materialization of hypotheses 11 and 12 of the questionnaire. As can be seen in Table 5, most of the respondents (more than 70%) consider that both the internal development of organizations and external pressures promote the integration process of the different management systems, which has been favored with the appearance of the ISO 9000 2000 and ISO 19011 standards. However, this trend will not materialize immediately in organizations.
Table 5 Frequencies of the responses of the respondents to the hypothesis of the CONDITIONING variable
As a PREDICTION of the future, the respondents answered about what they considered should happen with the management system standards and certification processes (Table 6). Although there is a consensus on the integration of certification processes in the future (as long as they are requested by companies), it is not as broad when it comes to the integration of standards, since each of them specifies the requirements for a part of the management of the organization and, if there is an integrated standard, it would practically force the institutions to implement an equally integrated system, which is not the objective of the standards. The trend in this regard is more towards harmonization of common management requirements than towards integration of standards.
Table 6 Frequencies of the responses of the respondents about the veracity of the hypotheses of the PREDICTION variable
From the non-existence of integrated standards, the non-existence of a single certificate of conformity is inferred, since compliance with the requirements of each of the standards and certify it, although audits can be integrated. However, there are no integrated standards, if efforts have been made by some standardization bodies to provide guidelines for the integration process, as for example in Spain there is a Guide for the integration of management systems (28).
Once the responses of the surveyed sample as a whole had been analyzed, the responses given by the specialists by sector were analyzed (Table 7). There are no major differences between these general opinions, except that specialists belonging to the pharmaceutical and medical equipment sectors consider that the implementation of integrated management systems could materialize in the short term. It is noteworthy that these are highly regulated industries where, in general, there is a well-established culture of quality and compliance with regulations, so it is not surprising that it is in this sector that integration is considered most feasible and beneficial., with a view to consistently meeting the requirements established by all interested parties.
Table 7 General opinions on the hypotheses by sectors and the economy
Once the opinions on the ADVANTAGES provided by the GIS, the CONDITIONANTS and the PREDICTION of the future had been analyzed, it became known what barriers the existing specialists considered, making the GIS implementation process difficult (Figure 1). In general, the respondents considered that the greatest barriers to the implementation of GIS are cultural, with 49% of the responses (Table 8), understood as poor leadership and management capacity, ignorance of the subject and of the technical aspects related to quality, protection of the environment and prevention of occupational hazards, resistance to change and lack of motivation among staff to undertake new organizational challenges.
Table 8 General barriers to the implementation of GIS
Cultural barriers have a fundamental impact on those aspects of management related to communication between functions (Hypothesis 3) and decision-making based on the data that emanate from organizational performance in all its aspects (Hypothesis 8), especially in those organizations with excessively verticalized structures focused only on profits, without considering the internal customer, or the environmental impact of their activities (see Annex 4).
Figure 1 Pareto Diagram of Barriers for the implementation of GIS
In practice, organizations do not always have all the interested parties identified and, therefore, they are unaware of all the requirements to be met. Cultural barriers can only be overcome by impregnating the organization with the knowledge of the need for the implementation of integrated management systems, showing the benefits for all interested parties, which cannot remain only in the intention, but must be objective and palpable for all.
In general, it is argued by experts that those entities that already have a management system in place are better able to establish an integrated system, due to the fact that there is more certain leadership, a greater culture of management systems among the workers and an organizational and documentary base already created, which can be modified to integrate the rest of the systems. Commonly, the greatest development in organizations is in quality management systems, not in environmental management or health and safety at work.
Economic barriers were considered second in importance with 21.4%, due to the fact that compliance with some requirements required by the regulations may lead to the need for investments in new technologies, which not all organizations can face. Resources are also needed to provide the necessary training. Existing regulations (laws, regulations, etc.) in many cases do not favor the integration of systems. In fact, business enhancement maintains the separation between systems. Organizations need to carry out identification work of all applicable regulatory requirements, including legal ones, and plan a system that covers compliance with each and every one of them.
When separately analyzing the answers given by the Experts and the Users (Table 9), it was found that the three groups coincide in their appreciation that the main existing barriers to the implementation of GIS are cultural.
Table 9 Barriers to the implementation of the GIS identified by the groups of specialists
Conclusions
A survey was carried out to evaluate the feasibility of the implementation of Integrated Management Systems in Cuban companies, through a survey carried out to a group of specialists in the topic.
Although the hypotheses raised as advantages of GIS are considered by the respondents to be mostly totally or highly true, only half of them consider that they are applicable in organizations of any sector of production and services, currently.
Regarding the time horizon for the materialization of the hypotheses, only 3% considered it immediate.
The elimination of redundancy in the documentation is the greatest potential advantage that the integration provides, with respect to the implementation of parallel systems, according to the study carried out.
It is considered that both the internal development of organizations and external pressures promote the integration process, which has been favored with the appearance of the ISO 9000 2000 standards.
The greatest barriers to the implementation of GIS are considered to be cultural, understood as deficient leadership and management capacity, ignorance of the subject, lack of motivation, resistance to change, etc.
Economic barriers were considered in second place in importance with 22%, in response to the need to make investments in some companies to achieve compliance with the requirements established in international management standards.
No major differences were found in the responses of specialists from different sectors of the economy, except that specialists from the pharmaceutical and medical equipment sectors consider that the implementation of integrated management systems could materialize in the short term.
Bibliographic References
1. Fernández Hatre A. Integrated management systems. Quality. Environmental management. Prevention of occupational hazards. Ed. Institute of Economic Development of the Principality of Asturias, 170 pages. 2003.
2. Meizoso Valdés MC, Guerra Brittany RM The Integration of Management Systems in the Medical Equipment Sector. Memories X Scientific-Technical Conference TECBIOMED 2005, Havana City April 25 to 29, 2005. Publication in electronic format.
3. Sola Hermida A. Implementation and certification of quality systems, environmental management, safety and health at work in the Cayo Coco Diesel Electric Power Plant. Systems integration. Memories 6. International Symposium on Quality CALIDAD´2006, Nov 28-30, 2006, Havana. Publication in electronic format ISBN 959-282-037-6.
4. González G, Gatel M., Abascal B., Díaz O., López L., Tamayo K. Integration of the management systems of quality, environment and safety and health at work in DCH. Memories 6. International Symposium on Quality CALIDAD´2006, Nov 28-30, 2006, Havana. Publication in electronic format ISBN 959-282-037-6.
5. Guerra Brittany RM, Meizoso Valdés MC Integration of Internal Control to the Management System. Experiences of the Center for Biomaterials. Standardization 2007 (in press).
6. Hernández M. Integration of the Environmental Management System to the Quality Management System. Rev. Normalization 2004, 2-3: 17-21.
7. Guerra Brittany RM, Meizoso Valdes MC, Mishina A. Documentation in an integrated quality and environmental system. Rev. Normalization 2004, 2-3: 37-41.
8. Cuendias de Armas J, Suárez Palou H. Development of Integrated Quality and Environmental Management Systems. Rev. Normalization 2006, 2: 5-10.
9. Urquiaga Mergarejo I. Integration of the SGSST and the EMS. Roundtable on Integration of Management Systems. CEINPET Scientific and Quality Event, September 6-7, 2006.
10. Godoy del Pozo L, Manresa González RG, Urquiaga Mergarejo I. Integrated evaluation methodology of environmental aspects and occupational risks. October. Available at: http://www.gestiopolis.com/canales7/rrhh/ evaluacion-de-aspects-environmental-and-risks-labor.htm.
11. ZutshiA, Sohal A S. Integrated management system. The experiences of three Australian organizations. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 2005, 16 (2): 211-232.
12. Rubio Romero JC, López Toro A. and Nebro Mellado JJ Integrated Management Systems… Estrucplan On line 1/1/2000. Revised October / 2004. Available at: http://www.estrucplan.com.ar/articulos/verarticulo.asp?IDArticulo=363.
13. Madrigal JB. Integrated Management Systems Myth Or Reality? Rev. Normalization 2001, 12-11-16.
14. Omelchuk J. Different approaches to integrating management systems. ISO Management Systems. Rev. Int of the ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 Standards (Spanish Ed.) 2005. 5 (3): 32-34. http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=1185942.
15. Gárciga Fernández MJ, Ayala Avila I. Integrated Systems in pursuit of efficiency. Rev Normalization 2001, 3: 25-33.
16. Orbea Celaya T. UNE 66177: Guide for systems integration. UNE: AENOR monthly bulletin 2005, 195: 18-20.
17. Roser Hernández I. Guide to Corporate Social Responsibility for SMEs. Ed. Observatory of Corporate Social Responsibility and El Monte Foundation. Spain. 2005.
18. Froman B. From the quality manual to the management manual. The strategic tool. Ed. AENOR, 2003.
19. Jonker J, Karapetrovic S. Systems thinking for the integration of management systems. Business Process Management Journal 2004, 10 (6): 608-615.
20. Karapetrovic S. and Willborn W. Integration of quality and environmental management systems. TQM Magazine 1998, 10 (3): 204-213.
21. Karapetrovic S. Strategies for the integration of management systems and standards. TQM Magazine 2002, 14 (1): 61-67.
22. Beckmerhagen IA, Berg HP, Karapetrovic SV, Willborn WO Integration of management systems: focus on safety in the nuclear industry. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 2003, 20 (2): 210-228.
23. Beckmerhagen IA, Berg HP, Karapetrovic SV, Willborn WO Auditing in support of the integration of management systems: a case from the nuclear industry. Managerial Auditing Journal 2003, 6/18/7: 560-568.
24. Omelchuk J. Whether to Integrate ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and ISO 18001. 03/11/2005 Revised Sep. 2007. Available at: http://www.qmi.com/information_center/ newsletter / default.asp? ArticleID = 8582 & language = english.
25. Mackau D. SME integrated management system: a proposed experiences model. The TQM Magazine 2003, 15 (1): 43-51.
26. Lamber CJ, Sharp JM, Castka P. Third party assessment: the role of the maintenance function in an integrated management system. Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering 2004, 10 (1): 26-36.
27. Solís Corvo M, Espallargas Ibarra D. Basic statistical techniques applied to quality management in organizations. Notes for the Quality in Organizations Course, in the 1st Edition of the Master's Program in Quality and Environmental Management, January 2006, University of Havana.
28. UNE 66177: 2005 Management systems. Guide for the integration of management systems.
