Meta‐management of integration of management systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The realm of standardized management systems (MSs) has expanded greatly over the last two decades. This expansion has highlighted the need for structured approaches to facilitate the integration of these systems. The purpose of this paper is to explore the integration of standardized MSs through a meta‐management approach. Design/methodology/approach An extensive survey of literature was carried out. Based on the literature review, a comprehensive framework was developed to guide the integration of standardized MSs. The framework is based on the “direction‐consistency‐coherence‐feedback” cycle. Findings A critical review of existing models and methodologies for the integration of standardized MSs highlighted the need for a systems‐oriented approach to integration based on stakeholder needs. The review further highlighted that the integration of MSs must be carried out at the meta‐level of organisational control. This focuses integration efforts on a higher level of abstraction, logic, and inquiry than is typically the case in efforts focused at the intervention or modeling level. Practical implications The framework will be of interest to both researchers and practitioners in the integration of standardized MSs because it provides a systematic way for addressing various stakeholder requirements. It describes how organisations could handle integration at various organisational levels and how an infrastructure for continuous improvement could be established. Originality/value The paper makes several contributions. It presents a unique approach to integration that has not been addressed in previous publications. The paper elaborates how to carry out integration of standardized MSs and how to develop a business management system for the whole organisation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.042 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".