Synergies in standardized management systems: some empirical evidence
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Management system standards (MSSs) have spread in an unprecedented manner in the last few years. Thus, there are now many companies that rely on more than one such standard to establish the criteria for organizational management systems (MSs). The objective of this article is to analyze the existence of possible synergies in the application of a wide range of MSSs through an examination of the benefits obtained from the implementation of one particular MSS, namely ISO 9001. Design/methodology/approach The starting point is a set of results from an empirical survey of more than 500 Spanish companies. Specifically, the differences between the benefits recognized by companies implementing a single MSS, namely ISO 9001:2000 for quality MSs, and those that implemented a second standard, in this case ISO 14001:2004 for environmental MSs, are discussed. An additional comparison is made between those organizations that have integrated the two MSSs into a single MS and those organizations that have developed separate quality and environmental MSs. Findings The results show that organizations with multiple MSSs actually perceive more benefits from the implementation of ISO 9001 than those that implemented that standard only. Furthermore, organizations with integrated management systems (IMSs) also report higher levels of ISO 9001 benefits compared to those organizations with the ISO 9001 certificate only, but generally not when compared to their counterparts with separate standardized MSs. Originality/value Relatively little is known about the synergies yielded by the use of multiple MSSs or by integrating standardized MSs in organizations. Using the benefits obtained from the implementation of ISO 9001 as a measure, this paper contributes empirical results from a large number of organizations to the study of both of these issues. Therefore, it is of value to researchers and practitioners in quality, environmental, safety, security and other such MSs, but also specifically in the area of IMSs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it