Evaluation of the integration level of quality and environmental management systems in a tire manufacturer
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 This article aims to evaluate the integration level of a quality management system (QMS) and an environmental management system (EMS) in a tire manufacturer and propose a guide to evaluate the integration of these systems in companies. Design/methodology/approach The methodological strategies used in this research were literature review; and case study, with interviews to verify professionals' perception about benefits from integration. Data from interviews were analyzed through Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS). Findings The results showed that the studied company has a simple level of integration, observing only some low intensity benefits. Thus, it was recommended that the company partially integrate its management systems (MSs) before evolving into something more complex. The literature and the findings of case study were used as basis for proposing a guide to evaluate MS integration. Originality/value Lessons learned throughout the study and the suggested guide can support other companies to assess the integration level of their QMS and EMS. Thus, the findings presented here can be useful for researchers and managers.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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