Integrated systems

In this section we will see the management systems that the companies surveyed have implemented, as well as the year in which they have been implemented.

But before that, it should be mentioned that the options that were offered to companies as answers were:

ISO 9001; ISO 14001; OHSAS 18001; UNE 166002; ISO 31000; SIX SIGMA; LEAN y KAIZEN, since it is a closed-ended questionnaire. These methods were chosen as options for two reasons: because, as

118

mentioned above, they are the systematic ones most used by the companies and because they are methodologies used in the doctoral thesis of this article.

Figure 1 –Integrated systems. Source: Own preparation

As can be seen in the Figure 1, the most implemented methodologies were ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, 97.06% and 91.18%, respectively. There are also companies, a 26.47% in particular, that have decided to implement others systems different from those mentioned in the questionnaire, among which we can highlight ISO-TS 16949, which is the Quality Management System in the Automotive Sector, or ISO 22000, which is the Management System to ensure the safety of food.

This can be translated as a growing interest of the companies to reach the maximum quality, since all the systems that stand out have direct relation with the quality. And a great concern in to respect the environment and comply with current regulations.

On the other hand we can see in the Figure 1 that the least implemented methodologies have been ISO 31000; Kaizen and Six Sigma, specifically Kaizen and Six Sigma, have only been implemented by 7.35%, while the ISO 31000 "Principles and guidelines for risk management" has not been implemented by any of the companies, but this does not mean that they are less beneficial or effective than other systematic ones, they are simply less known than the others, simply they are less known than the others because they are relatively new systems.

Regarding the year of implementation, it should be explained that the options offered to respondents were groups of 5 years ranging from 2000 to 2016, since it is the last year from which we can extract information.

119

Table 2 Year of implementation. Source: Own preparation

< 2000 2000-2005 2006-2011 2012-2016

ISO 9001 39.71% 38.24% 10.29% 8.82%

UNE-ISO 31000 0 0 0 0

LEAN 0 1.47% 2.94% 8.82%

KAIZEN 0 2.94% 1.47% 2.94%

ISO 14001 5.88% 33.82% 30.88% 20.59%

UNE 166002 0 2.94% 4.41% 2.94%

OSHAS 18001 0 5.88% 10.29% 7.35%

SIX SIGMA 0 1.47% 2.94% 2.94%

As can be seen in Table 2, the most implemented systems were integrated during the years 2000 and 2005, because it is at that time when they have more height because it is in that years when the market became more competitive and the companies decided to implement management systems to differentiate themselves from the rest.

However, with the passage of the years have been decreasing the implementations of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 to create and implement other management systems, as is the case of OSHAS 18001 or Lean Manufacturing and like this they improve other aspects of the organization.

4.2 Implementation

In this section we will see the duration of the implementation of the systems that have been implemented by the companies, as well as the methodologies and the integration plan that they used.

As for the duration of implementation, the options available to respondents in the questionnaire were less than 1 year; between 1 and 2 years; between 2 and 3 years; between 3 and 4 years; between 4 and 5 years and more than 5 years.

120

Figure 2 – Duration of implementation. Source: Own preparation

As can be seen in Figure 2, 63.24% of the companies responded that the duration of implementation of some of their methodologies lasted between 1 and 2 years, while 27.94% companies replied that the duration of implementation of some of their systems lasted less than 1 year.

The duration of implementation that less marked the companies as a response was the duration that oscillates between 4 and 5 years, 2.94%, since most of them established as maximum time of 2 years, because they think that after 2 years, the implementation will be very costly.

With regard to the question "What methodology was used for the design of the Integrated System?", The options that were presented in the questionnaire as answers were "Based on the definition of the organization's process map"; "An analysis of the common elements of the standards"; "An organization’s own model"; "The PDCA Cycle for all the process of the integrated system" and " UNE 66177 standard"

since they are the methodologies that were extracted from the state of the art.

121

Figure 3 – Methodology is used for the design of the Integrated System. Source: Own preparation

Of these options, the most used by the companies is the option of “Based on the definition of the organization's process map ", with a total of 51% of the organizations that answered the questionnaire (Figure 3).

The second most used option is "An analysis of the common elements of the standards", which was chosen by 43% (Figure 3).

While the least used by companies for the design of their system is "Based on the standard UNE 66177", a total of 8.82% (Figure 3).

Among other things, this is due to the fact that it is easier for companies to implement an integrated system made to measure and with elements common to each other.

Moreover, to implement management systems or models, 75% of the companies that responded to the questionnaire used an integration plan to perform the implementation.

In this plan, some of the elements included are: “Cost and profitability or estimated benefits of integration”;

“Resources needed to develop integration at each level” and “Degree of compliance with the requirements of the different management systems implemented and the degree of compliance expected with the integration”, among others elements that may affect the implementation of the system.