Possibilities for Better Management System Standards

  • Henk J. de Vries


This chapter describes a method to improve the process of creating standards for management systems (MSs). It is demonstrated that by using the method, the quality of these standards can be improved: standards for quality management, environmental management, and occupational health and safety (OHS) management can resemble each other closer and can be more compatible with company practice.


Quality Management Environmental Management System Quality Management System Business Process Model Standardization Committee 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 2.
    The present writer supervised this project. It was carried out by consultants of NEHEM Consulting Group and the Dutch Institute for Working Environment, NIA (Van Hezik & Zwetsloot, 1994).Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Restrictions in replacing a standard by a new one due to the installed base of standards applications have been described by Farrell and Saloner (1986), Kindleberger (1983), and Liebowitz and Margolis (1990), see Section 12.2.Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    In retrospect, this was the case, starting with BS 7750, but also using other national standards.Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    For information on value analysis, Gelderloos (1992), 0llner (1974, pp. 74–85), and Ridge (1969) were used. The elements of value analysis related to costs have not been used in this case.Google Scholar
  5. 6.
    This first was done by Susanto (1988).Google Scholar
  6. 7.
    Schacht (1991, pp. 22–25) and Susanto (1988, pp. 32–38, 50–62) also use standards’ functions; see Sections 13.7 and 13.6.Google Scholar
  7. 8.
    Each party mentioned may have its own wishes concerning the contents of standards, possibly differing per MS area. The contents, however, are only of indirect interest to these parties.Google Scholar
  8. 9.
    In the research project these defimitions were taken from ISO 8402 (ISO, 1986), Tweede Kamer (1989), and Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (1993), being the most commonly accepted definitions for the three management systems areas at that moment in the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  9. 10.
    The Deming circle is a tool for continuous improvements. It is a discipline for problem solving and learning from mistakes. The Deming circle includes 1) “Plan”: set objectives and agree on action; 2) “Do”: implement the action plan; 3) “Check” or “Study”: review actions and results; 4) “Act”: assure the process or take corrective action. To continue improvements, “Plan” follows again, etc.Google Scholar
  10. 11.
    The research report (Van Hezik & Zwetsloot, 1994) explains how this model fulfills all functions mentioned above plus the secondary functions that are not mentioned here in order to limit the length of this contribution.Google Scholar
  11. 12.
    Activities, products, services, and corresponding effects can be different in the areas quality, environment, and OHS. Such differences would appear at a 5th level of detail.Google Scholar
  12. 13.
    “Publicly available” is related to internal and external communication. Here differences between quality, environment and OHS apply. In quality management, internal communication is directed to the employees and external communication primarily to customers. In environmental management, internal communication concerns the employees; the company communicates externally with, among others, the government, people living in the neighbourhood, and customers. In the OHS area, communication is primary employee-oriented.Google Scholar
  13. 14.
    Quality: ISO 9001 (ISO, 1987); environment: BS 7750 (BSI, 1992), ISO/IEC/SAGE SG1 N55 (ISO/IECStrategicAdvisory Group on theEnvironment / Sub-Group 1 EnvironmentalManagementSystems, 1993), EMAS (EuropeanCommission, 1993); OHS: Pubikatieblad 190 (Ministerie van SocialeZaken enWerkgelegenheid /Arbeidsinspectie); see the frame in Section 10.2.Google Scholar
  14. 15.
    At least the Dutch expert in WG 11 did not link the research results with his input in WG 11.Google Scholar
  15. 16.
    Heida et al. (1997), for instance, offer such elucidation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henk J. de Vries
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Rotterdam School of ManagementErasmus University RotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Nederlands Normalisatie InstituutDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations