Content uploaded by Muhammad Ikram
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Muhammad Ikram on Nov 26, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Developing integrated management systems using an AHP-
Fuzzy VIKOR approach
Muhammad Ikram
1
| Qingyu Zhang
1
| Robert Sroufe
2
1
College of Management, Research Institute of
Business Analytics and Supply Chain
Management, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen,
China
2
Donahue Graduate School of Business,
Duquesne University, Pittsburg, PA, USA
Correspondence
Qingyu Zhang, Research Institute of Business
Analytics & Supply Chain Management College
of Management, Shenzhen University, 3688
Nanhai Boulevard, Nanshan, Shenzhen,
Guangdong Province 518060, China.
Email: q.yu.zhang@gmail.com
Funding information
National Natural Science Foundation of China,
Grant/Award Number: 71572115; Major
Program of Social Science Foundation of
Guangdong, Grant/Award Number:
2016WZDXM005; Natural Science
Foundationof SZU, Grant/Award Number: 836
Abstract
Integrated management systems (IMSs) involve a strategy to manage multiple sys-
tems while meeting the needs and expectations of stakeholders. There are various
management standards used for the development of IMS. This study aims to under-
take research focused on how to develop an IMS. In this context, management stan-
dards, including the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and Global
Reporting Initiatives (GRI), consider alternatives and integration potential at multiple
levels (i.e., strategic, tactical, and operational). We assess criteria including continuous
improvement, systematic management, integration, organizational learning, standard-
ization, and ability to cut through bureaucracy before a deeper dive into 28 sub-
criteria. We then use an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) approach to prioritize the
main criteria and subcriteria. Next, we include the use of fuzzy VlseKriterijuska
Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (F-VIKOR) methods to prioritize alternatives.
The contributions of this study reveal that systematic management and standardiza-
tion are the most influencing criteria among six guiding principles. The ISO standard
and GRI are the most suitable standards for the development of dynamic IMS. This
study is the first of its kind to prioritize guiding principles of IMS. The outcomes of
this study will assist business managers, organizations, and policymakers in their deci-
sion making regarding management standards for IMS development as well as
improve sustainable business practices. Researchers will find new IMS insights and
constructs for further empirical investigation.
KEYWORDS
analytical hierarchy process, fuzzy VIKOR, guiding principles, IMS, integrated management
system
1|INTRODUCTION
Organizations operate in conditions characterized by permanent tech-
nological progress, competitiveness, and limited resources, all while
staying on top of the changing needs of the consumer market. Given
this, there is an immediate need for systems to help manage constant
changes in the management and operation of these companies so that
they can adjust to these evolving environments while remaining com-
petitive. To evolve, it is necessary for businesses to meet the require-
ments of their customers who expect continuous improvements in
the quality and price of products and services (Nunhes, Bernardo, &
Oliveira, 2019).
It is also beneficial for companies to satisfy the demands of stake-
holders who expect the organizations to be committed to the
environment, social sustainability, and ethics (Chang & Yu, 2001;
Freeman, 1984). These stakeholders encourage participation in pro-
jects and promote the integration of management systems (MSs) that
enable organizations to stand out in the marketplace. To meet stake-
holder requirements and compete in the market, it is necessary for
companies to implement dynamic MSs. Contemporary systems
Received: 9 January 2020 Revised: 22 February 2020 Accepted: 17 March 2020
DOI: 10.1002/bse.2501
Bus Strat Env. 2020;1–19. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bse © 2020 ERP Environment and John Wiley & Sons Ltd 1
typically include occupational health and safety MSs (OHSMS), envi-
ronmental MSs (EMSs), quality MSs (QMS), and corporate social
responsibility MS (CSRMS; Ikram, Sroufe, Rehman, Shah, &
Mahmoudi, 2019).
Considering all of the information these systems integrate,
management to a large extent becomes more complex because of
the increasing number of measures available across functions. This,
in turn, can cause difficulties in system implementation and control,
high costs, unreasonable obstacles from bureaucracy, and so
on. Taking into account the similar structure of business systems,
integrated MSs (IMS) appear to be an appropriate strategy for
managing the complex and diverse expectations and demands of
stakeholders (Sroufe, 2017). The IMS functions or elements that
can be found in different systems (OHSMS, CSRMS, QMS, and
EMS) can be integrated gradually to provide better management,
that is, that saves time and resources and diminishes efforts by
eliminating duplicate documentation, duties, and other administra-
tive efforts (Gianni, Gotzamani, & Tsiotras, 2017).
It was claimed that in 2017 that about 1,556,758 certificates
of all kinds all over the world were managed by the International
Organization for Standardization (ISO). It was also reported that
1,058,504 of them were related to ISO 9001; 362,610 were
related to ISO 14001; and 76,251 were related to Occupational
Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) 18001 in 2017
(Ikram et al., 2019). When you integrate more than one system, it
becomes an IMS. Such systems can be disruptive and complicated
to operate, and they include employees that are forced to make
choices about processes and possible excessive administration gen-
erated by the system itself. To this end, employee cooperation can
be easier to implement for one system than for two or more sys-
tems that are operated independently. When overcoming these
obstacles, the synergy produced by integration has led to an
enhanced performance at significantly lower costs for organizations
(Vukši
c, Bach, & Popovicˇ, 2013).
The integration of certified MSs can take place through the
expansion of IMS. IMS seeks to take the benefits of synergies and
its components to enable benefits to be widespread to other sys-
tems so that they work together (Rebelo, Santos, & Silva, 2016).
This cooperation will increase benefits such as process time reduc-
tion, human efforts, and the amount of economic and technical
resources required. To do this, the IMS needs to be in line
with the structure and culture of the organization, be included in
its strategy, and be associated with other business functions
(Bernardo, Gianni, Gotzamani, & Simon, 2017). Studies on IMS
have largely covered approaches to combine the knowledge gained
over the past two decades. It was claimed by Domingues, Sampaio,
and Arezes (2016)) that the analysis of successful cases, progress,
and further investigation is very important in order to promote
benchmarking and therefore to make possible the building of stable
foundations for the advancement of the IMS field of research.
Prior work has looked at maturity levels, a theoretical summary of
IMS research, its evolution, and possibilities for future analysis.
Prior reviews of the literature have distinguished the benefits and
difficulties of IMS and its empirical analysis in terms of organiza-
tions located in various countries and from different areas.
In doing this, we also need to unpack the multiple criteria avail-
able to managers when making decisions about the development of
IMS. For this, we can use the analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
methods to calculate the weights of the elements (dimensions,
criteria, and indicators), and with the help of fuzzy VlseKriterijuska
Optimizacija I Komoromisno Resenje (F-VIKOR), we can take this a
step further to obtain the final rankings of alternatives closest to
an ideal solution. Some of the advantages of using techniques for
F-VIKOR methods include simplicity, rational, comprehensibility, and
good computational efficiency with the ability to measure the rela-
tive performance for alternatives in a simple mathematical form.
The contributions of a study such as this start with providing
new insights regarding ISO standards and GRI as we assess the
extent to which they are the most suitable standards for the devel-
opment of dynamic IMS. We see the AHP results as a foundation
for understanding important and less important criteria for decision
makers and researchers as we uncover new insights that include
meaningful subcriteria. Additional contributions come from the
application of an F-VIKOR method as this can help extend prior
findings and help prioritize the best alternatives to enhance and val-
idate the consistency of results.
From the literature, it is possible to describe basic elements and
factors that provide a starting point for researches and critical factors
for success. We build on the literature in this study while producing a
list of metrics and indicators that are important to IMSs. It is worth
noting that there is a gap in the literature regarding the choice and
definition of the development of IMS as we believe this has not been
adequately investigated. Thus, the primary research questions
addressed in this study is what are the most important criteria, that is,
guiding principles, for an IMS and how can they be prioritized in a way
that adds value for both practitioners and researchers? In the follow-
ing sections of this study, we review the literature. In the context of
this literature review, six guiding principal criteria and 28 subcriteria
were received from the review of the literature. We then review the
research methods. Here, we applied AHP as a technique to allocate
weights to both criteria and subcriteria, utilizing a matrix of pairwise
comparisons and has been used in similar ways in prior research
(Handfield, Walton, Sroufe, & Melnyk, 2002). Building on AHP, the
VIKOR method is used for the classification of the priorities of various
alternatives. This method has been criticized for ignoring hesitancies
and uncertainties. To alleviate this disadvantage, fuzzy set theory,
which helps consider uncertainties, was supplemented with this
VIKOR method.
In this study, we attempt to evaluate the development of IMS
on the basis of a set of guiding principles as well as subindicators
utilizing a multicriteria decision-making approach (MCDM). We then
add F-VIKOR and F-AHP to help understand the prioritize outcomes
of the study and to strengthen our methodological approach to
assessing IMS. Later sections present the results and relevant dis-
cussion. Finally, we draw conclusions and offer options for further
analysis and research.
2IKRAM ET AL.
2|LITERATURE REVIEW
IMSs connect programs, processes, and people through sharing data,
human and financial resources, and infrastructure so as to fulfill the
requirements of various stakeholders (Souza & Alves, 2018). Stake-
holder theory argues that the interconnected relationships between
businesses and its stakeholder should create value for all of them
(Freeman, 1984). Here, we see systems connecting and adding value
to stakeholders in dynamic ways. Prior research has examined how
elements of MSs affect one another. In this way, the separate
improvement of the system is a suboptimization whenever assessed
from an overall systems managerial viewpoint. Thus, it is important to
reexamine the integration of an MS's focus as per these different
needs help develop a fundamental methodology for IMS sustained by
top management using the addition of integrated components in the
asset allocation process, in the advancement of firm's culture, in stra-
tegic planning, and in the mutual planning and the management of key
procedures.
As indicated by Mežinska, Lapin¸a, and Mazais (2015), IMS is
essential to accomplish the targets in a combined approach,
diminishing the odds of having a myopic functional and confined
methodology. A myopic approach can hinder the integration and
improvement of the IMS. Standardization guarantees the solidarity of
the IMS and is upheld by the basic structure of the different MS
standards. These standards offer key ideas that encourage the execu-
tion and integration of other mechanisms. The integration manage-
ment components help makes the system resilient (Finnegan &
Currie, 2010). The components and capacities typically integrated are
manuals, approaches, targets and objectives, structure and duties, top
management, work guidelines, archive and record control, training,
inward correspondence, crisis reaction, execution and control of mon-
itoring, nonconformity management and estimating, preventive and
restorative activities, inside and outside audits, and critical analysis.
Different activities and tasks that are unrealistic to be integrated
ought to be, at whatever point conceivable, reshape in such a way
that they change collaboratively with integrated components and
capacities (Loorbach, van Bakel, Whiteman, & Rotmans, 2009).
In the last decade, researchers have considered multiple ways of
dealing with IMS. For example, assessment of motivation, advantages,
and pitfall of integration; and the portrayal of the integration levels,
integration of audits, integration process and models, along with guid-
ance for the integration process (Kurdve, Zackrisson, Wiktorsson, &
Harlin, 2014). The advantages of integration are broadly seen as IMSs
incorporate the improvement of firms productivity (decrease redun-
dancies of tasks, human endeavors, time, etc.), progress of inward
correspondence, organization image for external advantages, competi-
tiveness, along with decreasing costs of managing each system inde-
pendently (Arda, Bayraktar, & Tatoglu, 2018). The pitfalls related to
the integration process include the increment in management cost,
experiencing social incompatibility, and the multifaceted nature of
internal management.
Although we know integration is important, characterization of
the integration procedure has four principle perspectives: integration
level (i.e., the degree accomplished by the IMS), audit mechanism
(i.e., inside and outside integrated level of audits), system integration
(i.e., models or mechanisms utilized), and integration technique (the
number and usage sequencing of MSs chosen to integrate). This sys-
tem integration can be attained with respect to a number of levels,
assets, and strategies (Samaranayake & Toncich, 2007). Regardless of
the distinction, we find that there are between levels of integration
approaches; categorized into three levels of IMS integration. The inte-
gration levels include addition (frameworks for quality, system
domain, etc. that are supervised in a different way, i.e., utilizing indi-
vidual reports, and we try to make this comparable), coalition (work
guidelines that are completely incorporated), and integration (organi-
zations can build a nonexclusive MS as their general system and incor-
porate every system in it).
Similarly, Simon, Karapetrovic, and Casadesus (2012) portray a
three-level model in correspondence (interior coordination), conven-
tional (comprehension of nonexclusive procedures and errands in the
management process cycle), and integration (strengthening the culture
of consistent improvement, learning, and partner support). The inte-
gration of auditing is considered a basic way of strengthening the con-
nection between MSs and can be characterized in multiple
dimensions.
Integration audits, that is, ISO 19011:2018, give direction on this
process that is appropriate to all firms that need an audit system or to
develop an audit management program. Contrasting this with previ-
ously published versions (ISO 19001:2015), the revised version con-
siders a more extensive approach to MS evaluation, including a way
to deal with “consolidated/combined audits”when at least two MSs
are audited simultaneously, as in IMSs. ISO 19011:2015 has favored
the development of IMS and is helpful to the system integration pro-
cess. Integration includes the sequence in which the systems are com-
bined. Past studies show two potential methods for this: sequential
integration, which first bases this on quality and afterward
executes the integration of different systems; or synchronous integra-
tion, where the integration of all systems happens together
(Salomone, 2008).
Different sets of guidelines for the integration of MSs have been
developed in the IMS literature to assist firms in dealing with the inte-
gration process. Labodová (2004) has noted many differences in pro-
posed guidelines and called for a worldwide standard for integrated
adoption. From what we can find in our review of the literature,
few models are dependent on the plan–do–check–act (PDCA)
procedure/approaches (Sokovic, Pavletic, & Pipan, 2010) and high-
level ISO structures. The ISO introduced a new high-level structure
(HLS) within its standards. This HLS is partitioned into 10 parts that
plan to enhance the incorporation of ISO family management stan-
dards (ISO/International Electrotechnical Commission [IEC] 2016).
The HLS is presented in the ISO standards that have had updates
starting in 2015, which include ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, and ISO
45001 issued in 2018.
The adoption of new standards and methods to deal with modi-
fied ISO standards is a significant focus of importance to manage-
ment. The revised ISO standards try to take into account the
IKRAM ET AL.3
significance of risk-based thinking, interested parties, change control,
strategic direction, knowledge management, and leadership. ISO has
additionally introduced some important initiatives with regard to IMS,
as the issuance of the ISO guidelines provides different techniques,
tools, and practices to specifically develop IMS since 2015. In recent
years, this includes the issuance of the HLS. This HLS exhibits the
ISO's Annex SL, characterized as a systematic standard that intends to
promote overlap between the different management standards sys-
tems and encourage their integration and utility by certified organiza-
tions. Both ISO 9001:2015 (QMS) and 14001:2015 (EMS) were
reviewed on the basis of Annex SL guidelines (Bernardo, 2014). In
Table 1, we can see the types of approaches/methods used in prior
IMS studies. To the best of our knowledge, none of these studies used
AHP and F-VIKOR methods to prioritize the guiding principles in
developing an IMS.
Various decision criteria can be considered when developing
an IMS. These criteria can help it to become a significant and effi-
cient MS and improve sustainable business practices. We devel-
oped the decision criteria for IMS development for this study from
the literature and then checked with experts to help confirm their
validity. The main guiding criteria include integration (at strategic,
tactical, and operational levels), continuous improvement,
systematic management, reducing bureaucracy, standardization, and
organizational learning are all viable. Each of these criteria have a
total of 28 subcriteria. When summarizing the literature, Table 2
presents the decision criteria and subcriteria for the development
of an IMS.
3|RESEARCH METHODS
For the purpose of this study, we find AHP and fuzzy VIKOR methods
as the best approach to extend prior work in the field and to choose
the optimal management standards for IMS. Figure 1 represents the
research framework guiding this study in which AHP is used as an ini-
tial developmental level of analysis that is then complemented with
the help of experts to calculate the weights of the main guiding princi-
ples and the subcriteria for the pairwise comparison matrix. Next, a
fuzzy VIKOR method is used to determine the optimal solution of IMS
development on the basis of the available management standards. To
take researchers through our process of analysis and to try and pro-
vide a thorough context for our work, we next provide a detailed
description of the AHP and fuzzy VIKOR methods employed in this
study.
TABLE 1 Methods used in integrated management system (IMS) studies
Number IMS research conducted Methods Year Reference
01 IMS: Three Different Levels of Integration Qualitative
study
2006 (Jørgensen, Remmen, & Dolores Mellado, 2006)
02 Synergies in Standardized Management Systems: Some
Empirical Evidence
Survey study 2011 (Casadesús, Karapetrovic, & Heras, 2011)
03 IMS: Experience of Indian Manufacturing organizations, Key
Findings
Survey study 2010 (Khanna, Laroiya, & Sharma, 2010)
04 IMS Guiding Principles Review study 2019 (Nunhes et al., 2019)
05 Trends of IMS Survey study 2017 (Ribeiro, Santos, Ferreira Rebelo, & Silva, 2017)
06 Assessment of IMS: A Maturity Model Proposal Survey study 2016 1 Domingues et al. (2016)
07 IMS and Sustainability Performance Qualitative
study
2017 (Gianni et al., 2017)
08 Identification and Analysis of the Elements and Functions
Integrable in Integrated Management Systems
Qualitative
study
2017 (Nunhes, Motta Barbosa, & de Oliveira, 2017)
09 Lean-Integrated Management System: A Model for
Sustainability Improvement
Qualitative
study
2018 (Souza & Alves, 2018)
10 Do Integration Difficulties Influence Management System
Integration Levels
SEM 2012 (Bernardo, Casadesus, Karapetrovic, &
Heras, 2012)
11 Resources for Integrated Management Systems Within
Resource-Based and Contingency Perspective
SEM 2015 (Savino & Batbaatar, 2015)
12 An Integrated Management Systems Approach to Corporate
Social Responsibility
Qualitative
study
2013 (Asif, Searcy, Zutshi, & Fisscher, 2013)
13 Integration and Organizational Change Towards
Sustainability
Survey study 2017 (Sroufe, 2017)
14 IMS Towards Sustainable and Socially Responsible Firms Survey study 2015 (Mežinska et al., 2015)
15 Integration of Quality and Environmental Management
Practices Affect Firm Performance? Mediating Roles of
Quality Performance and Environmental Proactivity
SEM 2018 (Arda et al., 2018)
Abbreviations: IMS, integrated management system; SEM, structural equation model.
4IKRAM ET AL.
TABLE 2 CCpment of an integrated management system (IMS)
Criteria Subcriteria References
Integration (strategic, tactics, and
operational)-A1
Integrate systems at the tactical level (A11) (Ikram, Mahmoudi, Shah, & Mohsin, 2019;
Asif, Jajja, & Searcy, 2019; Gianni &
Gotzamani, 2015; Bernardo, Simon, Tarí,
& Molina-Azorín, 2015; von Ahsen, 2014)
Conduct integrated audits (A12)
Integrate systems at the operational level
(A13)
Integrate systems at the strategic level (A14)
Continuous improvement-B1 Integrate the IMS with other programs,
management systems and/or the entire
supply chain (B11)
(Curkovic & Sroufe, 2011; Handfield,
Cousins, Lawson, & Petersen, 2015;
Jurburg, Viles, Tanco, & Mateo, 2017;
Ciravegna Martins da Fonseca, Miguel,
Domingues, Machado, & Calderón, 2017;
Narasimhan & Schoenherr, 2012; (Sajjad,
Eweje, & Tappin, 2015)
Use organizational culture to support the
development of the IMS (B12)
Promote communication and interaction with
stakeholders (B13)
Go beyond legal compliance (B14)
Identify opportunities to avoid and/or reduce
waste(B15)
Systematic management-C1 Consider stakeholders' needs (C11) (Asif et al., 2013; Bandaly, Satir, &
Shanker, 2014; Carvalho, Gonçalves, &
Santos, 2018; Rebelo et al., 2016)
Manage synergistically and provide human
and financial resources to implement and
maintain the IMS (C12)
Align and/or integrate the responsibilities and
authorities of top management and
functional management and promote their
engagement with the IMS (C13)
Identify and work on the interrelationships
between the systems (synergies and
antagonisms) (C14)
Reducing bureaucracy-D1 Reduce conflicts between documents,
processes and procedures (D11)
(Baumgartner & Rauter, 2017;De
Oliveira, 2013; Franco-Santos &
Otley, 2018; Papagiannakis, Voudouris,
Lioukas, & Kassinis, 2019; Zhu, Cordeiro,
& Sarkis, 2013)
Eliminate duplication and inconsistencies
between documents, processes and
procedures (D12)
Merge the documentation (D13)
Simplify the documentation (D14)
Standardization E-1 Investing in workforce training (E11) (Hahn, 2013; Savino & Batbaatar, 2015;
Shah & Shrivastava, 2013; Souza &
Alves, 2018; Su, Dhanorkar, &
Linderman, 2015)
Standardize documentation (E12)
Standardize processes (E13)
Standardize terms and concepts (E14)
Developing mechanisms for internal
communication (E15)
Organizational learning-F1 Develop multipliers and use incentive
systems (F11)
(Bierema & Callahan, 2014; Brudan, 2010;
Longenecker & Fink, 2015; Navimipour,
Milani, & Hossenzadeh, 2018; Zhang &
Zhu, 2019)
Engaging employees in the process of
implementing the IMS (F12)
Establish an effective flow of information
(F13)
Promote the sharing of individual and
group-level knowledge and experiences
(F14)
Seek technical advice from experts (F15)
Develop capacity for innovation and
openness to change (F16)
Abbreviation: IMS, integrated management system.
IKRAM ET AL.5
3.1 |Analytical hierarchy process
AHP is one of the important and widely used MCDM methods to pro-
vide the solution of composite decision-making problems. In 1970s,
Thomas L. Saaty introduced the concept of AHP (Harker &
Vargas, 1987). The primary components of AHP comprise pairwise
comparisons, then develop and make a comparison of matrices to
check their consistency. This technique helps all decision makers
rationalize, select, and rank complex criteria. The key AHP methodol-
ogy steps are as follows (Saaty, 1990):
•Level 1. Developing the hierarchal structure of the decision
problem.
•Level 2. By using the Saaty's point scale 1–9 for pairwise compari-
sons matrix for the decision problem
•Level 3. Calculation of a consistency index (CI).
•To check the consistency of the pairwise comparison of the matrix,
CI is used at this level. The formula of CI can be presented as
(Cavallo, 2017)
CI = λmax −n
n−1:ð1Þ
Here, λ
max
indicates the eigenvalue, and nrepresents the number
of main criteria.
FIGURE 1 The research framework
of the study
6IKRAM ET AL.
•Level 4. Computing the consistency ratio (CR).
CR = CI
RI:ð2Þ
Table 3 presents the random CI random index (RI). The values of RI
must be within a consistent region limit of 0.1. If the value of CR
exceeds this, then the results can be inconsistent.
In this study, the AHP method provides the weights of the main
guiding principles and subprinciples for the development of IMS
after the accomplishment of all steps. This method is also utilized in
the F-VIKOR method to prioritize the proposed three management
standards categories (i.e., the alternatives).
3.2 |Fuzzy system method
In 1965, Lofti A. Zedah first introduced fuzzy theory (Pradera, Trillas,
Guadarrama, & Renedo, 2007). The main advantage of this theory is
to work with partial, incomplete, and uncertain data-based decision
problems. The fuzzy system comprises crisp sets, and the acceptance
range of the fuzzy set numbers from 0 to 1. Here, 0 represents the
unknown functions numbers, and 1 indicates known function num-
bers. There are various types of triangular fuzzy numbers (TFNs) that
can be used to solve complex problems. The use of TFNs is very help-
ful in fuzzy situation (Solangi, Shah, Zameer, Ikram, & Saracoglu, 2019;
Vinodh, Prasanna, & Hari Prakash, 2014). Table 4 presents a detail
description of the fuzzy number linguistic variables benchmarking
scale used in MCDM complex problems (Kumar & Singh, 2012).
If ~
arepresents the fuzzy number defined by a trio X=(x,y,z), the
membership function of TFN is described as
μXxðÞ=
0, x<1
x−x
y−xif x ≤x≤y
z−x
z−yif y ≤x≤z
0, x>0
8
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
<
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
:
9
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
=
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
;
:ð3Þ
The rest of the fuzzy set process is used and can be consulted as per
Kaya and Kahraman (2010).
3.3 |Fuzzy VIKOR method
In 1980, Opricovic introduced the concept of VIKOR method
(Opricovic & Tzeng, 2007). This method can compute the weights of
alternatives and rank them in order to obtain the compromise solu-
tions of a decision problem with contradictory/conflicting criteria, as
this approach can help decision makers to reach a final decision. Here,
the compromise solution is a feasible solution, which is the closest to
the ideal, and a compromise means an agreement established by
mutual concessions (Opricovic & Tzeng, 2004). The levels of F-VIKOR
is presented below:
•Level 1. Performance-based fuzzy matrix development and the
weight vector is as follows:
~
D=
O1
.
.
.
On
C1C2Cn
~
p11~
p12~
p1n
~
p21~
p22~
p2n
.
.
..
.
..
.
..
.
.
~
pm1~
pm2~
pmn
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
4
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
5
,ð4Þ
~
W=w1,w2,w3
ðÞ,X
n
j=1
wj=1,
where O
i
indicates the alternative i, that is, i= (1,2,3,…,m); C
j
repre-
sents the indicators j, that is, j= (1,2,3,…,n); ~
pij represents the perfor-
mance of alternatives by fuzzy rating O
i
with respect to indicators C
j
;
and ~
Wjrepresents the fuzzy weight for each indicator. Thus, TFN can
be written as ~
pij =(x
ij
,y
ij
,z
ij
).
•Level 2. Calculation of all benefit criteria values ~
p+
i=x+
i,y+
i,z+
i
and the values of cost criteria ~
p−
i=x−
i,y−
i,z−
i
. The set of benefit
criteria is indicated as l
b
whereas l
c
represents the set of cost
criteria and are as follows:
TABLE 3 Random index (RI)
n123 45678910
RI 0.00 0.00 0.058 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
Abbreviation: RI, random index.
TABLE 4 Fuzzy number linguistic variables
Scale number Linguistic characteristic TFNs scale value
1 Highly unfavorable (HU) (0, 0.05, 0.15)
2 Unfavorable (U) (0.1, 0.2, 0.3)
3 Fairly unfavorable (FU) (0.2, 0.35, 0.5)
4 Fairly (F) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
5 Fairly favorable (FF) (0.5, 0.65, 0.8)
6 Favorable (F) (0.7, 0.8, 0.9)
7 Highly favorable (HF) (0.85, 0.95, 1)
Abbreviation: TFN, triangular fuzzy number.
IKRAM ET AL.7
~
p+
i= max j~
pi,j~
p−
i= min j~
pi,jfor i∈lb
~
p+
i= min j~
pi,j~
p−
i= max j~
pi,jfor i∈lc
:
ð5Þ
•Level 3. Determine the values of normalized fuzzy decision matrix
~
Dij:
~
Dij =
~
p+
i−ðÞ
~
pij
z+
i−l−
i
for i∈lb,~
Dij =
~
pij −ðÞ
~
p+
i
z−
i−l+
i
for i∈lc
:ð6Þ
•Level 4. Calculate the values ~
Sj=~
Sx
j,~
Sy
j,~
Sz
j
and ~
Rj=~
Rx
j,~
Ry
j,~
Rz
j
:
~
Sj=X
n
i=1
~
Wi×
ðÞ
~
Dij,ð7Þ
~
Rj=maxi~
Wi×ðÞ
~
Dij:ð8Þ
•Level 5. Calculate the values ~
Qj=~
Qx
j,~
Qy
j,~
Qz
j
:
~
Qj=v
~
Sj−ðÞ
~
S+
S−z−S+x+Þð1−vðÞ
~
Rj−ðÞ
~
R+
R−z−R+x:ð9Þ
Here, ~
S+= min j~
Sj;S−z= max jSz
j;~
R+= min j~
Rj;R−z=max jRx
j.
Moreover, vis presented as a group strategy weight for the
majority of criteria ~
Sj; whereas, (1 −v) is the individual weight of ~
Rj.
•Levels 6 and 7. Defuzzify ~
Sj,~
Rj, and ~
Qjvalues. According to the
crisp values of S,R, and Q, prioritize the alternatives to the shrink-
ing order of crisp values, and the results are three prioritizing
results {O}
S
,{O}
R
, and {O}
Q
, respectively.
•Level 8. To satisfy two subsequent conditions, propose a solution
to the alternative O
(1)
, which is the optimal solution of the
measure Q:
Condition 1. Suitable benefit: ben ≥DQ, where
ben = QO
2ðÞ
ðÞ
−QO
1ðÞ
ðÞ½
QO
mðÞ
ðÞ
−QO
1ðÞ
ðÞ½
is the benefit rate of alternative O
(1)
placed
first compared with the alternative with the second-ranked O
(2)
in {O}
Q
and the threshold DQ =1
m−1ðÞ
.
Condition 2. Decision-making stability: Let alternative O
(1)
also
be considered optimal ranked by Sor Qvalues. This should sat-
isfy both conditions CI and C2 or at least one. If both the condi-
tions are not satisfied, then a set of comprising solution is
suggested, which can be defined as follows:
•Condition satisfied 1. Alternative O
(1)
and O
(2)
if only (Condition 2)
is not satisfied, or
•Condition satisfied 2. Alternative O
(1)
,O
(2)
,…,O
(M)
if (Condition 1) is
not satisfied; O
(m)
is determined by the relation
QO
MðÞ
ðÞ
−QO
1ðÞ
ðÞ½
QO
mðÞ
ðÞ
−QO
1ðÞ
ðÞ½
<DQ for maximum M. The locations of the alter-
natives are in closeness.
3.4 |Experts survey utilization
It is challenging to try and select a suitable number of experts selected
for involvement in a study such as this one. Several studies have used
different numbers of experts to obtained reliable results; for example,
Shah, Solangi, and Ikram (2019) utilized 14 experts to analyze the bar-
riers of clean energy technology by using MCDM method. Whereas
Solangi, Tan, Khan, Mirjat, and Ahmed (2018) chosen five experts and
a survey methodology for AHP and TOPSIS inputs and analysis.
For this study, we conducted an online survey though webmail
with the help of 10 experienced experts before applying the AHP and
F-VIKOR methods because weights scored by the individuals
can be conflicting (Vafaeipour, Zolfani, Varzandeh, Derakhti, &
Eshkalag, 2014). The participants in this study were academic profes-
sors, research analysts, policymakers, stakeholders, and managers who
were all asked to score their responses on the basis of the TFN lin-
guistic variables for IMS development. The experts all had more than
15-year work experience, and they are very familiar with the industry
and IMS research context. We validated the expert's results using CI
and RI proposed by Saaty (1980).
The use of AHP helped develop the pairwise comparisons matrix
of the main criteria and subcriteria. Next, the F-VIKOR methodology
was employed to prioritize suitable standards. Using the research
framework of this study helps to reach an ideal solution of IMS devel-
opment with our results presented in the following section.
4|RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results of this study help to show how the integration of AHP
and F-VIKOR methods enables planners and policymakers in develop-
ing IMS and in the development of strategic decision-making pro-
cesses. It is the first kind of study to assess the development of an
IMS by prioritizing the main IMS indicators and subindicators using
these methods. Our investigation into IMS lays a foundation for cor-
porations and decision makers to further determine the application
and research framework of this study as a suitable rationalization for
the selection and development of international management
standards.
4.1 |AHP results
A pairwise comparison matrix of the AHP method was employed to
calculate the individual expert weight scores using a geometric mean
(Krejcˇí & Stoklasa, 2018). In this study, a group decision-making tech-
nique was used to determine the weight of the main criteria and sub-
criteria. Six main criteria considered include integration (at multiple
levels), continuous improvement, systematic management, reduced
8IKRAM ET AL.
bureaucracy, standardization, and organizational learning to enable
the AHP analysis. In the first part of the AHP method, six main criteria
weights were obtained, and in the second part, 28 subcriteria of the
study were then assessed.
4.1.1 |The ranking of main criteria
The AHP methodology helped to determine the weights of the main
criteria at the hierarchy level. The main criteria results are in Table 5,
showing that systematic management is the most significant criteria
with a weight of 0.3379 followed by standardization (0.2326), integra-
tion (0.1735), organizational learning (0.1165), reduced bureaucratiza-
tion (0.0793), and continuous improvement (0.0602), respectively.
The detailed main criteria weights are in Figure 2. Systematic manage-
ment plays a vital role in the development of IMS and can improve
organizational performance. Standardization is the second most priori-
tized criteria in this study after systematic management as the imple-
mentation of management standards has the goal of the organization
to standardize business processes and meet the stakeholder
expectations.
According to the weight calculation of main criteria of the study,
the integration and organizational learning criteria took their places on
the third and fourth priorities. The integration of the MSs at the stra-
tegic, tactical, and operational levels is another important indicator to
the development of IMS. Moreover, developing and maintaining IMS
are processes of continuous reconstruction and adaptation to updates
and innovations.
Reduced bureaucracy is identified as the fifth important criterion
because each management standard seeks to combat excess bureau-
cracy by reducing and simplifying processes in the organization.
The organization needs bureaucratic stabilization, efficiency, and
appropriate structures to enable employees to perform their tasks in a
better way. Finally, continuous improvement is considered a less influ-
ential criterion, having the lowest weight determined by fuzzy AHP.
Paradoxically, the continuous improvement indicator should support
the development improvement of the other criteria. Next, the 28 sub-
criteria of the study were evaluated through the experts' feedback
using a pairwise comparisons matrix.
4.1.2 |The subcriteria ranking
This section addresses the result of all subcriteria provided in Figures 3
3to9.
Integration (strategic, tactics, and operational) subcriteria'
The ranking of subcriteria within the category (A1) is as follows:
A14 > A11 > A13 > A12. Here, the integration of IMS at the strategic
level has been reported as the most important and most influencing
subcriterion of A14 by obtaining the weight 0.4418. This ranking rep-
resents a feasible justification as integration is the main pillar of IMS
development. Integration of management standards is the most com-
mon based on a top-down approach, in which integration processes
handle operational and tactical issues solved by integration of strate-
gic decisions (Poltronieri, Gerolamo, Dias, & Carpinetti, 2018).
The second highest weight-obtaining subcriterion within the cate-
gory is to integrate systems at the tactical level (A11) with a 0.3038
weight. It is observed in other studies that the objectives, indicators,
and business processes of intermediate levels in the organization
should be tactically integrated to measure performance (Tuczek,
Castka, & Wakolbinger, 2018). Integrated systems at the operational
level (A13) obtained a 0.1590 weight and is the third most important
subcriterion within the category presented in Figure 3. This has been
addressed in the literature regarding the integration of management
standards that focus on the input and output of businesses processes
to identify customers and monitor the business environment that can
be integrated through work instructions and control of documentation
(Tsai & Chou, 2009).
Lastly, within this category, conducting an internal audit (A14)
subcriterion received a 0.0954 weight and appeared fourth in the
order. Integrated audits are more effective than several audits with
different audit teams as is advisable for an organization to improve
workforce skills by integrating training and development. The integra-
tion of audits also motivates employees to thoughtfully combine their
activities and responsibilities with IMS (Guerrero-Baena, Gómez-
Limón, & Vicente Fruet, 2015).
Continuous improvement
Under the continuous improvement (B-1) category, the ranking of
subcriteria is obtained as follows B12 > B15 > B14 > B13 > B11 and
presented in Figure 4. Use of organizational culture to support the
development of the IMS (B12) obtained a weight of 0.4245. The
results illustrate that an organization should be focused on continuous
improvement through identification and analysis processes according
to organizational culture as this approach can help solve problems.
Prior work has suggested managers should develop continuous
improvement programs for IMS on the basis of the PDCA cycle
(López-Fresno, 2010).
The second highest subcriterion as per the weight allocation
within the category is identified opportunities to avoid and reduce
waste (b15) with a weight of 0.2673. The literature reveals that PDCA
is an opportunity for organizations to optimize their processes and
reduces waste through the proper utilization of company resources.
TABLE 5 Ranking of the main criteria
Main Criteria Code Weight Rank
Systematic management C1 0.3379 1
st
Standardization E1 0.2326 2
nd
Integration (strategic, tactics, and
operational)
A1 0.1735 3
rd
Organizational learning F1 0.1165 4
th
Reduced bureaucracy D1 0.0793 5
th
Continuous improvement B1 0.0602 6
th
IKRAM ET AL.9
PDCA approaches support the organization when standardizing
improvements to reduce company costs and waste.
Go beyond legal compliance (b14) obtained a 0.1450 weight and
is in the third position within this category as it can be essential for
continuous company improvement and compliance with the
requirements of all the sustainability tools such as quality, environ-
mental, health, and safety management standards when developing
IMS (Ikram, Zhou, Shah, & Liu, 2019).
The fourth subcriterion under the continuous improvement cate-
gory promotes communication with stakeholders (B13) with a weight
FIGURE 3 The ranking of integration
subcriterion [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 4 The ranking of continuous
improvement subcriteria [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 5 The ranking of systematic
management subcriteria [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 6 The ranking of reduced
bureaucracy subcriteria [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 2 The ranking of main criteria in the
development of integrated management system
(IMS) [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
10 IKRAM ET AL.
of 0.0937. When organizations develop a lean infrastructure as part
of the continuous improvement of the IMS, they are also meeting
stakeholder needs. Last in this category is integrate the IMS with sup-
ply chains (B11), obtaining a weight of 0.0695. Here, we see the con-
tinuous improvement of the IMS also emphasizing the development
of an integrated decision support program for supply chain manage-
ment that takes into account stakeholders to strategically improve
production processes and balance the system for supplier
sustainability.
Systematic management
On the basis of the result presented in Figure 5, the ranking of sub-
criteria within systematic management to develop IMS is as follows:
C13 > C14 > C12 > C11 with CR 0.0032. Align and integrate the
responsibilities of top management and functional management and
promote their engagement with the IMS (C13) holds the first position
within the systematic management category with the highest weight
of 0.3332. The process of IMS development is important for the inte-
gration and maintenance of business processes on the basis of top
management commitment and their engagement with the develop-
ment of an IMS. Moreover, identifying and working on the interrela-
tionships between the systems (C14) holds the second position within
the category, receiving a weight of 0.3269. The difference between
C13 and C14 weights observed was as low 0.0063, implying an almost
equal contribution and importance in the development of IMS. Identi-
fying and analyzing the factors that play important roles in the inte-
gration of IMS enable companies to adopt a systematic management
approach that can create synergies and reveal disconnects between
systems. The third and fourth subcriteria within the systematic man-
agement and development of IMS are company resources (C12) and
FIGURE 7 The ranking of standardization
subcriteria [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 8 The ranking of organization
learning subcriteria [Colour figure can be viewed
at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
FIGURE 9 The overall ranking of
subcriteria [Colour figure can be
viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
IKRAM ET AL.11
stakeholder needs (C11), which received weights of 0.2195 and
0.1204, respectively.
Here, we see that it is necessary for the top management to help
in developing a structured approach to meet the need of stakeholders
while creating a balanced and effective allocation of resources within
the company.
Reduced bureaucracy
The ranking of subcriteria for this category is D12 > D11 > D14 > D13.
Eliminate duplication and inconsistencies between documents, pro-
cesses, and procedures (D12) obtained highest weight of 0.4970.
Next, reduce conflicts between documents, processes, and proce-
dures (D11) comes in second with a weight of 0.2840 as presented in
Figure 6. Bureaucratic stability is very important for organization sur-
vival by enabling employees to perform their duties. The weights of
standardizing and simplify documentation (D14) along with merge the
documentation (D13) were calculated as 0.1284 and 0.0907, respec-
tively. In order to develop IMS, the reduced bureaucracy of manage-
ment standards is important and enabled through integrating the
management procedures, manuals, processes, authorizes, and respon-
sibilities. The effective development of IMS enables the elimination of
duplicate documents and makes documentation simpler through
merging techniques.
Standardization
We know that all subcriteria are important and are particularly inter-
ested in standardization. From the result presented in Figure 7, the
ranking of subcriteria within the standardization category is as fol-
lows: E14 > E13 > E12 > E15 > E11. The first and highest subcriterion
of standardization is standardize terms and concepts (E14) with a
weight of 0.3925. The standardization of IMS connected with a stan-
dard, do, check, act (SDCA) cycle is a guidance tool helping manage-
ment to develop a system to improve the effectiveness of IMS.
Standardized processes (E13) ranks second with a weight of 0.2597.
Next, standardize documentation (E12) holds the third position with a
weight of 0.1723. From this, we can see the logic of having an organi-
zation focus on both practices and processes and with this also
encompassing the required documentation for IMS. To overcome the
obstacles during the implementation of IMS, the standardization of
documentation helps managers to improve the distribution, control-
ling, and the issuing of requisite documents.
Finally, developing mechanisms for internal communication (E15)
and investing in workforce training (E11) come in with weights of
0.1104 and 0.0652, respectively.
Organizational learning
Under the organizational learning category, the ranking of subcriteria
is F12 > F14 > F16 > F11 > F13 > F15, presented in Figure 8. Engag-
ing employees in the process of implementing the IMS (F12) obtained
the highest weight and ranked top subcriteria within the category at
0.3885. Organizational learning is an important pillar for the develop-
ment of IMS, which motivates employees to create opportunities for
improvements as well as the effective monitoring of the system. Next,
the promotion of knowledge sharing at the individual and group level
(F14) holds the second position within the category with a weight of
0.2286. Here, we can see the implementation of IMS facilitates the
creation and sharing of knowledge and can help improve communica-
tion in an organization.
The third highest subcriterion to develop IMS within the category
is the development of a capacity for innovation and openness to
change (F16) with a weight of 0.1364. The development of multipliers
and use of incentives (F11) is fourth at 0.1230.
The final subcriteria rounding out organizational learning are the
establishment of an effective flow of information (F13) and seeking
technical advice from experts (F15) as these are considered less influ-
ential with weights of 0.0724 and 0.0511.
4.2 |Subcriteria's overall ranking
The final weight of subcriteria was calculated through multiplying
each subcriteria priority weight by the weight of its respective cate-
gory. The final weights are presented below in Table 6.
The overall ranking of subcriteria's for the development of IMS
on the basis of final weights is presented in Figure 9. The criteria of
subcriteria for IMS are as follows:
C13 > C14 > E14 > A14 > C12 > E13 > E11 > F12 > C11 > E12 >
D12 > A14 > F14 > E15 > B12 > D11 > A12 > B15 > F16 > E11 >
F11 > D14 > B14 > F13 > D13 > F15 > B13 > B11.
For the development of IMS, align and integrate the responsibili-
ties has the highest weight (11.26%) among all subcriteria followed by
the interrelationship between systems (11.04%). Standardize terms
and concepts and integrate systems at the operational level are given
higher importance with weights of 9.13% and 7.66%. To round out
these results, the last three and less influential subcriteria in the devel-
opment of IMS are seek technical advice from experts (0.60%), pro-
mote communication and interaction with stakeholders (0.56%), and
integrate the IMS with other programs, MSs, and the entire supply
chain at (0.42%).
4.3 |Fuzzy VIKOR results
To expand our insights beyond the analysis of the criterion analy-
sis, we also want to know which management standards are impor-
tant to develop IMS. In this section, the ranking of three main
categories of management standards ISO, GRI, and other standard
(EMAS, SA8000, EU Eco-Label, and BSI standards) has been ana-
lyzed by employing a fuzzy VIKOR approach. A group of experts
provided inputs to this analysis, and we utilized a group decision-
making approach to determine the results. The fuzzy decision
matrix and weighted normalized decision matrix using TFNs rating
scale were obtained after the comparison of the alternatives
against each subcriteria. When doing so, we considered all the
criteria included in this study as beneficial to a firm when pursuing
these types of systems and standards.
12 IKRAM ET AL.
In the implementation of F-VIKOR method, the management
standards having the lowest Q
i
value were prioritized as highly suit-
able management standards for the development of an integrated
MS. The S,R, and Qvalues are in Table 7. The summary ranking of the
alternatives is provided according to the lowest value of Qin Table 8.
Our results recommend the ISO standards (MS-3) as best suited
management standards for the development of IMS followed by GRI
standards (MS-1) and other standards: EMAS, SA8000, EU Eco-Label,
and BSI standards (MS-2), respectively. The ordered ranking of
different management standards is significant because it has provided
the best and least valuable standards for the development of IMS. The
ISO standards (MS-3) obtained the highest weight 0.0267, followed
by GRI standards (MS-1), and other management standards (MS-2) by
obtaining the weights 0.0296 and 0.0730, respectively. Although the
weighting can help in prioritizing one standard over another, all of
these standards can develop IMS. Moreover, all these standards are
both popular and widely adopted, ensuring business improvement
TABLE 6 Final weights of subcriteria
Main criteria
Main criteria
weights
Subcriteria's
codes
Consistency ratio
(CR)
Priority
weight
Final
weight
Integration (strategic, tactics, and
operational)
0.1735 A11 0.0050 0.3038 0.0527
A12 0.0954 0.0165
A13 0.159 0.0766
A14 0.4418 0.0276
Continuous improvement 0.0602 B11 0.0071 0.0695 0.0042
B12 0.4245 0.0256
B13 0.0937 0.0056
B14 0.145 0.0087
B15 0.2673 0.0161
Systematic management 0.3379 C11 0.0032 0.1204 0.0407
C12 0.2195 0.0742
C13 0.3332 0.1126
C14 0.3269 0.1104
Reduced bureaucracy 0.0793 D11 0.0001 0.2841 0.0225
D12 0.4971 0.0394
D13 0.0907 0.0072
D14 0.1284 0.0102
Standardization 0.2326 E11 0.0230 0.0652 0.0152
E12 0.1723 0.0401
E13 0.2597 0.0604
E14 0.3925 0.0913
E15 0.1104 0.0257
Organizational learning 0.1165 F11 0.0120 0.123 0.0143
F12 0.3885 0.0453
F13 0.0724 0.0084
F14 0.2286 0.0266
F15 0.0511 0.006
F16 0.1364 0.0159
TABLE 7 S,R, and Qvalues
Alternative S
i
R
i
Q
i
GRI standards 0.0885 0.0188 0.0296
Other standards 0.1705 0.0201 0.0730
ISO standards 0.1713 0.0164 0.0267
Abbreviation: GRI, Global Reporting Initiatives; ISO, International Organi-
zation for Standardization.
TABLE 8 Prioritization of alternatives according to lowest Q
values
Alternative Q
i
Rank
ISO standards 0.0267 1st
GRI standards 0.0296 2nd
Other standards 0.0730 3rd
Abbreviation: GRI, Global Reporting Initiatives; ISO, International Organi-
zation for Standardization.
IKRAM ET AL.13
regarding quality and the improvement of sustainable business prac-
tices (Souza & Alves, 2018).
The AHP and F-VIKOR methods have been used effectively and
systematically to address important developmental aspects of IMS.
The methods applied to this study do not come without limitations as
much of the information needed for assessing criteria is qualitative in
nature. The values reflect the belief structure of those involved in this
study. Although we had a diverse group of experts, and we believe
our results are generalizable, any firm can make this a more customiz-
able approach to the selection and implantation of systems by includ-
ing their own stakeholders and managers from across all business
functions when assessing criteria.
The results of this study are enabled by the research framework
and experts' feedback and build on related work in the field. There-
fore, this study can help managers, along with industries and
policymakers, in the selection of feasible management standards to
develop resilient (Finnegan & Currie, 2010), integrated MSs across an
organization and supply chains.
5|CONCLUSIONS
The objective of this study to identify and prioritize the important
criteria as to the degree to which they help with the development of
an integrated MS. We build on the findings of prior studies showing
interconnected relationships of MSs and the importance of including
stakeholders (Souza & Alves, 2018). Numerous guiding criteria were
identified from the literature, and we built off of prior work in the field
and identified criteria with the help of experts. To this end, 28 guiding
principles were assessed and prioritized under the main six categories
of integration (at the strategic, tactics, and operational levels), contin-
uous improvement, systematic management, reduced bureaucracy,
standardization, and organizational learning. In this study, the AHP
method helped in determining the six main criteria and 28 subcriteria
weights obtained from the additional input of various experts' through
the pairwise comparison process and resulting matrix.
Limitations include the models developed with the help of
experts, and in choosing this approach, there will always be some
bias in the process. Future use of the approach used in this study
can include more diverse experts and managers more focused on
functions within firms most impacted by systems implementation
and integration. There is also a limitation related to the availability
of data. Managers involved in an MCDA process will have limited
access to data across all criteria or an entire large multinational
organization as the reason for developing these systems can stem
from a lack of integrated information. Resolving these issues will
require careful consideration by practitioners as to who is involved
in the decision analysis process and why and realize that the inputs
are qualitative in nature, and doing this analysis only one time is a
great place to start but a tragic place to stop as the analysis, criteria,
and outcomes should be revisited to assess performance of the IMS
over time and as part of the auditing of systems and stakeholders
engagement.
Contributions of this study start with the AHP results. They
reveal that systematic management, standardization, and integration
are the top-ranked criteria for managers and decision makers to focus
on. Whereas, align and integrate the responsibilities and authorities,
identification and work on the interrelationships between the systems
and standardize terms and concepts have emerged as the top-ranked
subcriteria of the study, respectively. Additional insights and contribu-
tions to the field are extended with the additional application of a
fuzzy-based VIKOR method assessment. This helps to extend our
prior findings to prioritize the three highest ranked and most adapt-
able management standards alternatives while also enhancing
and validatingthe consistency of the overall results. According to the
F-VIKOR analysis, ISO management standards are the most suitable
standards for the development of IMS, followed by GRI, and then
other management standards. The results of this study should be a call
to action for decision makers and policy advocates in that IMS can
provide a dynamic integration opportunity with dynamic benefits. As
shown in this study, scholars can develop important criteria from the
literature, build on this prior work while combining insight from
experts in the field to now develop a new understanding of systems
and their integration, and also contributing to the development of the-
ory with contemporary approaches to decision analysis. To this end,
the results of this study provide insights that other scholars can use to
further develop theory involving multiple management standards
(MMSs), stakeholder theory (Freeman, 1984), along with integrated
MSs (IMS), their implementation, barriers, and how to help ensure
their success. The methods used in this study provide a powerful yet
relatively simple method for making decisions. This useful approach
should be of interest to practitioners, policymakers, and researchers
for resource allocation, project prioritization, and selection. The
methods used in this study provide a path toward further replication
of similar studies and allow for the capture of strategic goals as a set
of weighted criteria that you then use to select projects and inform
change management. Multicriterion decision-making methodologies
have been used successfully in various applications and industrial sec-
tors. There should be more emphasis of MCDA on interdisciplinary
and social decision problems due to their complex nature. Future
studies can and should be developed as AHP techniques are com-
bined with other techniques and help integrate systems, supply
chains, cities, and countries as we prioritize goals such as the United
Nations 17 sustainable development goals (SDGs).
It should be comforting for managers to know that standards are
already in place to help with implementation and integration pro-
cesses. Systems are great enablers of change, measurement, manage-
ment, and the reporting of performance. The guiding principles and
criteria uncovered in this study can help save time and improve
impacts for practitioners while also providing the start to a new area
of research from scholars. It is also good to know that both quality
and environmental MSs can and should be integrated so that firms
can find more dynamic benefits that can even extend into supply
chains.
This study is significant and a first of its kind, considering the
development of IMS, which can help to realize the most suitable
14 IKRAM ET AL.
management standards for systematic sustainable development and
global reporting of company practices and the systems that measure,
manage, and report on these activities. Managerial implications
include but are not limited to IMSs enabling organizations to conduct
integrated audits, engage employees, assessments, and to optimize
processes and resources. When managers integrate systems, it can
help reduce the time it takes to conduct transactions, perform activi-
ties, reduce interruption, while reducing costs.
When systems become part of integrated management, they help
to enable a proven strategic planning approach to uncover the tools
and actions available for change management and performance met-
rics that can include sustainability (Sroufe, 2018). Future research calls
for the integration of more criteria and subcriteria as this integration
trend is not going away. With only six guiding principles and 28 sub-
criteria employed from the available literature, the number of criteria
can be expanded by taking into account the other associated MS
parameters and goals. Various other MCDM techniques can also be
utilized in future work to compare and contrast results, find new
insights, and extend this study. Finally, this study can be further
refined and extended to explore the barriers for implementation of
integrated management standards and extensions to capturing the
United Nation's SDGs.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful for the financial support provided by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (#71572115); Major
Program of Social Science Foundation of Guangdong
(#2016WZDXM005); and Natural Science Foundationof SZU (#836).
ORCID
Muhammad Ikram https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2656-9302
Qingyu Zhang https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9739-3899
Robert Sroufe https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7903-9180
REFERENCES
von Ahsen, A. (2014). The integration of quality, environmental and health
and safety management by car manufacturers-A long-term empirical
study. Business Strategy and the Environment,23(6), 395–416. https://
doi.org/10.1002/bse.1791
Arda, O. A., Bayraktar, E., & Tatoglu, E. (2018). How Do integrated quality
and environmental management practices affect firm performance?
Mediating roles of quality performance and environmental proactivity.
Business Strategy and the Environment,28(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.2190
Asif, M., Jajja, M. S. S., & Searcy, C. (2019). Social compliance standards:
Re-evaluating the buyer and supplier perspectives. Journal of Cleaner
Production,227(August), 457–471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2019.04.157
Asif, M., Searcy, C., Zutshi, A., & Fisscher, O. A. M. (2013). An integrated
management systems approach to corporate social responsibility. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production,56,7–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2011.10.034
Bandaly, D., Satir, A., & Shanker, L. (2014). Integrated supply chain risk
management via operational methods and financial instruments. Inter-
national Journal of Production Research,52(7), 2007–2025. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00207543.2013.844376
Baumgartner, R. J., & Rauter, R. (2017). Strategic perspectives of corporate
sustainability management to develop a sustainable organization.
Journal of Cleaner Production,140,81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2016.04.146
Bernardo, M. (2014). Integration of management systems as an
innovation: A proposal for a new model. Journal of Cleaner Production,
82(November), 132–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.
06.089
Bernardo, M., Casadesus, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Heras, I. (2012). Do inte-
gration difficulties influence management system integration levels?
Journal of Cleaner Production,21(1), 23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2011.09.008
Bernardo, M., Gianni, M., Gotzamani, K., & Simon, A. (2017). Is there a
common pattern to integrate multiple management systems? A com-
parative analysis between organizations in Greece and Spain. Journal
of Cleaner Production,151, 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.03.036
Bernardo, M., Simon, A., Tarí, J. J., & Molina-Azorín, J. F. (2015). Benefits
of management systems integration: A literature review. Journal of
Cleaner Production,94(May), 260–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2015.01.075
Bierema, L., & Callahan, J. L. (2014). Transforming HRD. Advances in Devel-
oping Human Resources,16(4), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1523422314543818
Brudan, A. (2010). Rediscovering performance management: Systems,
learning and integration. Measuring Business Excellence,14(1),
109–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683041011027490
Carvalho, F., Gonçalves, J., & Santos, G. (2018). The disclosure of informa-
tion on sustainable development on the corporate website of the
certified Portuguese organizations. International Journal for Quality
Research,12(1), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.18421/IJQR12.01-14
Casadesús, M., Karapetrovic, S., & Heras, I. (2011). Synergies in
standardized management systems: Some empirical evidence. TQM
Journal.,23(1), 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731111097506
Cavallo, B. (2017). Computing random consistency indices and assessing
priority vectors reliability. Information Sciences,420(December),
532–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.08.082
Chang, I. C., & Yu, Y. H. (2001). Using sustainable development indicators
as a supplementary measure for the integrated management of envi-
ronmental information system in Taiwan. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research,8(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0298
7306
Curkovic, S., & Sroufe, R. (2011). Using ISO 14001 to promote a sustain-
able supply chain strategy. Business Strategy and the Environment,
20(2), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.671
Domingues, P., Sampaio, P., & Arezes, P. M. (2016). Integrated manage-
ment systems assessment: A maturity model proposal. Journal of
Cleaner Production,124, 164–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2016.02.103
Finnegan, D. J., & Currie, W. L. (2010). A multi-layered approach to CRM
implementation: An integration perspective. European Management
Journal,28, 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2009.04.010
da Fonseca, C. M., Miguel, L., Domingues, J. P., Machado, P. B., &
Calderón, M. (2017). Management system certification benefits:
Where do we stand? Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management,
10(3), 476–494. https://doi.org/10.3926/jiem.2350
Franco-Santos, M., & Otley, D. (2018). Reviewing and theorizing the
unintended consequences of performance management systems.
International Journal of Management Reviews,20(3), 696–730. https://
doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12183
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach.
Boston: Pitman.
Gianni, M., & Gotzamani, K. (2015). Management systems integration:
Lessons from an abandonment case. Journal of Cleaner Production,
86(January), 265–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.08.023
IKRAM ET AL.15
Gianni, M., Gotzamani, K., & Tsiotras, G. (2017). Multiple perspectives on
integrated management systems and corporate sustainability perfor-
mance. Journal of Cleaner Production,168, 1297–1311. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.061
Guerrero-Baena, M. D., Gómez-Limón, J. A., & Vicente Fruet, J. (2015). A
multicriteria method for environmental management system selection:
An intellectual capital approach. Journal of Cleaner Production,
105(October), 428–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.
07.079
Hahn, R. (2013). ISO 26000 and the Standardization of strategic manage-
ment processes for sustainability and corporate social responsibility.
Business Strategy and the Environment,22(7), 442–455. https://doi.
org/10.1002/bse.1751
Handfield, R. B., Cousins, P. D., Lawson, B., & Petersen, K. J. (2015). How
can supply management really improve performance? A knowledge-
based model of alignment capabilities. Journal of Supply Chain Manage-
ment,51(3), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12066
Handfield, R., Walton, S. V., Sroufe, R., & Melnyk, S. A. (2002). Applying
environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the applica-
tion of the analytical hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational
Research,141(1), 70–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00
261-2
Harker, P. T., & Vargas, L. G. (1987). Theory of ratio scale estimation:
Saaty's analytic hierarchy process. Management Science,33(1),
1383–1403.
Ikram, M., Sroufe, R., Rehman, E., Shah, S. Z. A., & Mahmoudi, A. (2019).
Do quality, environment, social (QES) certifications improve interna-
tional trade? Comparative Grey relation analysis of developing
vs. developed countries. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Appli-
cations,545, 123486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2019.123486
Ikram, M., Zhou, P., Shah, S. A. A., & Liu, G. Q. (2019). Do environmental
management systems help improve corporate sustainable develop-
ment? Evidence from manufacturing companies in Pakistan. Journal of
Cleaner Production,226(July), 628–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.03.265
Ikram, M., Mahmoudi, A., Shah, S. Z. A., & Mohsin, M. (2019). Forecasting
number of ISO 14001 certifications of selected countries: Application
of even GM (1,1), DGM, and NDGM models. Environmental Science
and Pollution Research,26(12), 12505–12521. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11356-019-04534-2
Ikram, M., Sroufe, R., Mohsin, M., Solangi, Y. A., Shah, S. Z. A., &
Shahzad, F. (2019). Does CSR influence firm performance? A longitudi-
nal study of SME sectors of Pakistan. Journal of Global Responsibility,
11,27–53. https://doi.org/10.1108/JGR-12-2018-0088
Jørgensen, T. H., Remmen, A., & Dolores Mellado, M. (2006). Integrated
management systems-Three different levels of integration. Journal of
Cleaner Production,14(8), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.
2005.04.005
Jurburg, D., Viles, E., Tanco, M., & Mateo, R. (2017). What motivates
employees to participate in continuous improvement activities? Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence,28(13–14), 1469–1488.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2016.1150170
Kaya, T., & Kahraman, C. (2010). Multicriteria renewable energy planning
using an integrated fuzzy VIKOR & AHP methodology: The case of
Istanbul. Energy,35(6), 2517–2527. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.
2010.02.051
Khanna, H. K., Laroiya, S. C., & Sharma, D. D. (2010). Integrated manage-
ment systems in Indian manufacturing organizations: Some key find-
ings from an empirical study. TQM Journal.,22, 670–686. https://doi.
org/10.1108/17542731011085339
Krejcˇí, J., & Stoklasa, J. (2018). Aggregation in the analytic hierarchy
process: Why weighted geometric mean should be used instead of
weighted arithmetic mean. Expert Systems with Applications,
114(December), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.
06.060
Kumar, P., & Singh, R. K. (2012). A fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methodology to
evaluate 3PL in a supply chain. Edited by Rajesh Singh. Journal of
Modelling in Management,7(3), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17465661211283287
Kurdve, M., Zackrisson, M., Wiktorsson, M., & Harlin, U. (2014). Lean and
green integration into production system models-Experiences from
Swedish industry. Journal of Cleaner Production,85, 180–190. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.04.013
Labodová, A. (2004). Implementing integrated management systems using
a risk analysis based approach. Journal of Cleaner Production,12(6),
571–580. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2003.08.008
Longenecker, C., & Fink, L. S. (2015). Exceptional HR leadership rests on
four foundations. Human Resource Management International Digest,
23(1), 21–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/HRMID-12-2014-0160
Loorbach, D., van Bakel, J. C., Whiteman, G., & Rotmans, J. (2009). Busi-
ness strategies for transitions towards sustainable systems. Business
Strategy and the Environment,19(2), n/a–n/a. https://doi.org/10.1002/
bse.645
López-Fresno, P. (2010). Implementation of an integrated management
system in an airline: A case study. Edited by Stanislav Karapetrovic.
The TQM Journal,22(6), 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1108/
17542731011085311
Mežinska, I., Lapin¸a, I., & Mazais, J. (2015). Integrated management sys-
tems towards sustainable and socially responsible organisation. Total
Quality Management and Business Excellence,26(5–6), 469–481.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2013.835899
Narasimhan, R., & Schoenherr, T. (2012). The effects of integrated supply
management practices and environmental management practices on
relative competitive quality advantage. International Journal of Produc-
tion Research,50(4), 1185–1201. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.
2011.555785
Navimipour, N. J., Milani, F. S., & Hossenzadeh, M. (2018). A model for
examining the role of effective factors on the performance of organi-
zations. Technology in Society,55(November), 166–174. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2018.06.003
Nunhes, T. V., Bernardo, M., & Oliveira, O. J. (2019). Guiding principles of
integrated management systems: Towards unifying a starting point
for researchers and practitioners. Journal of Cleaner Production,
210(February), 977–993. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.
11.066
Nunhes, T. V., Motta Barbosa, L. C. F., & de Oliveira, O. J. (2017). Identifi-
cation and analysis of the elements and functions integrable in inte-
grated management systems. Journal of Cleaner Production,142,
3225–3235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.147
de Oliveira, O. J. (2013). Guidelines for the integration of certifiable man-
agement systems in industrial companies. Journal of Cleaner Production,
57(October), 124–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.06.037
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM
methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European
Journal of Operational Research,156(2), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2007). Extended VIKOR method in compari-
son with outranking methods. European Journal of Operational
Research,178(2), 514–529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2006.
01.020
Papagiannakis, G., Voudouris, I., Lioukas, S., & Kassinis, G. (2019). Environ-
mental management systems and environmental product innovation:
The role of stakeholder engagement. Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment,28(6), 939–950. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2293
Poltronieri, C. F., Gerolamo, M. C., Dias, T. C. M., & Carpinetti, L. C. R.
(2018). Instrument for evaluating IMS and sustainable performance.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,35(2),
373–386. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-11-2016-0194
Pradera, A., Trillas, E., Guadarrama, S., & Renedo, E. (2007). On fuzzy set
theories. In Fuzzy logic (Vol. 215) (pp. 15–47). Berlin, Heidelberg:
16 IKRAM ET AL.
Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-
71258-9_2
Rebelo, M. F., Santos, G., & Silva, R. (2016). Integration of management
systems: Towards a sustained success and development of organiza-
tions. Journal of Cleaner Production,127,96–111. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jclepro.2016.04.011
Ribeiro, F., Santos, G., Ferreira Rebelo, M., & Silva, R. (2017). Integrated
management systems: Trends for Portugal in the 2025 horizon.
Procedia Manufacturing.,13, 1191–1198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
promfg.2017.09.194
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process (pp. 17–34). New York:
McGraw-Hill Inc. https://doi.org/10.1016/0070543712
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process.
European Journal of Operational Research,48(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I
Sajjad, A., Eweje, G., & Tappin, D. (2015). Sustainable supply chain man-
agement: Motivators and barriers. Business Strategy and the Environ-
ment,24(7), 643–655. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1898
Salomone, R. (2008). Integrated management systems: Experiences in
Italian organizations. Journal of Cleaner Production,16(16), 1786–1806.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2007.12.003
Samaranayake, P., & Toncich, D. (2007). Integration of production plan-
ning, project management and logistics systems for supply chain man-
agement. International Journal of Production Research,45(22),
5417–5447. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207540600810077
Savino, M. M., & Batbaatar, E. (2015). Investigating the resources for inte-
grated management systems within resource-based and contingency
perspective in manufacturing firms. Journal of Cleaner Production,104,
392–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.115
Shah, P. P., & Shrivastava, R. L. (2013). Identification of performance mea-
sures of lean six sigma in small- and medium-sized enterprises: A pilot
study. International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage,
8(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSSCA.2013.059768
Shah, S. A. A., Solangi, Y. A., & Ikram, M. (2019). Analysis of barriers to the
adoption of cleaner energy technologies in Pakistan using modified
delphi and fuzzy analytical hierarchy process. Journal of Cleaner
Production,235(October), 1037–1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.07.020
Simon, A., Karapetrovic, S., & Casadesus, M. (2012). Evolution of inte-
grated management systems in Spanish firms. Journal of Cleaner
Production,23(1), 8–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.
10.025
Sokovic, M., Pavletic, D., & Pipan, K. (2010). Quality improvement
methodologies–PDCA cycle, RADAR matrix, DMAIC and DFSS. Jour-
nal of Achievements in Materials and Manufacturing Engineering,43(1),
476–483.
Solangi, Y. A., Shah, S. A. A., Zameer, H., Ikram, M., & Saracoglu, B. O.
(2019). Assessing the solar PV power project site selection in Pakistan:
Based on AHP-fuzzy VIKOR approach. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research,26(29), 30286–30302.
Solangi, Y. A., Tan, Q., Khan, M. W. A., Mirjat, N. H., & Ahmed, I. (2018).
The selection of wind power project location in the southeastern corri-
dor of Pakistan: A factor analysis, AHP, and Fuzzy-TOPSIS application.
Energies,11(8), 1940. https://doi.org/10.3390/en11081940
Souza, J. P. E., & Alves, J. M. (2018). Lean-integrated management system:
A model for sustainability improvement. Journal of Cleaner Production,
172(January), 2667–2682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.
11.144
Sroufe, R. P. (2018). Integrated management: How sustainability creates
value for any enterprise. Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley
BD161WA, UK: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Sroufe, R. (2017). Integration and organizational change towards sustain-
ability. Journal of Cleaner Production,162, 315–329. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.05.180
Su, H.-C., Dhanorkar, S., & Linderman, K. (2015). A competitive advantage
from the implementation timing of ISO Management Standards. Jour-
nal of Operations Management,37(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.jom.2015.03.004
Tsai, W.-H., & Chou, W.-C. (2009). Selecting management systems for sus-
tainable development in SMEs: A novel hybrid model based on
DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert Systems with Applications,36(2),
1444–1458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2007.11.058
Tuczek, F., Castka, P., & Wakolbinger, T. (2018). A review of management
theories in the context of quality, environmental and social responsi-
bility voluntary standards. Journal of Cleaner Production,176(March),
399–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.161
Vafaeipour, M., Zolfani, S. H., Varzandeh, M. H. M., Derakhti, A., &
Eshkalag, M. K. (2014). Assessment of regions priority for implementa-
tion of solar projects in Iran: New application of a hybrid multi-criteria
decision making approach. Energy Conversion and Management,86,
653–663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2014.05.083
Vinodh, S., Prasanna, M., & Hari Prakash, N. (2014). Integrated Fuzzy
AHP–TOPSIS for selecting the best plastic recycling method: A case
study. Applied Mathematical Modelling,38(19–20), 4662–4672.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2014.03.007
Vukši
c, V. B., Bach, M. P., & Popovicˇ, A. (2013). Supporting performance
management with business process management and business intelli-
gence: A case analysis of integration and orchestration. International
Journal of Information Management,33(4), 613–619. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.03.008
Zhang, F., & Zhu, L. (2019). Enhancing corporate sustainable development:
Stakeholder pressures, organizational learning, and green innovation.
Business Strategy and the Environment,28, 1012–1026. https://doi.
org/10.1002/bse.2298
Zhu, Q., Cordeiro, J., & Sarkis, J. (2013). Institutional pressures, dynamic
capabilities and environmental management systems: Investigating the
ISO 9000–Environmental management system implementation link-
age. Journal of Environmental Management,114(January), 232–242.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.10.006
How to cite this article: Ikram M, Zhang Q, Sroufe R.
Developing integrated management systems using an
AHP-Fuzzy VIKOR approach. Bus Strat Env. 2020;1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.2501
IKRAM ET AL.17
APPENDIX A
TABLE A2 Pairwise comparisons matrix of the subcriteria of continuous improvement
B11 B12 B13 B14 B15 Priority weight Rank
B11 1.0000 0.1803 0.7579 0.3615 0.2971 0.0695 5
th
B12 5.5467 1.0000 4.5731 3.1777 1.6438 0.4245 1
st
B13 1.3195 0.2187 1.0000 0.7579 0.3147 0.0937 4
th
B14 2.7663 0.3147 1.3195 1.0000 0.5000 0.1450 3
rd
B15 3.3659 0.6084 3.1777 2.0000 1.0000 0.2673 2
nd
TABLE A1 Pairwise comparisons matrix of Integration subcriteria
A11 A12 A13 A14 Priority weight Rank
A11 1.0000 2.7663 2.0000 0.7579 0.3038 2
nd
A12 0.3615 1.0000 0.5296 0.2091 0.0954 4
th
A13 0.5000 1.8882 1.0000 0.3333 0.1590 3
rd
A14 1.3195 4.7818 3.0000 1.0000 0.4418 1
st
TABLE A3 Pairwise comparisons matrix systematic management subcriteria
C11 C12 C13 C14 Priority weight Rank
C11 1.0000 0.5743 0.3540 0.3615 0.1204 4
th
C12 1.7411 1.0000 0.6084 0.7579 0.2195 3
rd
C13 2.8252 1.6438 1.0000 0.9221 0.3332 1
st
C14 2.7663 1.3195 1.0845 1.0000 0.3269 2
nd
TABLE A4 Pairwise comparisons matrix of reduced bureaucracy subcriteria
D11 D12 D13 D14 Priority weight Rank
D11 1.0000 0.5610 3.1777 2.2206 0.2840 2
nd
D12 1.7826 1.0000 5.3481 3.8981 0.4970 1
st
D13 0.3147 0.1870 1.0000 0.6988 0.0907 4
th
D14 0.4503 0.2565 1.4310 1.0000 0.1284 3
rd
TABLE A5 Pairwise comparisons matrix of the subcriteria of standardization
E11 E12 E13 E14 E15 Priority Weight Rank
E11 1.0000 0.3615 0.2971 0.1748 0.5296 0.0652 5
th
E12 2.7663 1.0000 1.0000 0.3147 1.2457 0.1723 3
rd
E13 3.3659 1.0000 1.0000 0.8706 3.0000 0.2597 2
nd
E14 5.7203 3.1777 1.1487 1.0000 3.6801 0.3925 1
st
E15 1.8882 0.8027 0.3333 0.2717 1.0000 0.1104 4
th
18 IKRAM ET AL.
TABLE A6 Pairwise comparisons matrix of organizational learning
F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16
Priority
Weight Rank
F11 1.0000 0.3010 1.6438 0.4152 3.0000 1.0000 0.1230 4
th
F12 3.3227 1.0000 4.8287 2.3522 5.6738 3.0000 0.3885 1
st
F13 0.6084 0.2071 1.0000 0.3147 1.5157 0.4503 0.0724 5
th
F14 2.4082 0.4251 3.1777 1.0000 3.9487 2.0477 0.2286 2
nd
F15 0.3333 0.1762 0.6598 0.2532 1.0000 0.3147 0.0511 6
th
F16 1.0000 0.3333 2.2206 0.4884 3.1777 1.0000 0.1364 3
rd
IKRAM ET AL.19
