Pheng, L S and Pong, C Y (2003) Integrating ISO 9001 and ohsas 18001 for construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(3), pp. 338-347. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Previous studies comparing OHSAS 18001: 1999 (Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Standard) with the old ISO 9001: 1994 (Quality Assurance Standard) have found compatible requirements that warrant their integration. This study examines the compatibility of the recently released ISO 9001: 2000 (Quality Management Standard) with OHSAS 18001: 1999 for the purpose of integration. A survey of 96 construction firms in Singapore was conducted for this study. Among those who are considering or are already OHSAS 18001: 1999 certified, findings were obtained on the possibility/difficulty and benefits/costs of integration of OHSAS 18001: 1999 and ISO 9001: 2000. Industry concerns relating to potential problems and implementation challenges were discussed. The study concludes that the newly introduced ISO 9001: 2000 standard serves as an opportune platform for construction firms to consider certification to OHSAS 18001: 1999 through an integration exercise.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | occupational safety |
| Index terms: | Singapore, platform, exercise, quality management, occupational safety, implementation, ISO, certification, occupational health and safety, construction firm, quality assurance, survey, integration |
| Subjects: | Geography, digital design, occupational health and safety management, organizational analysis, administrative processes, quality assurance, data collection methods, organization, health behaviours and lifestyles, standards development, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Quality Management, Digital Applications, Procurement, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Business Strategy |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here