Development of Integration Audit on Integrated Management System

in Order to Increase Organizational Performance of Construction

Company

Ringgy Masuin

1

, Yusuf Latief

2

and T. Yuri Zagloel

3

1

Doctoral Program, Civil Department, 16424 University of Indonesia, Indonesia

2

Professor, Civil Department, 16424 University of Indonesia, Indonesia

3

Professor, Industrial Engineering Department, 16424 University of Indonesia, Indonesia

Keywords: Integration Audit, Integrated Management System, Organizational Performance, Construction Company.

Abstract: Organizations can used various management practices in innovation and gain competitive advantage.The

integrated management system is ultimately seen as an effective tool in optimizing organization

performance in implementing management construction projects of construction company. To achieve

performance of organization, organization need to ensure that their process doing well, so we need an audit

system. Several studies has been concern in audit of integrated management system, but their clauses is still

in individual systemmanagement (quality, health and safety, and environment). In this studies we will focus

on audit integration consist of audit checkpoint integrated management system between quality, health &

safety, environment in only 7 HLS (High Level Structure) clauses of 10 HLS clauses ISO:2015. For that

purpose, author used descriptive analytical approach, wherewe tried to showing the most important ideas

used questionnaire in multiple company and analysis variable used in integration audit with RII. As a result,

leadership is the highest weight to consider in integration audit through integrated management system.

1 INTRODUCTION

Every construction company has to implement

management system in order to increase their

organization performance. To implement a

Management System Standard (MSS), organizations

must establish processes that meet previously

designed objectives and requirements. Therefore a

system audit processes and requirements are

necessary to ensure implementation in the

organization process is doing well (Neppach, Nunes

and Schebek, 2017). Full audit integration requires

the establishment of a single audit system in all

functions and has a complete incorporation of all

cross-functional, process, and resource objectives

(Bernardo et al. 2009; Karapetrovic and

Rosenbloom, 1999).

The quality of organizational performance is not

only determined on the final product of work, but

the process of achievement becomes important

(Latief and Utami, 2009). Strict supervision of the

quality management system will produce excellent

and quality products in accordance with agreed upon

specifications at the project planning stage (Lenhardt

and Beck, 2016). During reengineering, it is very

important to write what has been done. Furthermore,

written text is one pattern that can support the

understanding of software: encode assumptions in

text and check whether the tests fail or succeed

(Demirkesen and Ozorhon, 2017).

Organizations, that have integrated management

systems, must have a certain extent expected to

conduct internal audits intensified to some extent,

since internal audit is a subsystem of the entire

management system (Bernardo, Casadesus, and

Karapetrovic, 2010). If an organization has more

than one management system, internal audit can be

integrated as a means to optimize resources

(Bernardo et al. 2015). The audit process includes:

planning, execution, report writing and follow-up

corrective actions or improvements required (Simon

et al. 2012). Audit is the most important part to

ensure the organization performance running well

(Latief and Utami, 2009).

Several researches look forward for audit in

integrated management system. Application of

594

Masuin, R., Latief, Y. and Zagloel, T.

Development of Integration Audit on Integrated Management System in Order to Increase Organizational Performance of Construction Company.

DOI: 10.5220/0008891005940602

In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research (ICMR 2018) - , pages 594-602

ISBN: 978-989-758-437-4

Copyright

c

integrated management system (SMM and SMK3L)

in construction companies in Indonesia had been

applied to construction contractor BUMN companies

and construction management (Wibowo and

Waluyo, 2015), but net yet explore about integration

audit that can establish the implementation of

integrated management system in construction

company. Therefore research question in this

research are:

1. What variable in integration audit are most

important to improve organization performance

through integrated management system

Construction Company?

2. How does integration audit effect organization

performance through integrated management

system in Construction Company?

2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Literature Review

In recent years, the standard of management system

(MSS) that is appropriate to be applied in many

organizations has become a central part for

continuous improvement and business excellence

(Lo Lacono Ferreira, Capuz Rizo, and Torregrosa

Lopez, 2018). Implementation The ISO 9001 and

ISO 14001 management system (MSS) standards are

one of the most commonly used management

practices (Bernardo et al. 2009). The implementation

of the management system in the Republic of

Indonesia is mainly related to the practice of

construction projects based on the laws and

regulations that have been issued by the government

of the Republic of Indonesia. Indonesian legislation

addressing the quality and environmental

management system has been published since 2009,

while the regulation on occupational health and

safety was published in 2012. The regulation is

Government Regulation No.50 of 2012 on Quality

Management System (QMS), Regulation of the State

Minister of Environment No.31 of 2009 on

Environmental Management System (EMS), and

Regulation of Minister of Public Works no. 5 Year

2014 on the implementation of Occupational Safety

and Health Management System (OHSAS).The

implementation of different management systems

has the potential to create conflicts between

management systems, management system

integration is expected to minimize conflict between

management systems (Ferreira et al. 2016). At this

time, many organizations have chosen to implement

Integrated Systems Management (IMS) covering

ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 as an

alternative to optimizing efforts and resources

(Sampaio and Arezes 2014)(Oliveira et al. 2018).

The Integrated Management System (IMS)

integrates all organizational systems and processes

into a complete framework, allows an organization

to work as a whole with an integrated goal to

achieve its goals and mission (Mourougan, 2015).

2.2 Integration Audit

Audits are defined in the ISO 19011: 2011 and ISO

9000: 2005 standard "Systematic, independent and

documented process for obtaining audit evidence

and evaluating objectively to determine the extent to

which audit criteria are met" (ISO, 2005, 2011).

According to the same standards, internal audits are

conducted by, or on behalf of, the organization itself

for management review and other internal purposes,

and may form the basis for the assertion that the

organization meets conformity (ISO, 2005, 2011).

External audits is held by second parties who have

an interest in the organization, such as customers, or

others in the company and external third parties such

as independent audit organizations and such as

certify (ISO, 2005, 2011).

The research on integration of audit in system

management integration starts from Simon's

research (2012) studying the integrated management

system model through example about the stages,

strategies, advantages and organizational challenges

in implementing the integration of management and

audit system. Different management system audits

for the same process are proving complex (Bernardo

et al. 2017 and Simon et al. 2012). Therefore, it is

better to have integration audit to optimize cost and

time (Mourougan, 2015). High levels of MS audit

integration, leading to more synergy and

effectiveness in auditing (Bernardo et al. 2009).

Research on audit integration practices from

management system standards is very limited. A

very helpful study of the authors is a study

conducted by (Mourougan, 2015) using the literature

review method, which provides integrated audit

system planning steps and checkpoint audits

consisting of 7 HLS clauses from ISO 9001, ISO

45001, ISO 14001 and ISO 27001. Bernardo et.al.

(2010) conducted a study by conducting a survey of

1615 organizations in Spain using at least ISO 9001

and ISO 14001, the study intends to find out how

organizations that use ISO 9001 and ISO 14001

perform an audit of their management system

(Bernardo et al. 2010). The study divides audit

integration based on variables related to the

Development of Integration Audit on Integrated Management System in Order to Increase Organizational Performance of Construction

Company

595

integration of the audit itself and the variables

associated with the audit methodology. In the study

they provide a structured approach on how to

integrate audits of ISO 9001 and ISO 27001.

Bernardo in his research found that organizations

with a high degree of MS standard integration also

showed more integrated auditing. In addition, the

degree of integration is generally higher for internal

audit than with external auditing (Bernardo et al.

2010; Muzaimi, Chew, and Hamid, 2017; Carvalho

et al. 2015).

Table 1: Novelty of Integration Audit.

Author

Clause of Inte

g

ration Audit Variable of Audit Pro

g

ramme

d

CO LD PL SP OP PE IM SA EA IA MA RA

Mourougan

2015

√ √ √ √ √ √ √ - - - - -

Bernardo et al.

2010

- - - - - - -

√ √ √ √ √

(Forteza,

Carretero-

Gómez, and

Sesé 2017

- - - - - - -

√ √ √ √ √

Simon et al.

2012

- - - - - - -

√ √ √ √ √

Bernardo et al.

2017

- - - - - - -

√ √ √ √ √

Bernardo et al.

2015

- - - - - - -

√ √ √ √ √

Bernardo et al.

2009

- - - - - - -

√ √ √ √ √

Merce et al.

2016

√ - √ - - √ - - √ √ √ -

(Bernardo 2011

√

- √ - - √ - - √ √ √ -

Merad, Dechy,

and Marcel

2014

- - √ - - √ - - √ √ √ -

Sanz-calcedo et

al. 2015

- - √ - - √ - - √ √ √ -

Implementation,

Study, and

Netzwerk 2016

- - √ - - √ - - √ √ √ -

Muzaimi et al.

2017

√ - √ - - √ - - √ √ √ -

Gianni,

Gotzamani, and

Tsiotras 2017

√ - √ - - √ - - √ √ √ -

Nunhes, Motta

Barbosa, and de

Oliveira 2017

√ - √ - - √ - - √ √ √ -

Source: Own Research

Table 1 shown that to audit system management

effectively, it is important to understand the

requirements of international management standards.

A quick review of standards suggests that it is

structured following the TQM movement philosophy

of Plan, Do, Check, Improve. Audit checkpoints for

audit integration include only 7 HLS (High Level

Structure) clauses of 10 HLS Management System

and the variable needed for implementation of audit

program (Mourougan, 2015). 7 HLS clauses that

used in this research are:

A. Organizational Context (CO) clause that

contains:

CO1: Organizations define external and internal

issues of the or

g

anization.

CO2: The organization determines interested

parties relevant to the IMS and determines

the needs and expectations of each

p

art

y

.

ICMR 2018 - International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research

596

CO3: The organization determines the scope of

the IMS (qualit

y

, OSH, and environment).

CO4: The organization establishes, implements,

maintains and continuously improves in

accordance with the requirements of IMS

(qualit

y

, OSH, and environment) .

CO5: Organizations issues relevant to

organizational goals, achieving customer

satisfaction and strategic direction of the

or

g

anization.

B. Leadership (LD) clause variables are:

LD1: Top management takes responsibility and

demonstrates leadership and commitment

with respect to IMS.

LD2: Top management directs and supports

people to contribute to the effectiveness of

IMS.

LD3: Top management establishes policies for

setting IMS (quality, health and safety)

ob

j

ectives.

LD4: IMS policies (quality, OH & S, in the

environment) are available as documented

information.

LD5: The organization establishes and

communicates the responsibility and

authorit

y

.

C. Planning (PL) clause are:

PL1: The organization establishes the risks and

opportunities that need to be addressed.

PL2: Organizations plan actions to address these

risks and opportunities and integrate them

into the IMS business process.

PL3: Organizations develop processes in

mana

g

in

g

the implementation of IMS.

PL4: The organization defines the goals and

ob

j

ectives of the IMS.

PL5: The organization maintains documented

information.

D. Support (SP) consists of:

SP1:

The Organization determines, provides and

maintains the resources needed for the IMS

(including persons, infrastructure and

environmental requirements).

SP2: The organization ensures that people have

competencies.

SP3: The organization ensures that people doing

work under the control.

SP4: The organization determines, provides and

maintains infrastructure for IMS process

operations.

SP5: The organization determines internal and

external communications.

SP6: Organizations define, establish and maintain

the documented information required b

y

IMS standards.

SP7: The organization ensures that the

documented information is always up-to-

date with proper identification, descriptions

and formats.

SP8:

The organization ensures that documented

information can be controlled for

distribution, access, retrieval, storage,

p

reservation, retention and disposition.

E. Operation (OP) contains of:

OP01: The organization ensures that documented

information can be controlled for

distribution, access, retrieval, storage,

p

reservation, retention and disposition.

OP02: The organization ensures that the

established process can handle risks and

opportunities and in accordance in the IMS

(qualit

y

, OSH, and environment).

OP03: The organization ensures that the

established process can handle risks and

opportunities and in accordance with the

policies, legal goals and requirements and

other requirements set forth in the IMS

(qualit

y

, OSH, and environment).

OP04: The organization ensures that third party

processes in relation to IMS (quality, K3,

and environment) controlled.

F. Performance Evaluation (PE) can be described:

PE01: The organization determines what needs to

b

e monitored and measured.

PE02: The organization defines methods to

ensure legitimate results and to analyzing

monitorin

g

and measuremen

t

.

PE03: The organization establishes a method for

the need or opportunity for improvement

in the IMS.

PE04: The organization conducts internal audits

at planned intervals.

PE05: Organizations take action on findings in

the internal audit process and report to top

mana

g

emen

t

.

PE06: The organization maintains documented

information from the results of an IMS

p

erformance evaluation.

G. Improvement (IM) consists of:

IM01: The organization determines and selects

opportunities for improvement as well as

implements necessary actions to meet

customer needs and improve customer

satisfaction.

IM02: The organization implements the

appropriate process to manage the

nonconformities and corrective actions

involved.

Development of Integration Audit on Integrated Management System in Order to Increase Organizational Performance of Construction

Company

597

IM03: The organization decides how it will handle

the need to continuously improve the

suitability, adequacy, and effectiveness of

IMS.

The components used to integrate in table 1 the

audit process of the management system are divided

into two categories namely variables related to

integration and variables associated with the

methodology. Audit components whose integration

is specifically studied are objectives (eg, audit plan),

resources (eg, auditor and audit time) and processes

(eg, audit plan as inputs, methods used in the audit

process, and audit reports as outputs). The

methodology used in the audit is investigated

through questions about audit implementation

methods, applicable audit guidelines, individual

audit frequencies, and reported types of findings

(Bernardo et al. 2010; Bernardo et al. 2017; Simon

and Casadesus, 2014 and Merad et al. 2014) are:

A. Setting Audit Program Objectives (SA) are:

SA1: The planning and execution of the audit and

shall ensure that the audit program is carried

out effectivel

y

.

SA2: The objectives of the audit program must be

consistent and support the policies and

objectives of the STI (quality, OSH, and

environment).

B. Establish an Audit Program (EA)

EA1: The organization defines the roles and

responsibilities of the person who will

manage the audit program as well as the

audit / auditor team.

EA2: The organization determines the competence

of the person managing the audit program as

well as the audit / auditor team.

EA3: The organization selects the person who

manages and is responsible for the audit

p

ro

g

ram.

EA4: The organization establishes the level of the

audit pro

g

ram.

EA5: The organization establishes procedures for

the audit pro

g

ram.

EA6: The organization identifies and evaluates the

risk of the audit pro

g

ra

m

.

EA7: The organization identifies the resources of

the audit pro

g

ram.

C. Implementing the Audit Program (IA) are:

IA1: The organization defines the objectives,

scope, schedule and criteria of the audit

including the auditor's competence and the

auditor's evaluation process.

IA2: The or

g

anization chooses an audit method.

IA3: The organization selects members of the

audit team.

IA4: The organization assigns responsibility for

the audit to the audit team leader.

IA5: The organization manages the results of the

audit pro

g

ram.

IA6: The organization manages and maintains

audit pro

g

ram records.

D. Monitor Audit Program (MA) consists of:

MA1: The organization monitors compliance with

the audit program, schedule and audit

ob

j

ectives.

MA2: The organization monitors the performance

of members of the audit team.

MA3: The organization monitors the ability of the

audit team to implement the audit plan.

MA4:

Organizations monitor feedback from top

management, auditees, auditors and other

interested parties.

E. Reviewing and Improving the Audit Program

(RA) are:

RA1: The organization reviews the audit program

to assess whether its objectives have been

achieved.

RA2: Lessons learned from audit program reviews

should be used as input for ongoing program

improvement processes.

RA3: The organization reviews the overall

implementation of the audit program,

identifies areas of improvement, modifies

the pro

g

ram if necessar

y

.

2.3 Organization Performance

Performance measurement is one very important

factor for a company. During traditional

performance measurement only focus on the

financial side. Managers who achieve a high profit

rate will be considered successful and earn good

rewards from the company. Conversely, poor

financial performance in the short term can occur

due to the company investing in long-term interests.

To overcome this deficiency, then it is created an

audit approach method that measures the

performance of the company by considering four

aspects of financial aspects, customers, internal

business processes and learning and developing

process (Olaru et al. 2014).

Organization performance can improve its

workers productivity. The work productivity of an

organization is strongly influenced by the

productivity of its employees. While employee

productivity is very influenced by factors of

supervision, motivation and an effective work

culture, as well as other factors such as leadership,

education level and so forth. There are some factors

ICMR 2018 - International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research

598

affecting productivity (Simon et al. 2012; Bernardo

et al. 2009; Bernardo et al. 2015 and Adeleke et al.

2017).

3 METHODOLOGY

The research design adopted in this study is

qualitative quantitative research in which the data

are analysed statistically by using RII method and

basic statistic. Respondents are the 20 employees of

construction company workers in Jakarta

Construction Company. These respondents were

choosing because construction company worker in

Jakarta have high risk accident/death accident.

Characteristic of respondents are 10% worker handle

more than 30 project of construction, 40% worker

handle 10 – 30 project of construction, and 50%

worker handle less than 10 project of construction.

10% of the worker works for under 5 years in

construction company, 45% works for 5 – 10 years,

and 45% works more than 10 years in construction

company.

These data is in the form of questionnaire. The

score is obtained by weight in each questionnaire.

As we are having RII method to configure variable

is most important in integration audit, we consider to

have normalization of matrix and priority first in

table 1. After we are consider that weight that used

in this paper are normal, so we concluded weight

that used for integration audit in integration

management system variable in table 2.

Table 2: Normalization of Matrix And Priority.

Strongly

Agree

Neutral

Not Agree

Strongly

Disagree

Stron

gly

Agree

1 3 5 7 9

Agree 0.33 1 3 5 7

Neutr

al

0.20 0.33 1 3 5

Not

Agree

0.14 0.20 0.33 1 3

Stron

gly

Disag

ree

0.11 0.14 0.20 0.3 1

1.787 4.676 9.533

16.33

3

25.00

0

From the normalization part, we found that weight

used for quantitative research is shown in table 3.

Table 3: Normalization of Matrix and Priority.

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neutral

Not

Agree

Strongly

Disagree

Weight 1.000 0.535 0.274 0.141 0.068

Table 3 shown weight that used in this paper are

0.068 for strongly disagree, 0,141 for not agree,

0,274 for neutral, 0.535 for agree and 1.000 for

strongly agree. That weight used in table 4.

Table 4: Results RII of Integration Audit.

Var

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strognly Disagree

Total

Weight

KO1 50 24 9 0 0 61.1 3.21

KO2 40 36 3 2 0 51.2 2.69

KO3 45 36 3 0 0 56.2 2.96

KO4 40 40 3 0 0 52.2 2.75

KO5 45 28 9 0 0 57.1 3.01

LD1 75 12 3 0 0 79.8 4.20

LD2 60 24 0 2 0 66.4 3.50

LD3 60 28 0 0 0 67.5 3.55

LD4 35 44 3 0 0 48.3 2.54

LD5 45 36 0 2 0 54.6 2.87

PL1 45 36 3 0 0 56.2 2.96

PL2 45 40 0 0 0 55.7 2.93

PL3 35 44 3 0 0 48.3 2.54

PL4 50 36 0 0 0 59.6 3.14

PL5 50 36 0 0 0 59.6 3.14

SP1 50 28 3 2 0 59 3.11

SP2 40 40 3 0 0 52.2 2.75

SP3 40 36 6 0 0 52.7 2.77

SP4 25 52 3 0 0 40.4 2.13

SP5 35 44 3 0 0 48.3 2.54

SP6 30 48 3 0 0 44.4 2.34

SP7 35 44 3 0 0 48.3 2.54

SP8 40 44 0 0 0 51.7 2.72

OP1 50 36 0 0 0 59.6 3.14

OP2 50 32 3 0 0 60.1 3.16

OP3 35 44 0 2 0 46.7 2.46

OP4 50 32 3 0 0 60.1 3.16

PE1 40 40 3 0 0 52.2 2.75

PE2 35 44 3 0 0 48.3 2.54

PE3 30 48 0 2 0 42.8 2.25

PE4 45 40 0 0 0 55.7 2.93

PE5 45 40 0 0 0 55.7 2.93

PE6 35 40 3 0 0 47.2 2.49

IM1 45 32 6 0 0 56.7 2.98

Development of Integration Audit on Integrated Management System in Order to Increase Organizational Performance of Construction

Company

599

IM2 30 48 3 0 0 44.4 2.34

IM3 48 30 3 0 0 57.6 3.03

As mention in table 4, leadership is the highest

weight for integration audit content variables.

Table 5: Score of Group B (Physical Class).

Var

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strognly Disagree

Total

Weight

SA1 55 24 6 0 0 64.5 3.40

SA2 45 40 0 0 0 55.7 2.93

EA1 40 40 0 2 0 50.7 2.67

EA2 40 40 3 0 0 52.2 2.75

EA3 35 40 0 4 0 45.7 2.40

EA4 35 36 6 2 0 47.7 2.51

EA5 35 48 0 0 0 47.8 2.52

EA6 45 40 0 0 0 55.7 2.93

EA7 35 48 0 0 0 48 2.52

IA1 30 44 6 0 0 45 2.36

IA2 25 44 6 2 0 40 2.10

IA3 30 40 3 4 0 42 2.22

IA4 35 40 3 2 0 47 2.49

IA5 40 36 6 0 0 53 2.77

IA6 45 32 6 0 0 57 2.98

MA1 40 36 6 0 0 52.7 2.77

MA2 40 40 3 0 0 52.2 2.75

MA3 40 36 6 0 0 52.7 2.77

MA4 50 32 3 0 0 60.1 3.16

RA1 5 36 3 0 0 56.2 2.96

RA2 40 40 3 0 0 52.2 2.75

RA3 45 36 3 0 0 56.2 2.96

So, in table 5 we found that setting programme

audit objectives is highest weight in variable of audit

programme

3.1 Data Normality Test

Data normality test is utilized to see the distribution

of the data. In other words, it is to know that the data

are normally distributed. To see the chart of the

normal distribution of the data, the researcher adopts

the method of Normal Probability Plots in testing the

data for both groups. The followings are the charts

that show the normal distribution of the data of the

two groups in this research. The data distribution is

normal because the data spread around the diagonal

line of the chart.

Figure 1: Data distribution of Integration Audit.

To see the normal distribution of the data from

the Constanta value or Asymp.sig value, the

researcher adopts the method of Kolmogorov-

Smirnov Z. Both data show that the Asymp.sig value

are larger than 0.05, then the data are distributed

normally. The Asymp.sig value of of integration

audit is .757 and .989

Table 6: Validation of Integration Audit.

N 19

Normal

Parameters

a,b

Mean 4.35

Std.

Deviation

1.811

Most Extreme

Differences

Absolute .154

Positive .154

Ne

g

ative -.103

Kolmo

g

orov-Smirnov Z .672

A

s

y

m

p

. Si

g

.

(

2-tailed

)

.757

Then, the data are calculated by using Wilcoxon

Signed Ranked Test because the data in this research

is non-parametric data (Prasetyo, 2014).

4 ANALYSIS

Not all studies will have a hypothesis for tested. For

research that is an exploration a theory that has not

significant and small or absent studies research, it is

impossible to draw a hypotheses. For achieve

research objectives in this type of research, we used

a research question that is based on literature review.

ICMR 2018 - International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research

600

4.1 Mean

Using equation formula of mean as follow:

(1)

We found that µ = 4.358. It means that

respondent are agree with all variable require in this

research.

4.2 Validation

It can be concluded that there is no difference in

perception of answers. Based on results of the

validation of content and constructs in research

methodologies we find that there were 7 clauses are

valid for audit content and 5 variables are valid for

audit programme. Clauses used for audit content are

organizational context (CO), leadership (LD),

planning (PL), support (SP), operation (OP),

performance evaluation (PE), and improvement

(IM). Variable of audit programme consist of setting

audit program objective (SA), establish an audit

program (EA), implementing the audit program (IA),

monitor audit program (MA), reviewing and

improving the audit program (RA).

4.3 Results of RII

As we are having valid variable for measure, so next

we will find most variable important in integration

audit, we consider to have normalization of matrix

and priority first as shown in table 3. There were

some variable that have highest weight LD1 is the

highest weight (4.20), than LD3 (3.55), LD2 (3.50)

and SA1.

5 CONCLUSION

Clauses used for audit contact are organizational

context (CO), leadership (LD), planning (PL),

support (SP), operation (OP), performance

evaluation (PE), and improvement (IM). Variable of

audit programme consist of setting audit program

objective (SA), establish an audit program (EA),

implementing the audit program (IA), monitor audit

program (MA), reviewing and improving the audit

program (RA). There were some variable that have

highest weight LD1 is the highest weight (4.20),

than LD3 (3.55), LD2 (3.50) and SA1.

For future research, we would develop the

standard, procedure and manual for integration audit

that can improve organization performance through

integrated management system and research for

correlation of integration audit to improve

organization performance.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Authors would like to thank the financial support

provides by University of Indonesia through the

PITTA 2018 funding scheme under grant number

861/UN2.R3.1/HKP.05.00/2018 Managed by

Directorate for Research and Public Services

(DRPM) University of Indonesia.

REFERENCES

Adeleke, A. Q. et al., 2017. “The Influence of

Organizational External Factors on Construction Risk

Management among Nigerian Construction

Companies.” Safety and Health at Work 1–10.

Retrieved https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2017.05.004).

Bernardo, Merce., 2011. “Relationships between the

Integration of Audits and Management Systems An

Empirical Study.”

Bernardo, Merce, Marti Casadesus, and Stanislav

Karapetrovic. 2010. “An Empirical Study on the

Integration of Management System Audits.” 18:486–

95.

Bernardo, Merce, Marti Casadesus, Stanislav

Karapetrovic, and Iñaki Heras., 2009. “How Integrated

Are Environmental, Quality and Other Standardized

Management Systems? An Empirical Study.” Journal

of Cleaner Production 17(8):742–50.

Bernardo, Merce, Maria Gianni, Katerina Gotzamani, and

Alexandra Simon., 2017. “Is There a Common Pattern

to Integrate Multiple Management Systems? A

Comparative Analysis between Organizations in

Greece and Spain.” Journal of Cleaner Production

151:121–33. Retrieved

(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.036).

Bernardo, Merce, Alexandra Simon, Juan José Tarí, and

José F. Molina-Azorín., 2015. “Benefits of

Management Systems Integration: A Literature

Review.” Journal of Cleaner Production 94:260–67.

Carvalho, Karla M. P., Flávio Picchi, Gladis Camarini,

and Edna M. Q. O. Chamon., 2015. “Benefits in the

Implementation of Safety , Health , Environmental and

Quality Integrated System.” 7(4).

Demirkesen, Sevilay and Beliz Ozorhon., 2017.

“ScienceDirect Impact of Integration Management on

Construction Project Management Performance.”

International Journal of Project Management

35(8):1639–54. Retrieved

Development of Integration Audit on Integrated Management System in Order to Increase Organizational Performance of Construction

Company

601

(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.09.008).

Ferreira, Manuel et al., 2016. “Model Based Integration of

Management Systems ( MSs ) – Case Study.”

Forteza, Francisco J., Jose M. Carretero-Gómez, and

Albert Sesé., 2017. “Effects of Organizational

Complexity and Resources on Construction Site Risk.”

Journal of Safety Research 62:185–98.

Gianni, Maria, Katerina Gotzamani, and George Tsiotras.,

2017. “Multiple Perspectives on Integrated

Management Systems and Corporate Sustainability

Performance.” Journal of Cleaner Production

168:1297–1311. Retrieved

(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.061).

Implementation, Milestones I. N., Case Study, and

Radiologische Netzwerk. 2016., “OF AN

INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE

HEALTH SECTOR.” 432–46.

Karapetrovic, Stanislav and E. S. Rosenbloom. 1999.,

“Quality Control Approach to Consistency Paradoxes

in AHP.” European Journal of Operational Research

119(3):704–18.

Latief, Yusuf and Retyaning Puji Utami. 2009. “Penerapan

Pendekatan Metode Six Sigma Dalam Penjagaan

Kualitas Pada Proyek Konstruksi.” Makara Teknologi

13(2):67–72.

Lenhardt, Uwe and David Beck., 2016. “Prevalence and

Quality of Workplace Risk Assessments - Findings

from a Representative Company Survey in Germany.”

Safety Science 86:48–56. Retrieved

(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.02.017).

Lo-Iacono-Ferreira, Vanesa G., Salvador F. Capuz-Rizo,

and Juan Ignacio Torregrosa-López., 2018. “Key

Performance Indicators to Optimize the Environmental

Performance of Higher Education Institutions with

Environmental Management System – A Case Study

of Universitat Politècnica de València.” Journal of

Cleaner Production 178:846–65.

Merad, Myriam, Nicolas Dechy, and Frédéric Marcel.,

2014. “A Pragmatic Way of Achieving Highly

Sustainable Organisation : Governance and

Organisational Learning in Action in the Public

French Sector Q.” Safety Science 69:18–28. Retrieved

(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.01.002).

Merce, Alfonso Hernandez-vivanco, Bernardo Claudio,

Alfonso Hernandez-vivanco, Merce Bernardo, and

Claudio Cruz-cázares. 2016., “Relating Open

Innovation , Innovation and Management Systems

Integration.”

Mourougan, Sendil. 2015., “Auditing Integrated

Management System for Continuing Suitability ,

Sustainability and Improvement.” 17(10):1–14.

Muzaimi, Hafizzudin, Boon Cheong Chew, and Syaiful

Rizal Hamid., 2017. “Integrated Management System :

The Integration of ISO 9001 , ISO 14001 , OHSAS

18001 and ISO 31000.” 020034.

Neppach, Simone, Katia R. A. Nunes, and Liselotte

Schebek., 2017. “Organizational Environmental

Footprint in German Construction Companies.”

Journal of Cleaner Production 142:78–86. Retrieved

(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.065).

Nunhes, Thaís Vieira, Luis César F. Motta Barbosa, and

Otavio Jose de Oliveira., 2017. “Identification and

Analysis of the Elements and Functions Integrable in

Integrated Management Systems.” Journal of Cleaner

Production 142:3225–35.

Olaru, Marieta, Dorin Maier, Diana Nicoar Ă, and

Andreea Maier., 2014. “Establishing the Basis for

Development of an Organization by Adopting the

Integrated Management Systems : Comparative Study

of Various Models and Concepts of Integration.”

109:693–97.

Oliveira, Ana Claudia De, Carla Cristiane Sokulski,

Alamo Alexandre, and Antonio Carlos De Francisco.,

2018. “Competencies for Sustainability : A Proposed

Method for the Analysis of Their Interrelationships.”

Sustainable Production and Consumption 14:82–94.

Retrieved (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2018.01.005).

Sampaio, P. and P. M. Arezes., 2014. “Total Quality

Management & Business Excellence Analysis of

Integrated Management Systems from Various

Perspectives.” (October):37–41.

Sanz-calcedo, J. G., A. G. González, O. López, D. R.

Salgado, and I. Cambero., 2015. “Analysis on

Integrated Management of the Quality , Environment

and Safety on the Industrial Projects.” Procedia

Engineering 132:140–45. Retrieved

(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.12.490).

Simon, Alexandra and Marti Casadesus., 2014. “Can

Integration Difficulties Affect Innovation and

Satisfaction ?” 114(2):183–202.

Simon, Alexandra, Alexandra Simon, Stanislav

Karapetrovic, and Martí Casadesús., 2012.

“Difficulties and Benefits of Integrated Management

Systems Industrial Management & Data Systems

Emerald Article : Difficulties and Benefits of

Integrated Management Systems.” (March 2015).

Wibowo, Mochamad Agung and Rudi Waluyo., 2015.

“Knowledge Management Maturity in Construction

Companies.” Procedia Engineering 125:89–94.

Retrieved

(http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.014).

ICMR 2018 - International Conference on Multidisciplinary Research

602