Management Frameworks and Management System Standards in the Context of Integration and Unification: A Review and Classification of Core Building Blocks for Consilience

Abstract

Management frameworks (MFs) and management system standards (MSSs) are essential tools for improving organisational management practises. They inherently include a range of fundamental building blocks that facilitate the creation of structured management systems. However, these building blocks have not yet been holistically identified or unified into a consilient taxonomy. Addressing this research gap, this study conducts a comprehensive review of 415 academic papers and theses, 47 ISO MSSs, and 79 MFs sourced from scholarly databases and official publications. Utilising a novel heuristic methodology, this study integrates a literature review, clustering, text mining analytics, and an expert review to develop a Consilient Building Block Taxonomy (CBBT). This taxonomy categorises the foundational components of MFs and MSSs, presenting them as a structured framework that unifies these elements into a cohesive system. By providing a systematic classification, the CBBT serves as a foundation for the development of a Unified Singular Management System (USMS). The proposed taxonomy enhances operational coherence, strategic alignment, and efficiency by consolidating the core aspects of diverse management systems. This study concludes with insights into how the CBBT can be leveraged to achieve integration and unification in management practises, offering significant potential for both research and practical applications.

1. Introduction

Industrial value creation is undergoing significant transformations as a result of intensified global competition, the rise of digitalisation, and the proliferation of complex regulatory landscapes. Within this context, organisations increasingly seek unified solutions that synthesise diverse management principles into more coherent and integrated approaches.

Seminal contributions in management theory have long advocated holistic methods for interpreting complex systems [1], whereas Goldman and Callaghan [2] propose a holistic synthesis of organisational theories, arguing for qualitative approaches that more accurately capture organisational complexity while more contemporary investigations emphasise cross-disciplinary integration [3].

Within the organisational sphere, MFs are conceptual models shaping processes and decision-making flows, whereas MSSs provide codified, internationally recognised requirements facilitating alignment with industry benchmarks. Collectively, these constructs form the backbone of effective governance, enabling enterprises to standardise quality, environmental stewardship, information security, and other critical dimensions. For example, ISO 9001 [4] emphasises quality management principles, while ISO 27001 [5] addresses information security. Yet, despite their widespread application, as Heras-Saizarbitoria and Olivier Boiral emphasised [6], MFs and MSSs remain predominantly isolated, leading to fragmentation and inefficiencies. This reality underscores the need for a consilient taxonomy of “building blocks”, capable of bridging disparate frameworks to foster a Unified Singular Management System (USMS). For this purpose, systems theory advocates for a holistic approach to understanding complex phenomena, emphasising the interconnectedness of system components rather than isolated analysis [7]. This perspective has been applied to management and organisational studies, with researchers recognising the need for integrated, cross-disciplinary methods to address complex problems [8].

Current research studies [9,10] reveal a substantial gap in the literature. Although numerous frameworks and standards have been documented, their foundational building blocks have not been collectively identified or organised into a holistic reference structure. Scholars and practitioners confront a broad, complex, and heterogeneous array of guidance, often leading to duplication, incoherence, and difficulty in achieving optimal integration [11,12]. The rising emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration, broader stakeholder engagement, and the pressing urgency of meeting multiple compliance requirements further heighten this necessity [13,14]. It is therefore highly relevant and of great value, for both research and practise-oriented communities, to exploit the full potential of a unified taxonomy that supports the development of a USMS.

This research addresses the aforementioned research demand with the following objectives: (1) to identify the core building blocks underpinning MFs and MSSs, (2) to develop a Consilient Building Block Taxonomy (CBBT) that consolidates these elements into a coherent framework, and (3) to provide a basis of how this taxonomy can guide the advancement of a Unified Singular Management System. In accomplishing these aims, this study contributes to the scholarly discourse by presenting a structured, integrative perspective that enhances understanding and streamlines organisational endeavours. For practitioners, the taxonomy offers a clear reference model that facilitates operational coherence, strategic alignment, and efficiency, ultimately advancing the maturity of integrated management practises.

The research paper is structured as follows. Following this introduction, Section 2 outlines the theoretical foundations and situates this study within the relevant literature. Section 3 describes the research methodology, detailing the rigorous approach undertaken to identify and refine the core building blocks. Section 4 presents the findings, introducing the CBBT and illustrating its hierarchical organisation. Section 5 offers a critical discussion, interpreting the implications of the taxonomy for both research and practical application. Finally, Section 6 concludes this study, reflecting on its limitations, proposing avenues for future research, and highlighting the potential impact of the CBBT on the advancement of integrated and unified management frameworks.

2. Theoretical Foundations

2.1. Consilience Approach, Theory, Thinking, and Intelligence

Consilience, derived from Whewell’s foundational principles [15] and expanded by Wilson [16], advocates for the convergence of diverse knowledge domains to create unified solutions. This theory highlights the interconnectedness of disciplines, offering a holistic approach to addressing complex challenges. In the context of management systems, consilience integrates theoretical insights from fields such as organisational behaviour and environmental science, providing a more comprehensive understanding of MFs and MSSs. Ryan and Deci [17] emphasise the role of behavioural perspectives, while Tietenberg [18] underscores ecological considerations. By synthesising these viewpoints, organisations can align their management strategies with broader societal and behavioural dimensions, enhancing the coherence and adaptability of their systems [19,20].

Consilient thinking, as articulated by Morin [21], facilitates the integration of knowledge across disparate domains, fostering innovation and improving decision-making processes. In the context of management system standards (MSSs), this approach encourages interdisciplinary collaboration, enabling the development of standards that incorporate diverse sectoral insights, such as human resource management and ecological sustainability [22]. This methodological integration identifies synergies across disciplines, creating solutions that are theoretically robust and practically applicable. For example, Dawe and Schneider [23] highlight that integrating local ecological knowledge into environmental assessments introduces nuanced, context-specific insights often overlooked by conventional frameworks. Consilient intelligence builds on the capacity of organisations to synthesise knowledge across disciplines, facilitating the identification of overarching structures that inform strategic decisions [24,25]. Fernández-Arias et al. [26] and McNally et al. [27] highlight the evolutionary basis of social intelligence, where cooperation plays a fundamental role in advancing cognitive abilities. In the context of management systems, this concept translates into knowledge-sharing platforms and interdisciplinary educational initiatives, enabling organisations to address complex and dynamic challenges effectively [28]. As Lucia [29] observes, organisations that foster consilient intelligence are better positioned to integrate strategic objectives with operational practises, thereby enhancing governance, performance, and resilience.

2.2. General Systems Theory and Systems Thinking

Ludwig von Bertalanffy introduced General Systems Theory (GST) in the mid-20th century to offer a conceptual structure for the interpretation of interrelationships across diverse phenomena [30]. Following the recommendations of Boulding, GST establishes theoretical constructs that transcend disciplinary confines, enabling broad applicability in empirical inquiry [31]. GST, as proposed by Bertalanffy, provides a unifying framework for interdisciplinary science, viewing systems as interconnected elements within an environment [32]. GST has influenced various fields, including biology, medicine, and organisational theory [32,33]. Its adoption has encouraged holistic perspectives, moving beyond reductionist approaches [34]. In the organisational domain, GST furnishes an integrative lens through which complexity is examined, contributing to our understanding of diverse system dynamics and interventions [35]. It offers a holistic view of organisations as open systems, leading to new perspectives in organisational theory and management practises [36,37]. This standpoint supports the design of management frameworks that acknowledge intricate internal dynamics [38]. Applying GST to management and governance practises enables the formation of system-based concepts with direct utility in organisational system contexts [39,40]. Drawing upon GST, Tramonti et al. [39] highlight that systems thinking provides a powerful framework for understanding complex interactions across various disciplines and levels of organisational systems. To ensure exhaustive conceptual coverage, the literature draws on established theoretical work, thereby guiding the development of unified management models. Contemporary scholarship continues to refine and extend GST, exploring its philosophical foundations and practical applications across various disciplines [7], and offers novel contributions and systemic interventions [35].

Systems thinking, aligned with GST, treats organisational phenomena as cohesive entities rather than discrete elements [41]. Monat et al. [42] characterise this orientation as one that probes underlying structures and mental models, thereby informing a richer understanding of recurring organisational patterns. This approach is beneficial for identifying leverage points within complex systems and refining interventions that improve long-term outcomes [43]. In terms of technique, system dynamics—an integral part of systems thinking—employs computational simulations to examine evolving organisational issues [44], enhancing predictive accuracy and strategic foresight.

The General Systems Model (GSM) inherently aligns with the general systems thinking perspective, providing a practical application of its core principles. While GST, as articulated by von Bertalanffy [30], establishes the theoretical underpinnings of understanding interconnected systems, the GSM offers a concrete means of representing and analysing those systems. Crucially, the GSM does not merely depict isolated elements; it explicitly models the relationships, flows, and feedback loops that characterise a system’s dynamic behaviour [45,46]. This emphasis on interconnectedness and emergent properties, as highlighted by Mella [47], underscores the GSM’s holistic approach, mirroring a central tenet of systems thinking. The clear definition of a system’s boundary, inputs, outputs, and processes within a GSM reinforces its systemic nature.

2.3. Related Work

Management systems (MSs) are formalised frameworks employed by organisations to coordinate the interrelated components of their operations with the aim of achieving strategic objectives such as the improvement in quality, efficiency, environmental performance, and health and safety standards [48]. These systems facilitate decision-making processes by providing critical information to executives, ensuring their alignment with organisational goals [49]. Kazmi and Naarananoja [50] underscore the significance of structured management processes, emphasising the role of the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) model in fostering continuous improvement and enhancing organisational performance. The literature presents various tools and instruments designed to support management processes and ensure cohesion with broader corporate strategies. Denisia et al. [51] highlight the importance of management control systems in enabling managers to navigate operational complexities and steer organisations effectively. Additionally, Tiller [52] introduces a comprehensive management system that facilitates company-wide information dissemination. This system addresses critical cultural considerations, such as organisational characteristics and competitive dynamics, which exert considerable influence on operational outcomes. Carr and Nanni [53] define a management system as a structured framework comprising policies, processes, and procedures designed to enable organisations to achieve objectives such as financial success, operational safety, product quality, and regulatory compliance. Salah et al. [54] examine the Total Company-Wide Management System (TCWMS), offering insights into its role as a comprehensive foundation to achieve organisational goals. Da Silva [55] further highlights the importance of integrating diverse management systems, asserting that such integration is essential for organisational resilience and vitality, with its success influenced by underlying principles and standards.

In contrast, management frameworks (MFs) serve as conceptual structures that support specific organisational objectives [56]. These frameworks are shaped by factors such as the organisational environment, as well as the planning, organising, leading, and controlling of activities [57]. Despite their utility, critiques persist; for example, Ruth [58] argues that managerial competence frameworks may impose constraints that limit flexibility and adaptability within dynamic environments. To mitigate such challenges, Samuel [59] introduces a conceptual framework for teaching management systems, distinguishing between organisational and market considerations to improve strategic decision-making processes. A comprehensive management framework integrates elements such as people, processes, technology, budget, leadership, facilities, and regulations [60]. This structure supports organisations in addressing uncertainties introduced by industrial revolutions, with a focus on human adaptability and performance [61]. Defining organisational structures is critical for the clarification of roles and responsibilities, thus improving operational efficiency [62]. O’Toole et al. also explore high-level processes like crowd management, incorporating concepts such as complexity and emergence. Similarly, Du Preez [63] highlights the importance of contextualising knowledge networks and domains to effectively manage innovation within organisational systems.

An Integrated Management System (IMS) consolidates multiple management system standards (MSSs) into a unified framework, enabling organisations to streamline operations, improve efficiency, and ensure simultaneous compliance with various ISO standards [64]. This integration facilitates the alignment of key management components, such as environmental protection, industrial safety, and labour welfare, into a single operational structure. As noted by Malikova et al. [65], an IMS reduces administrative redundancies while enhancing operational effectiveness through a cohesive and systematic approach. The implementation of an IMS requires the establishment of a comprehensive management policy, coupled with a structured assessment of the organisation’s degree of integration [66]. This involves a thorough analysis of organisational processes to confirm alignment with overarching strategic objectives. A holistic approach to integration simplifies procedures, eliminates redundancies, and fosters improved coordination across management domains, thereby supporting better strategic alignment. Research on IMSs reflects their interdisciplinary nature, incorporating diverse methodologies to address the complexities inherent in integrating multiple systems. Common approaches, as outlined in Appendix A Table A1, include case studies, comparative analyses, and mixed-method designs. This methodological diversity ensures that findings are both robust and applicable across various organisational contexts. By employing multiple research techniques, scholars contribute to the development of comprehensive strategies aimed at enhancing organisational efficiency, coherence, and adaptability.

3. Research Method

Our research employed a systematic six-stage methodology to identify, analyse, and validate consilient building blocks within MFs and MSSs. The methodology was designed to ensure a comprehensive exploration of the interconnected elements between MFs and MSSs, aligning closely with the research objectives. The process combines qualitative and quantitative approaches to examine these management structures holistically, providing a robust foundation for further analysis. Figure 1 illustrates the overall process, highlighting the sequential approach adopted to ensure thoroughness at each phase.

Figure 1. Process of research method.

The six stages, summarised in (Table 1), encompass structured steps for the data collection, filtering, exploration, verification, and validation of consilient building blocks. This framework enables the identification of commonalities and synergies within diverse management systems, contributing to the development of a unified perspective on their integration.

Table 1. Stages of research method.

	Review Stages	Description
1	Determine Data Sources	Determine Data Sources: Identify and collect data sources, including management frameworks (MFs), management system standards (MSSs), and academic publications.
2	Search and Filter Data	Search Data Sources: Develop search strategies, including database selection, search terms, and options. Filter Gathered Data: Apply criteria to filter and remove irrelevant data to focus on high-quality, relevant sources.
3	Explore and Identify Building Blocks	Text Extraction: Extract text from selected data sources. Preprocessing: Clean, standardise, and prepare the extracted data for analysis. Feature Extraction: Identify key features such as keywords, patterns, and concepts. Clustering: Group data into clusters based on identified features. Topic Modelling: Apply topic modelling techniques to detect common themes. Summarisation: Summarise thematic patterns and findings. Universe Reduction and Naming: Streamline building blocks by reducing redundancy and naming key building blocks. Create Consilient Building Block Registry: Document and organise the identified building blocks systematically.
4	Verify and Refine Consilient Building Blocks	Design and Implement Survey: Develop a survey to gather expert input on the identified building blocks. Verify and Refine Consilient Building Blocks: Incorporate feedback to refine the registry of the building blocks iteratively.
5	Validate Consilient Building Blocks	Validate Consilient Building Blocks: Conduct validation through expert review, case studies, or benchmarking against existing frameworks and standards.
6	Present and Interpret Consilient Building Blocks	Present Findings: Present the finalised consilient building blocks using visualisations, tables, or conceptual models. Conclusion: Synthesise findings, interpret results, and discuss their implications for research and practise.

In Stage 1, relevant data sources were systematically identified across three categories: management frameworks (MFs), management system standards (MSSs), and academic publications. For management frameworks, data were gathered from business and management webpages, academic databases, search engines, and professional organisations to ensure comprehensive coverage of widely adopted frameworks. Management system standards were obtained exclusively from the ISO management system standard database, which provided access to established standards with structured requirements. For academic publications, searches were conducted in Web of Science, Scopus, Emerald Insight, and Google Scholar, ensuring the inclusion of the peer-reviewed literature essential for theoretical and empirical insights.

In Stage 2, we applied a process to identify and filter relevant data sources across management frameworks (MFs), ISO management system standards (MSSs), and academic publications. For MFs, frameworks that lacked comprehensive management processes or requirements were excluded, focusing instead on those that aligned with the criteria of structured management systems. Similarly, for ISO MSSs, documents classified as drafts, amendments, technical reports, or guidelines were excluded to ensure the analysis was based solely on established standards. The academic publications were filtered by source type, retaining only peer-reviewed journal articles containing relevant keywords or their synonyms in the title. This filtering ensured the inclusion of high-quality, contextually relevant documents. A systematic review of the selected materials identified 79 MFs (in Appendix A Table A2), 47 ISO MSSs (in Appendix A Table A3), and 415 academic papers. Notable MFs included Agile Scrum, Balanced Scorecard, and ITIL, while ISO MSSs spanned key standards such as ISO 9001:2015 [4], ISO 14001:2015 [67], and ISO 27001:2022 [5]. Each source was evaluated for its potential to reveal building blocks that foster integration and unification. This stage provided a foundation for uncovering commonalities and intersections among frameworks and standards, forming the basis for an analysis of consilient building blocks.

In Stage 3, a heuristic method combining manual and automated techniques was employed to explore and identify consilient building blocks within MFs and MSSs (the selection reasoning for each tool, along with alternative methods, is detailed in Appendix A Table A4). The process began with text extraction using PyMuPDF [68], selected for its reliable performance in accurately capturing content from various document formats. This was followed by preprocessing with spaCy [69], chosen for its fast and efficient tokenisation, stop word removal, and lemmatisation capabilities, which refined the text for analysis. Semantic embeddings were generated using Sentence-BERT (sBERT) [70,71], as it effectively captures contextual meaning and semantic relationships, facilitating a deeper understanding of themes across the data. Clustering was conducted with HDBSCAN [72] because of its ability to identify clusters of varying density without requiring the predefinition of the number of clusters, helping uncover areas of convergence. To model the topics within these clusters, Non-negative Matrix Factorisation (NMF) [73,74] was applied for its interpretability and robustness in revealing hidden patterns and relationships across frameworks and standards. Figure 2 and Figure 3 illustrate the clustering of documents in two and three dimensions, respectively, with the 3D view helping to reveal overlaps and relationships not easily visible in 2D.

Figure 2. HDBSCAN clustering of documents in 2D.

Figure 3. HDBSCAN clustering of documents in 3D.

The thematic clusters were summarised using the TextRank algorithm [75], chosen for its unsupervised and efficient approach to extractive summarisation, providing a concise representation of the text without the need for extensive training data. Twelve experts from different countries, each with extensive experience in the expert review of MFs and MSSs (the selection criteria for expert reviewers and the detailed review process are outlined in Appendix A Table A5 and Appendix A Table A6, respectively), provided initial input on the reduction process: they guided reviews and alignment with established standards and refined this set to 84 items, which were then subjected to further validation. Expert insights and literature comparisons ensured the clarity, relevance, and applicability of the identified building blocks. This systematic approach laid the groundwork for the development of the Consilient Building Block Taxonomy, offering a structured means to unify and enhance management practises.

In Stage 4, to verify the practical relevance of the identified building blocks, a survey was designed and distributed to industry professionals across nine countries and 11 sectors, including finance, healthcare, technology services, manufacturing, and government. The survey comprised 91 questions, with 84 assessing the unique building blocks and 7 control questions ensuring data reliability. Participants rated the importance of each building block on a Likert scale from 0 to 10. This diverse sample provided robust insights into the real-world applicability of the building blocks, enriching their evaluation with cross-sectoral perspectives. The survey responses revealed a bimodal distribution (Figure 4), with ratings clustering around two distinct importance levels, mean₁ at 6.15 and mean₂ at 8.33, suggesting variability in the participants’ perceptions.

Figure 4. Distribution of survey results for 84 candidate building blocks. The histogram illustrates the frequency of responses across different values, while the overlaid density curve (in blue) highlights the overall trend.

Statistical analysis indicated that 43% of the building blocks, amounting to 36 items, fell into the lower mode, prompting further scrutiny. After re-evaluation, a refined set of 55 building blocks was established, including those deemed significant during reassessment. Recognising their hierarchical nature, the blocks were organised into the Consilient Building Block Taxonomy (CBBT). This structure offers a framework for integrating building blocks within MFs and MSSs, aligning with this study’s objective to promote unified and structured management practises.

In Stage 5, the validation of the Consilient Building Block Taxonomy (CBBT) was carried out through detailed expert reviews (the selection criteria for expert reviewers and the detailed review process are outlined in Appendix A Table A5 and Appendix A Table A6, respectively) to ensure its relevance and robustness. Five reviewers from different countries, selected based on the criterion of more than 15 years of experience in the development of MFs and MSSs, provided qualitative feedback on the importance, clarity, and applicability of the building blocks. Instead of a structured survey, we gathered in-depth responses, allowing the experts to highlight their strengths, drawbacks, and any overlooked elements. This iterative process allowed us to refine the definitions, hierarchy, and relationships within the CBBT, enhancing its alignment with industry best practises.

The experts’ feedback revealed varied perspectives, influenced by their professional backgrounds, with some favouring approaches aligned with ISO Integrated Management Systems (IMSs). Recognising these inherent biases was integral to maintaining the neutrality and integrity of the validation process. Balancing the diverse viewpoints against the overarching objectives of the research, we reduced the number of Consilient Building Blocks from 55 to 48 and finalised the CBBT, as shown in Figure 5. The resulting taxonomy provides a conceptually grounded and practically useful structure for implementing a Unified Singular Management System (USMS), supporting organisations in consolidating their management practises to achieve greater operational efficiency and strategic alignment.

Figure 5. Consilient Building Block Taxonomy hierarchy.

4. Findings

As a culmination of our research, we introduce the Consilient Building Block Taxonomy (CBBT), a comprehensive framework structured across two hierarchical levels. The CBBT encompasses a total of 48 building blocks: 15 at the top level and 33 at the second level, as illustrated in Figure 5 (derived from the research methodology). Table 2 provides a textual breakdown of each building block, with comprehensive descriptions of their characteristics and function within a Unified Singular Management System. This hierarchical structuring not only reflects the depth and breadth of our findings but also provides a taxonomy to understand and apply consilient building blocks within the realms of MFs and MSSs.

Table 2. Consilient Building Block Taxonomy.

Consilient Building Block	Consilient Building Block Detail
Process	Highlights inclusive practises and activities within the Management System Architecture (MSA), presented in a Process Landscape Map showing the interconnections of core, support, and management processes.
Governance Processes	Focuses on governance activities ensuring efficient oversight, responsibility, and strategic alignment within the management system.
Management and Planning Processes	Deals with systematic methods to organise and supervise management activities, ensuring the efficient use of resources and achievement of goals.
Value Chain/Operation and Support Processes	Outlines processes that generate and deliver value to customers, emphasising the integration and optimisation of operational workflows to meet efficiency and satisfaction goals.
Enabler Processes	Includes supportive processes that enable core and governance processes, covering technological, human, and informational resources essential for success.
Outcome	Emphasises a structured approach to evaluating results achieved through organisational outcomes as services and products, organised within hierarchies and portfolios.
Services	Focuses on the systematic arrangement and lifecycle management of services offered, ensuring alignment with organisational goals and stakeholder requirements.
Products	Pertains to the structured categorisation and strategic oversight of products, managing development, lifecycle, and market positioning.
Norm	Outlines internal norms, including policies and procedures that govern the management system, ensuring compliance and alignment with best practises and requirements.
Internal Norms	Details specific policies, plans, procedures, standards, and work instructions underpinning the management system.
Information	Presents the architecture of the Consilient Information System (CIS), organising data, information, knowledge, and intelligence for decision-making within the unified framework.
Intelligence and Learning	Supports decision-making by enabling the collection and application of intelligence and learning mechanisms within the CIS.
Knowledge	Contains the structure of organisational knowledge, integrating data and information into a tool supporting priorities and informed decision-making.
Information	Focuses on the systematic gathering, processing, and sharing of information, ensuring smooth flow across the management system.
Data	Forms the base layer of the CIS, concerned with the collection, storage, and analysis of the basic data foundational to the entire information system.
People and Organisation	Delineates structural and relational models integrating human resources within organisational processes, aligning capabilities with strategic goals.
People Capability	Centres on identifying, developing, and optimising individual and collective skills, defining roles, and ensuring clarity around responsibilities.
Functional Organisation	Elaborates on structuring organisational units and their interrelations to enhance efficiency and strategic coherence.
Technology	Encompasses the structure and organisation of technological resources, ensuring assets align with business objectives.
Digital Technology	Focuses on integrating digital tools, platforms, and systems to facilitate operational processes and decision-making.
Non-Digital Technology	Addresses the role of physical technologies essential for the production, operation, and delivery of products and services.
Preside and Oversee	Encapsulates the overarching governance function, characterised by strategic oversight ensuring alignment with organisational vision and objectives.
Leadership	Emphasises the significance of vision, mission, and authority, establishing a clear direction and guiding principles for governance and strategies.
Manifesto	Embodies core principles and control objectives, articulating policy statements that guide organisational ethos, values, and practises.
Cascaded Steering	Pertains to mechanisms disseminating governance principles via structured committees and codes of conduct throughout the organisation.
Direct, Monitor and Evaluate	Focuses on the continuous oversight of implementation and effectiveness, ensuring practises remain relevant and improve continuously.
Strategic Planning	Crucial in formulating actionable strategies aligning with long-term vision, setting objectives, identifying resources, and determining paths to goals.
Performance Monitoring and Evaluation	Provides a systematic approach to assess performance by establishing and governing metrics and indicators.
Conformance Monitoring and Evaluation	Ensures operations comply with legal, ethical, and industry standards, safeguarding integrity and reputation.
Implementation	Delineates processes involved in embedding the framework within an organisation, integrating principles into daily operations.
Implementation in an Organisation	Involves tailoring the framework to align with the organisation’s structure, culture, and operational needs.
Improvement	Emphasises continuous enhancement, acknowledging the need to evolve in response to new insights, challenges, and opportunities.
Continuous Improvement	Elaborates on the systematic pursuit of incremental and breakthrough improvements, essential for maintaining relevance and effectiveness.
Stakeholder Engagement and Journey	Highlights the significance of engaging stakeholders throughout their journey, recognising their support as crucial for success.
Stakeholder Experience and Support	Focuses on supporting stakeholders, creating positive experiences, providing resources, and acting on feedback.
Maturity Model	Refers to a structured model assessing and guiding the progression of organisational capabilities across predefined maturity levels.
Maturity Model	Extends the maturity concept by focusing on developing organisational capabilities to achieve higher maturity levels.
Capability Maturity Model	Refers to cohesive mechanisms facilitating seamless interactions between the framework and the management system, ensuring alignment to achieve objectives.
Integrations	Focuses on strategic connections within the framework itself, coordinating components to support vision and objectives.
Management Framework Integrations	Delves into integrating management system components to actively support strategic imperatives, streamlining processes and information flows.
Management System Integrations	Encompasses foundational elements shaping the approach to organising, evaluating, and improving practises, including understanding context, applying methodologies, and utilising techniques.
Context, Methodologies and Techniques	Highlights recognising and incorporating external and internal factors influencing the framework’s operation.
Contexts	Identifies systematic approaches adopted to achieve objectives, enhancing efficiency, fostering innovation, and mitigating risks.
Methodologies	Delves into specific tools and practises employed to execute strategies and methodologies effectively.
Techniques	Encapsulates unique elements differentiating the organisation’s approach, including bespoke processes or tools.
Proprietary Aspects	Focuses on distinctive elements within the framework tailored to the organisation’s strategic vision, addressing specific challenges or opportunities.
Management Framework Proprietary Aspects	Delineates unique components within the management system designed to enhance performance and strategic execution, providing an operational edge.
Management System Proprietary Aspects	Highlights inclusive practises and activities within the Management System Architecture (MSA), presented in a Process Landscape Map showing the interconnections of core, support, and management processes.

The CBBT is designed to assist organisations in integrating consilient building blocks into their management practises effectively. By categorising building blocks into hierarchical levels, the taxonomy facilitates a nuanced understanding of each element and its interrelationships within the overall framework.

One of the foundational building blocks at the top level is the Model of Management System (MMS) within the Unified Singular Management Framework (USMF). The MMS signifies the core fundamentals that form the basis of all management system capabilities, resources, and practises within an organisation. These fundamentals include outcomes, norms, processes, information, and technology. Acting as a strategic guide, the MMS steers the design, deployment, and continuous refinement of management systems to ensure alignment with organisational objectives.

5. Discussion

Despite the critical need for an Unified Singular Management Framework (USMF) in organisations, many still lack one [76,77]. Practitioners struggle to convey the importance of MFs and MSSs to senior management, who often remain unaware of the necessity for a formally defined USMF and Unified Singular Management System (USMS) recognised by all staff [78,79].

Management systems (MSs) and management frameworks (MFs) are frequently misconstrued as mere organisational structures, policies, or compliance checklists, culminating in ISO certifications or adherence to best practises [80,81,82]. This misinterpretation endures, with alternative perspectives dismissed as theoretical and relegated to other departments [83]. Moreover, many managers mistakenly equate a management system with software platforms—a misconception evident in the media and seminars—which prompted this research [78].

Although the ISO acknowledges the significance of management systems, it has yet to produce an IMS standard. Organisations often replicate outputs for each ISO certification across different departments, causing duplication and inefficiency—a widely recognised but seldom addressed issue. Nonetheless, there is growing awareness of the redundancies in efforts towards convergence and integration.

This study provides a novel contribution by not only identifying the need for a USMF but also systematically categorising its core components. The research findings demonstrate that existing frameworks are often implemented in isolation, leading to inefficiencies and inconsistencies across organisations. By developing the Consilient Building Block Taxonomy (CBBT), this study proposes a structured, unified approach that integrates diverse frameworks into a cohesive management structure. The taxonomy serves as a reference model for organisations seeking to optimise their management systems by reducing redundancy and enhancing operational coherence.

Adapting best practises presents considerable challenges, especially concerning value–cost considerations. Implementing disparate best practises can create silos, exposing companies to inefficiencies. For instance, organisations simultaneously utilising PMBOK for project management [84] and Agile methodologies, striving for COBIT compliance [85], adopting ITIL practises [86], progressing in CMMI 1.3 [87], and adapting standards like ISO 27001 [5], ISO 22301 [88], and ISO 9001 [4] may experience chaos that adversely affects capability and resource efficiency.

Regulatory bodies often issue overlapping regulations concurrently, with trends in areas like privacy, security, cyber resilience, and sustainability—for example, GDPR and the Cyber Resilience Act [89,90,91]. These regulations frequently require organisations to establish new MSs or MFs, contrary to maintaining a USMS, leading to multiple overlapping systems and steering structures such as security, risk, and resilience committees, thereby increasing complexity and inefficiency.

The rise of MFs and MSSs as an industry has introduced further challenges. Individual certifications have become essential for professionals, alongside organisational certifications—whether pursued voluntarily or mandated. Training programmes, auditors, and credential providers expand the industry’s stakeholder network, significantly contributing financially. Organisations maintaining a USMS face pressure and scrutiny from this industry as they strive to uphold their systems.

By consolidating fragmented frameworks into a single integrated approach, the CBBT reduces structural complexity and enhances cross-functional alignment within organisations. This is particularly critical in industries where regulatory pressures and evolving standards demand adaptive yet structured responses. The findings indicate that a unified taxonomy can improve an organisation’s ability to manage compliance requirements, optimise resources, and sustain a strategic focus without being burdened by redundant efforts.

A ’Root Framework’ can be likened to the stem cell of an organisation’s management system. This research aims to offer unique value in this field. Although this innovative approach may initially encounter scepticism from academics and industry professionals, it is anticipated to pioneer new paradigms in understanding and applying MFs and MSSs.

While it may be optimistic to assert that this research provides absolute outcomes, the extensive range of academic papers, theses, ISO MSSs, MFs, and best practises used as inputs demonstrates its comprehensive scope. The development of a heuristic methodology, carefully articulated, merges substantial data using various machine learning techniques. To ascertain the research’s integrity and validity, verification and validation were conducted through engagements with experts and specialist practitioners across a spectrum of industries via surveys, as well as directly with top-tier experts selected for their domain expertise.

One of the key findings of this study is the demonstrated need for an interdisciplinary approach in constructing a unified framework. The results indicate that while many standards and best practises exist, they are often developed within isolated domains, limiting their broader applicability. By applying a heuristic methodology enriched with machine learning techniques, this research not only refines the categorisation of core building blocks but also establishes a dynamic structure that can evolve alongside industry needs.

This demonstrates that scientific and objective steps were taken to ensure the research has a high-quality and reliable output.

6. Conclusions

This research developed the CBBT, providing a comprehensive compilation of consilient building blocks to unify MFs and MSSs. The CBBT serves as a crucial tool to guide organisations towards creating a Unified Singular Management Framework (USMF), addressing fragmentation within Management System Practices (MSPs). By harmonising various MFs and MSSs under a Consilient Root Management Framework (CRMF), the CBBT offers an archetype for a more consolidated approach to organisational management.

Our findings have significant theoretical implications, particularly in consilience and management system integration. By applying consilience principles, we demonstrate that a unified approach can emerge from diverse disciplinary insights. This extends systems thinking, showing how a holistic view enhances the integration and functionality of management systems. The CBBT exemplifies the practical viability of consilience in management theory, actualising interdisciplinary integration within organisational structures.

Practically, the CBBT has substantial impacts for organisations. Using the CBBT as a foundational reference, organisations can establish a Unified Singular Management System (USMS). Its benefits include streamlined processes, strengthened strategic direction, enhanced agility, and cost savings through reduced redundancy. These implications underscore the CBBT’s significance as a transformative tool in unifying management systems.

While our heuristic methodology is robust and adaptable to diverse management environments, certain limitations exist. The varying complexity across organisational structures and industries may affect the CBBT’s applicability. Constraints related to the depth of empirical data for certain frameworks were also acknowledged. Despite these, the methodology’s adaptability highlights its potential for broader application in future research.

Industry stakeholders—including authorities, auditors, developers, consultants, trainers, educational institutions, and certification bodies—are encouraged to integrate our insights into their practises. The CBBT acts as a catalyst for further innovation, guiding the development of new standards and the refinement of existing ones. Stakeholders should collaborate to promote and facilitate the CBBT’s widespread adoption, providing support to organisations aiming to employ this unified and consilient approach. Embracing this paradigm shift towards consilient management can lead to a future where integrating diverse management building blocks becomes standard practise. This research aims to bridge the current gaps in the literature and in practise, proposing the CRMF as an effective and adaptable blueprint for navigating organisational complexities.

This study fills a notable gap in the academic literature, offering a pragmatic taxonomy to guide organisations towards a unified and consilient approach to management. Academics and scholars are invited to further this inquiry, enhancing the maturity of MFs and MSSs. The CBBT provides a basis for the theoretical exploration and examination of its applicability in various organisational environments, improving its effectiveness and adaptability in addressing challenges.

Future research should continue exploring the CBBT’s application and refinement. Developing and implementing the CRMF across different contexts presents extensive opportunities for academic exploration. Subsequent studies should focus on the empirical testing of the CBBT within varied organisational settings, exploring its scalability and versatility. Interdisciplinary collaboration can enrich the consilient approach proposed, contributing significantly to the evolution of MFs and MSSs. These efforts are anticipated to offer organisations a more unified, comprehensive approach to management in an era of increasing complexity and interconnectivity.

In conclusion, introducing the CBBT represents a significant stride towards unifying MSPs. Fostering a consilient approach within organisational management suggests a future where management systems are integrated and adaptable to modern challenges. The envisioned CRMF holds promise as a comprehensive guide for both academic inquiry and practical application in designing and executing MFs and MSSs. Through this research, we have charted a pathway towards integrating consilience principles into organisational management, potentially revolutionising how organisations conceive and implement MFs and MSSs. We encourage practitioners and academics to adopt and further develop the CBBT, laying the groundwork for a new era of integrated, unified, and cohesive management strategies.