Developing a self-assessment model to measure QMS maturity in ISO certified manufacturing companies

Transcription

1 Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research MORSL et al : SELF SSESSMENT MODEL TO MESURE QULITY IN ISO ERTIFIED OMPNIES 39 Vol. 6, May 009, pp Developing a self-assessment model to measure QMS maturity in ISO certified manufacturing companies S T Morsal, M Y Ismail* and M R Osman Faculty of Engineering, Universiti Putra Malaysia 300 UPM, Serdang, Selengor, Malaysia Received 09 May 00; revised 3 February 009; accepted, 3 February 009 This paper explains development of a new self-assessment framework according to core values, fundamental principles and requirements of ISO 900: 000, and its compiling and validation.the studying activities finally led to developing a new self-assessment model with 33 criteria (key statements), and 300 indicators (focus areas), in separated fundamental principles of ISO 9000 family. Developed model has been applied in Iranian ISO certified companies, and results, analyzed by SPSS 3, suggested that validity of model (content, construct and predictive validity) is approved with ornbach s alpha ( ). Keywords: ISO 900: 000, Effectiveness, Organization s maturity, Self-assessment Introduction Self-assessment (S) is a comprehensive, systematic and regular review of an organization s activities, which ultimately result in planned improvement action. S essentially serves as an information system in identifying and improving organizational processes. Many models currently exist for S of organizations to quality management system (QMS) criteria. Most widely recognized and used models are national and regional quality award models, also called organizational excellence models. urrently, there are 70 models for national excellence and 90 quality award models in the world,3. There are a few S models that provide standard criteria for an organization to measure its performances. Quality award criteria, set in Japanese Deming Prize, merican Malcolm Baldrige National Quality ward and European Quality ward (EQ), are among the most popular ones 3. Deming Prize model focuses on dissemination of company wide quality control, continuous improvement and relations with suppliers. Baldrige model focuses on customer satisfaction, benchmarking, and competitive comparisons with industry average, industry leader, and principal *uthor for correspondence Tel: yusof00@yahoo.co.uk competitors in company s key markets. European quality award model focuses on relations with community, and customers and employees satisfaction. S models promote total quality management as an increasingly important approach for improving effectiveness of organization s performance and also competitiveness among them. This study presents development of a model that provides necessary factors for an adequate, easy and comprehensive S. Experimental Developing Framework Each model is based on a set of core values and fundamental concepts, through which requirements of that model are formed. Fundamental concepts () determined in ISO 900 standard, are as follows: i) ustomer focus; ii) Leadership; iii) Involvement of people; iv) Process approach; v) System approach to management; vi) ontinual improvement; vii) Factual approach to decision making; and viii) Mutually beneficial supplier relationships. Methodology and riteria Selecting methodology depends on organization s purpose of S. More detailed assessments that evaluate effectiveness for particular process or area of business 5 was selected for proposed model.

2 350 J SI IND RES VOL 6 May 009 Table Matrices for judgment about stage of, D and & I Measurements Domain Matrix Matrix D Matrix & I None to few 0.5, 0.5, 0.75, No systematic approach Primary stage of No, poor, or unpredictable 0.5- evident deploying results on improvement Few to some.5,.5,.75, Problem or corrective- Deployed in ready Minimum data on.5- based systematic domains improvement results approach available Some to most.5,.5..75, 3 Systematic process- Deployed in some Early stage of systematic.5-3 based approach domains improvements Most to all 3.5, , pproach is well Deployed in most Good results and sustained 3.5- integrated with domains improvement trends organizational needs ll to total.5,.5..75, 5 pproach is fully Deployed in all related Strongly improvement.5-5 integrated with domains in process; best in-class organizational needs organization benchmarked results demonstrated ccording to fundamental concepts (), with regards to their nature, available requirements in each concept were studied and most suitable and logical criteria for finding out strengths and weaknesses were chosen. Narrative style of writing was chosen for key statements. Each of key statements is a key process, and an investigation on it can help to find key problems in an organization. Present model focuses on diagnostic component rather providing data on the performance. Determining Indicators Each key statement represents at least one key process of organization s QMS. Each key process needs some requirements, equipments, facilities and skills. Every one of them can be an indicator. Selecting pproach Questionnaire type, chosen in this study, involves answering a series of questions and statements, which are based on the criteria of S model being used, using a yes/no. Question type is closed, and does not require extent help to formulate results of assessment. Measurement System dopting Measurement Tool Logic of measurement in proposed model is based on maturity of organization s QMS in applying Deming cycle for each key statement on a scale ranging from 0-5. Matrices (Table ) developed for judgment about stage of approach (), stage of deployment (D) and stage of control & improvement ( & I) help users to find a suitable domain or maximum score in each stage (, D, and & I). Warnings help users to judge real character of each stage (, D, and & I). Balances also help users to show the result of judgment in each stage. For a more careful judgment, it is necessary to study all related indicators to determine amount of their satisfaction. ssessment team will find a suitable perspective of their organization for pre-judgment on maturity level of their organization by Matrix (Table ). Result of pre-judgment leads to determination of domain and maximum score in very same domain. For main judgment, assessment team should focus on relevant warnings; especial on critical words (each warning has two critical words). Matrices obtained and balances have been adopted from EQ and ISO 900: 000 recommendations, warnings have been adopted from RDR logic of liffe 6. Performance Presentation Technique Radar chart (R), which was chosen to exhibit final results, can present three or more quantitative variables. suitable R and each diameter are representative of one fundamental concept. Diameters have been scaled so that users can transfer fulfillment (%) of each fundamental concept on its diameter and connect those points together. Therefore, a new octagonal shape was built. User can compare present R with previous one and find relatively better or inferior performance of an

3 MORSL et al : SELF SSESSMENT MODEL TO MESURE QULITY IN ISO ERTIFIED OMPNIES 35 organization. Effectiveness of each fundamental concept as well as organization s QMS effectiveness can be formulated. Users can compute mean of maturity percentage of organization in each criteria using Organization s Maturity Degree (OMD) in each key statement as OMD = (P d + L d + S d ) / 3 () where P d, presence degree (score of approach stage); L d, life degree (score of deploy stage); S d, survival degree (score of control & improve stage). Maturity of each fundamental concept can be compute as OMD 00 m = () 5n where OMD, total of OMDs in each fundamental concept; m, % maturity of organization in every concept; n, number of key statement in very same concept. Maturity of an organization is computed as m M = (3) where M, % maturity of organization s QMS;, eight number of concepts (principles). nalysis of Model fter application of S model and data acquisition, data are analyzed using following questionnaire: a) How well have we done our responsibilities? b) Which processes and concepts are strongest and weakest in our organization? c) What strategy should be formulated to make up? d) How much has our organization lost because of shortcomings or omissions? e) How about the maturity level of organization at the moment? f) What are organization s priorities for improvement projects? Bar chart (Fig. ) shows situation of all processes (statement) and their strengths or weaknesses in different stages. Users can draw four bar charts, to exhibit, D, & I situation. These can help users to formulate a strategy for making up. Relative area of octagonal radar chart is about 3 units (Fig. ). Users can compute area of irregular octagon as n a b = = () (5) where a & b, percentage of requirement fulfillment; n, / area of irregular octagon; = whole of areas of irregular octagon. Income from an investment in a year is return on investment (ROI). In a mature industry, ROI is a measure of management effectiveness 7. Users can translate organization s financial shortcomings as Potential ROI = 3 x ctual ROI Σ (6) E Statement G B D F E Value Fig. Blank bar chart of organization s cheerfulness

4 35 J SI IND RES VOL 6 May 009 customer focus 0 9 supplier relationship 7 Leadership Decision making Involvment of people ontinual improvement 6 Process approach System approach to management 5 Fig. Octagonal radar chart where, 3, maximum area of radar chart; ROI, return on investment;, satisfied area of radar chart. Users can determine maturity level of an organization for each term and whole by three previous bar charts. Mean of, D and & I values shows maturity level of an organization in each stage, and mean of stages shows whole maturity level. Moreover, importance degrees of principles are not similar and each principle has its degree of importance in an organization s improvement and success. Each organization can evaluate and determine importance degree of each principle in its own organization, because importance degree of principle (IDP) value depends on the nature of organization and its business, mission, vision and strategic goals and targets. There are some small organizations, which have only one customer with very simple and short core process or with lowest level of dependence on suppliers. On the contrary, there are other large organizations, which have a lot of customers, so having complex and long processes with the highest level of dependence on the suppliers. Reviewing organization s quality policy based on market and organization s circumstances in the length of time, fulfillment of QMS requirements is not similar in term of their easiness and difficulty. Thus it is necessary that each organization determines its IDP and pays attention to the priority of each one during improvement planning and target choosing. Reporting System One multiple purpose page was added to all questionnaire pages so that users can note strong points and improvement opportunities on it. Moreover, users can tick available avoidances, which have been involved in assessment activities. These pages can be used later by corrective action by responsible personnel, problem solving team and quality assurance managers or in management review meetings. Results and Discussion Proposed Model ompiling In model compiling, a framework for each page of model was adopted, allotted to each criteria (key

5 MORSL et al : SELF SSESSMENT MODEL TO MESURE QULITY IN ISO ERTIFIED OMPNIES 353 statement), and indicators of each criteria and measuring system (scoring system) also were placed on same page. Former pages are more than number of criteria (key statements). user guideline was written for the model, and manner of applying the model was explained in that guideline. Structure of main pages of model has been affected with EFQM 6. For requirements and expectations of ISO 900: 000, 33 criteria were obtained and 33 key statement were adopted Model Validation For model validation, professional comparative literature and professional investigation by questionnaire from experts were chosen. By professional comparative literature, significant nonconformities were eliminated and then model was dedicated to applicants along with an investigation questionnaire. ll applicants requested to answer investigation questionnaire. nswers were analyzed by SPSS 3. The results suggested that professional experts approved the model. Data cquisition and nalysis Proposed S model need be introduced for many applicant companies. So a justification meeting was disposed for each company and S model was presented to such companies. Then companies applied model in S process and results suggested that validity of model (content, construct and predictive validity) is approved with ornbach s alpha ( ). onclusions New S model was developed in three main phases (developing framework, compiling model and validation of model) using methods of assessment, identifying criteria, identifying indicators and selecting approach to the model. Radar chart was formed to illustrate amount of fulfillment of maturity of organization s QMS. In compiling phase of model, all observed cases were performed and a new more detailed questionnaire of S model was realized with 33 criteria and 300 indicators. ronbach s alpha of content validity ( ) demonstrates that construct of model was in acceptable limit ( ) and ronbach s alpha for predictive validity was equal ( ). References Henderson S, Blak swans don t fly double loops: The limits of the learning organization? Learning Org, 5 (997) Ford M W & Evans J R, Models for organizational selfassessment, Business Horizon, (00) Lingxu D & Boyang J, Intelligent decision system for selfassessment, J Multi-riteria Decision nal, (003) ISO 900, Quality Management System Guidelines for Performance Improvements, nd edn (ISO, New Delhi) obb G, Getting the Most Out of Your ISO9000 Upgrade: Planning Guide for Quality Managers (SQ Quality Press ) liffe R, Jung M, Webster M, vlonas N, Ludwin W, Parker R, Martorell X, Jevons J & artter G, EFQM Excellence Model (SIQ Institute for Kvalitetsutveckling & British Quality Foundation ) Sykes H B & Block Z, orporate venturing obstacles; sources and solutions, J Business Venturing, (99)