Key transition points: the climbing to Quality Management System maturity

Nascimento, Adelson Pereira do; Oliveira, Marcos Paulo Valadares de; Ladeira, Marcelo Bronzo; Zanquetto Filho, Hélio

doi:10.1590/0104-530X2222-15

Adelson Pereira do Nascimento

Instituto Federal do Espírito Santo – IFES, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo – UFES, Rodovia ES-010, Km 6,5, Manguinhos, CEP 29173-087, Serra, ES, Brazil, e-mail: adelsonpn@gmail.com

Marcos Paulo Valadares de Oliveira

Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo – UFES, Av. Fernando Ferrari, 514, Goiabeiras, CEP 29075-910, Vitória, ES, Brazil, e-mail: marcos.p.oliveira@ufes.br

Marcelo Bronzo Ladeira

Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais – UFMG, Rua Curitiba, 832, 6 andar, Centro, CEP 30170-120, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil, e-mail: marcelobronzo@face.ufmg.br

Hélio Zanquetto Filho

Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo – UFES, Av. Fernando Ferrari, 514, Goiabeiras, CEP 29075-910, Vitória, ES, Brazil, e-mail: zanquetto@gmail.com

Figures (2)
Tables (9)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Transition Key points in the quality management system's maturity scale. Source: elaborated by the authors.

Thumbnail

Figure 2
QMS maturity transition Key points based on cluster analysis. Source: elaborated by the authors based on McCormack et al. (2009)McCormack, K., Willems, J., Van Den Bergh, J., Deschoolmeester, D., Willaert, P., Indihar Štemberger, M., & Bosilj Vuksic, V. (2009). A global investigation of key turning points in business process maturity. Business Process Management Journal, 15(5), 792-815..

Thumbnail

Componente 1 2 3 4 5 6 Questões Construto (Comunalidade) alpha Q1 0,710 A alta direção apoia diretamente o Sistema de Gestão da Qualidade. Liderança e comunicação(0,9535) 0,919 Q2 0,584 0,473 A empresa prepara seus profissionais para os cargos de chefia. Q5 0,701 Os objetivos do SGQ são revisados periodicamente para atender às necessidades e expectativas dos nossos clientes. Q7 0,782 Os planos são amplamente discutidos com os empregados antes de serem implementados. Q8 0,792 Os indicadores de desempenho dos processos são conhecidos, claros e objetivos. Q10 0,560 As boas práticas obtidas no mercado são difundidas aos funcionários da empresa. Q13 0,673 Os recursos para implementação do SGQ são rapidamente alocados quando necessários. Q19 0,742 Está claro para os empregados sua importância para que os objetivos da empresa sejam atingidos. Q20 0,646 0,314 As soluções propostas às solicitações de clientes são comunicadas rapidamente a todos os envolvidos. Q11 0,352 0,421 -0,314 A reincidência de problemas na empresa é um fato raro. Agilidade e Integração por meio de TI(0,9614) 0,716 Q14 0,829 A tecnologia da informação é utilizada para promover a integração da empresa com os clientes. Q15 0,817 A integração com os fornecedores da empresa é feita com o uso de elevado grau de TI. Q6 0,726 0,341 A empresa considera a auditoria realizada por clientes um processo rotineiro. Gestão eficiente dos Processos(0,9740) 0,711 Q22 0,375 0,552 Os fornecedores têm papel ativo no desenvolvimento e melhoria dos processos da empresa. Q23 0,638 0,328 A empresa melhora seus processos a fim de reduzir de forma sistemática as fontes de poluição. Q24 0,423 0,348 0,383 0,318 A empresa desenvolve ações para reduzir continuamente os acidentes de trabalho. Q9 0,317 0,611 0,349 São utilizados métodos matemáticos / estatísticos (tais como CEP, FMEA, probabilidade, etc.) para gerenciar processos. Valorização dos empregados(0,9233) 0,773 Q16 0,398 0,469 0,372 0,321 A empresa é hábil em atrair e reter pessoas consideradas chave para os processos críticos. Q17 0,834 A empresa possui um programa de premiação aos funcionários que sugerem melhorias nos processos. Q18 0,566 0,555 A empresa estimula o alcance de metas de desempenho. Q4 0,452 0,555 0,333 O cliente tem papel ativo no desenvolvimento dos processos da empresa. Disponibilidade de Informações(0,9055) 0,601 Q21 0,741 A empresa assegura a disponibilidade adequada das informações necessárias à realização das atividades. Q25 0,412 0,416 0,420 A empresa desenvolve ações que vêm reduzindo os custos da não qualidade (defeitos e reclamações). Gestão dos Custos(0,9800) 0,674 Q26 0,576 0,306 0,339 0,318 É possível afirmar que a alta direção entende que os gastos com o Sistema de Gestão da Qualidade reduzem os custos operacionais. Q27 0,730 Os projetos para melhoria de processos são definidos inicialmente com base em seus custos de implementação Fonte: elaborado pelos autores com base nos dados da pesquisa.

Thumbnail

Chart 1
Assessment of relevant instruments in quality management measurement through constructs. Source: Authors based on Singh & Smith (2006)Singh, P. J., & Smith, A. (2006). An empirically validated quality management measurement instrument. Benchmarking International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), 13(4), 493-522..

Thumbnail

Chart 2
Classification proposal to maturity approaches.

Thumbnail

Chart 3
Planning and results of the factor analysis.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Descriptive statistics of the latent variable Maturity QMS's.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Transition Points of the maturity levels of QMS's.

Thumbnail

Chart 4
Maturity levels of QMS's.

Thumbnail

Table 3
% of companies in each maturity level.

Thumbnail

Component 1 2 3 4 5 6 Questions Construct (commonality) alpha Q1 0.710 Top management directly supports the Quality Management System. Leadership and communication(0.9535) 0.919 Q2 0.584 0.473 The company prepares its employees for management positions. Q5 0.701 The objectives of the QMS are reviewed periodically to meet the needs and expectations of our customers. Q7 0.782 The plans are widely discussed with the employees before being implemented. Q8 0.792 Performance indicators of processes are known, clear and objective. Q10 0.560 Best practices obtained in the market are disseminated to employees. Q13 0.673 The resources for implementation of the QMS are quickly allocated as needed. Q19 0.742 It is clear to employees their importance to the company's objectives are achieved. Q20 0.646 0.314 The proposed solutions to customer requests are quickly communicated to all involved. Q11 0.352 0.421 -0.314 The recurrence of problems in business is a rare event. Agility and integration through IT(0.9614) 0.716 Q14 0.829 Information technology is used to promote the integration of the company with customers. Q15 0.817 Integration with the company's suppliers is made using high-grade IT. Q6 0.726 0.341 The company considers the audit carried out by clients a routine process. Efficient management of processes(0.9740) 0.711 Q22 0.375 0.552 Suppliers have an active role in the development and improvement of business processes. Q23 0.638 0.328 The company improves its processes in order to reduce systematically the sources of pollution. Q24 0.423 0.348 0.383 0.318 The company develops actions to continuously reduce work-related accidents. Q9 0.317 0.611 0.349 They are used mathematical / statistical methods (such as zip code, FMEA, probability, etc.) to manage processes. Valuing employees(0.9233) 0.773 Q16 0.398 0.469 0.372 0.321 The company is able to attract and retain people considered key to the critical processes. Q17 0.834 The company has an awards program for employees to suggest process improvements. Q18 0.566 0.555 The company encourages the achievement of performance targets. Q4 0.452 0.555 0.333 The customer has active role in the development of business processes. Information Availability(0.9055) 0.601 Q21 0.741 The company ensures the adequate availability of information necessary to conduct the activities. Q25 0.412 0.416 0.420 The company develops actions that are reducing non-quality costs (defects and claims). Cost management(0.9800) 0.674 Q26 0.576 0.306 0.339 0.318 It can be argued that top management understands that spending on the Quality Management System reduce operating costs. Q27 0.730 Projects to improve processes are initially set based on their implementation costs

Instrument	Saraph et al.(1989) Saraph, J. V., Benson, P. G., & Schroeder, R. G. (1989). An instrument for measuring the critical factors of quality management. Decision Sciences, 20, 810-829.	Flynn et al. (1994) Flynn, B. B., Shroeder, R. G., & Sakakibara, S. (1994). A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. Journal of Operations Management, 11, 339-366.	Ahire et al. (1996) Ahire, S. L., Golhar, D. Y., & Waller, M. A. (1996). Development and validation of TQM implementation constructs. Decision Sciences, 27(1), 23-56.	Grandzol & Gershon (1998) Grandzol, J. R., & Gershon, M. (1998). A survey instrument for standardizing TQM modeling research. International Journal of Quality Science, 3(1), 80-105.	Singh & Smith (2006) Singh, P. J., & Smith, A. (2006). An empirically validated quality management measurement instrument. Benchmarking International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), 13(4), 493-522.
Domain	Quality management prescribed by gurus and prominent academics.	Quality management as part of World Class Manufacturing (American and Japanese practices)	Quality Management Malcolm Baldridge award assessed by	Quality Management implementation prescribed by gurus and prominent academics.	Quality Management and Performance with reference to ISO 9001, Quality Awards and prominent academics.
Population (number)	Companies in Minneapolis / St. Paul - USA (20)	Japanese and American companies - Production of machinery, electronics and transportation (45)	Automotive industry - USA (1002)	Shipbuilding and aeronautics - USA (581)	Australian Industry Certified (1053)
Sample (% response)	162 respondents (35%)	716 respondents (60%)	371 respondents (37%)	273 respondents (47%)	418 respondents (42%)
Respondents	General managers and quality managers	Managers, supervisors and operational level	Plant managers	CEO	Managers and representatives of the High direction
Scale	5-point Likert	5-point Likert	7-point Likert	6-point Likert	5-point Likert
Pretest?	Yeah	Yes - Pre-test and pilot combined	Yes - Pre-test and pilot combined	Yeah	Yeah
Pilot test?	No	Yes - Pre-test and pilot combined	Yes - Pre-test and pilot combined	Yes	Yes
Pilot test data analysis	Not applicable	Qualitative improvements	Qualitative improvements	Validity and reliability analysis	Validity and reliability analysis
Validation content	Literature search and expert review	Wide review of the literature	Wide review of the literature	Literature search and expert review	Search content and expert review
Reliability analysis	Cronbach's Αlfa	Cronbach’s Αlfa and intercorrelation of items	Cronbach's Αlfa coefficient and deWerts-Linn-Jorsekog	Cronbach's Αlfa	Cronbach's Αlfa
Strong points	It includes in its sample manufacturing companies and various industries services.	Managerial and operational participation	Used techniques most comprehensive and extensive validation statistics.	Assesses the maturity and the relationship with Performance	Uses multiple approaches to the instrument construction.
Recommendations of the authors / Limitations	Observed only managerial perspective	No correlation was made between items.	It uses only premium-based approach. Recommendation of the combined use of models to extend the quality of vision.	Participation of senior management only	Use of ISO 9001 as a reference. According to JIS 9005 (JIS, 2005Japanese Industrial Standards – JIS. (2005). Quality Management System: guidelines for sustainable growth. Tokyo: JIS.) would be only the basis of quality management.

Class	Approaches	Short description	Authors
Maturity models	- Crosby’s Quality Management Maturity; - Maturity continuous improvement Bressant, Caffyn and Gallagher; - Erasmus University (Netherlands); - Montgomery control model; - CMM-Capability Maturity Model; - Documentation Process Maturity; - Human Factors Integration Capability Maturity Model; - SCPM3 (Supply Chain Process Management Maturity Model); - OPM3 (Organizational Project Management Maturity Model); - PMMM (Project Management Maturity Model); - MMGP (Maturity Model Project Management).	They use the concept of Maturity. Although the models differ in many ways, all of them are composed of: - Setting the number of levels to reach maturity; - A name for each level; - A summary of features and an indication of what the organization should focus on each at each level; - A method for determining the positioning of the organization within the model. - Most models presents a range of maturity going 3-6 levels and are distinguished by the method used to determine the result of the maturity levels, evaluated dimensions and content of each level.	Bessant et al. (2001) Bessant, J., Caffyn, S., & Gallagher, M. (2001). An evolutionary model of continuous improvement behaviour. Technovation, 21(2), 67-77. Crosby (1979)Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free: the art of making quality certain. New York: McGraw-Hill Companies. Garrett & Rendon, (2005)Garrett, G. A., & Rendon, R. G. (2005). Managing contracts in turbulent times: the contract management maturity model. Contract Management, Sept. 2005, 48-57. Lockamy & McCormack (2004Lockamy, A., & McCormack, K. (2004). The development of a supply chain management process maturity model using the concepts of business process orientation. Supply Chain Management International Journal (Toronto, Ont.), 9(4), 272-278. McCormack et al. (2009)McCormack, K., Willems, J., Van Den Bergh, J., Deschoolmeester, D., Willaert, P., Indihar Štemberger, M., & Bosilj Vuksic, V. (2009). A global investigation of key turning points in business process maturity. Business Process Management Journal, 15(5), 792-815. Oliveira (2009)Oliveira, M. P. V. (2009). Modelo de maturidade de processos em cadeias de suprimentos: precedências e os pontos-chave de transição (Tese de Doutorado). Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte. PMI (2003)Project Management Institute – PMI. (2003). Organizational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3). Philadelphia: Project Management Institute Inc.
National Quality Awards	- Deming Prize (Japan); - Award Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award (USA); - National Quality Award (PNQ - Brazil); - European Foundation Quality Management (EFQ - European Community) - German National Quality Award (German Society for Quality - Germany)	Based on criteria and evidence used to assess an organization and refer to management excellence. Set parameters, which reflect excellence: - Leadership, people, policy and strategy, partnerships and resources, processes, human resources, information analysis, market focus and customer, results for people, for clients, for society and for business.	Bemowski (1996)Bemowski, K. (1996). Baldrige award celebrates its 10th birthday with a new look. Quality Progress, 29(12), 49. EFQM (2006)European Foundation for Quality Management – EFQM. (2006). Modelo EFQM de excelência. Brussels: European Foundation for Quality Management. FNQ (2011)Fundação Nacional da Qualidade – FNQ. (2011). Modelo de excelência da gestão – MEG. Recuperado em 10 de abril de 2011, de http://www.fnq.org.br. http://www.fnq.org.br... Wilson & Collier (2000)Wilson, D. D., & Collier, D. A. (2000). An empirical investigation of the Malcolm Baldrige national quality award causal model. Decision Sciences, 31, 361-390..
Standards	- ISO 9004 - Managing for the sustained success of an organization - A quality management approach (2010); - JIS Q 9005 - Quality Management System - guidelines for sustainable growth (2005);	These standards provide guidance to organizations for the achievement of sustained success by a quality management approach - an evolution of the model prescribed by ISO 9001 - are applicable to any organization, regardless of size, type and activity.	ABNT (2010)Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas – ABNT. (2010). NBR ISO 9004: Gestão para o sucesso sustentado de uma organização: uma abordagem da gestão da qualidade. Rio de Janeiro: ABNT. JIS (2005)Japanese Industrial Standards – JIS. (2005). Quality Management System: guidelines for sustainable growth. Tokyo: JIS. Moura (2009)Moura, L. R. (2009). Gestão do relacionamento com fornecedores: análise da eficácia de programa para desenvolvimento e qualificação de fornecedores para grandes empresas (Tese de Doutorado). Escola Politécnica, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo.

Goal of Factor Analysis	To identify the minimal number of factors that maximizes the total variance explained.
Determination of extraction technique and type of rotation	• Extration technique: Main Components; • Type of rotation factor: Orthogonal (varimax);
Validation of Factor Analysis	• Theoretical justification of the relationship between the variables and extracted factors
Basic Assumptions of Factor Analysis	• Appropriate data base: the ratio of the number of cases and the number of variables exceeds the five to one; • KMO: 0.50 as the minimum level of adequacy; • Sphericity Test Bartelett: p <0.05; • MSA> 0.50 for each evaluated issue	• Attended: 6.92 cases for each variable; • Appropriate level: 0.924 • Suitable: p <0.001 • Suitable: The smallest observed value was 0.838
Criteria for determining factors and assessment of the overall adjustment	• Kaiser rule: only extraction of the factors with value of eigenvalue above 1; • Use of factor loadings with values above 0.30; • Commonality> 00:50 • Cumulative variance> 60%; • Construct reliability (Cronbach's alpha);	• Identified six factors • Attended • Obtained values> 0.511 • Obtained 66.07% • Cronbach’s Alpha obtained: 0.937

Latent Variables	Number of indicators	Points		Average	Standard deviation
Latent Variables	Number of indicators	Minimum	Maximum	Average	Standard deviation
Leadership and Communication	9	9	45	37.22	6.05
Agility and Integration by IT	3	3	15	11.48	2.28
Efficient Management Processes	4	4	20	16.7	2.46
Valuing employees	4	4	20	13.41	3.43
Information Availability	2	2	10	8.23	1.42
Cost Valuing management	3	3	15	12.6	1.79
Maturity points	25	25	125	99.65	14.11

Maturity Level (Cluster)	N	% of total	Centroid at maturity score	Standard deviation	Transition points
						1	10	5.6%	61.70	11.06	74
						2	32	17.9%	86.19	3.99	92
3	55	30.7%	97.55	3.00	103
4	53	29.6%	107.49	2.66	112
5	29	16.2%	117.31	3.07	117
Total	179	100	-	-	-

Maturity Level	Planning	Results
1	There are flaws in the design or plan is not executed as planned.	The expected results are not produced. Lower results than competitors.
2	Procedures for ISO 9001 requirements are established and implemented.	The expected results are usually achieved. Similar results to competitors. The company is certified to ISO 9001.
3	The organizational profile is clearly established, and planning is effective, facing identified as actually needed items.	Expected results are always achieved. Similar results to competitors.
4	The organizational profile is clearly set against the competition. Planning is effective and efficient, facing important and necessary and fully implemented items.	Expected results are achieved efficiently. Better results than the competition.
5	Innovative planning able to adapt to environmental changes. Lessons learned are shared by everyone in the organization.	The expected results are produced efficiently and sustained in the organization, regardless of management and the environment. Considered a model of excellence by competitors and customers.

Maturity Level (Cluster)	N	Type of Operation
Maturity Level (Cluster)	N	Service	Manufacture	Total
1	10	5.6%	-	5.6%
2	32	12.3%	5.6%	17.9%
3	55	18.4%	12.3%	30.7%
4	53	17.9%	11.7%	29.6%
5	29	7.3%	8.9%	16.2%
Total	179	61.5%	38.5%	100%

[1] Source: elaborated by the authors.

Brasil

Brasil

Key transition points: the climbing to Quality Management System maturity

Abstract