sexta-feira, 29 de novembro de 2013

Integrated management systems: a maturity model proposal

A successful management subsystems integration relies on several requirements fulfillment. The maturity achieved by an implemented integrated management system (IMS) relates to the compliance by an organization of several internal key process agents (KPAs), some external factors and the adoption of the eight excellence management pillars. Some of these KPAs are more influential for maturity assessment than others so, their adoption may be more fruitful concerning the maturity increase by an IMS. Some integration models proposed by European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) and ISO 9004 standard have its genesis on quality and that fact may be advantageous but also presents some disadvantages. Additionally, results suggest that they are not considered a truly integration referential by the companies. 
Portuguese companies managed through an integrated system have some common features between them. Integrated policies, an IMS manager presence in the organizational structure and tools, methodologies and objectives alignment are some of these common features.
As been told earlier, the proposed model is sustained on two components supported in software concepts (Figure 1). A back-office component processes the information collected from the front-office component. To populate the front-office component companies should assess the KPAs according an agreement Likert scale.

Figure 1: Conceptual model design
Front-office component has a three dimensional nature as one may see in Figure 3. One dimension relates to the KPAs assessment, other to the eight excellence management pillars and the final to the external factors assessment (macroergonomics, life cycle analysis, social accountability and sustainability) (Figure 2).
 Figure 2: Front office component
A simple linear regression model was tested in order to assess data quality and coherence provided by respondents. A multiple linear regression model was adopted in order to identify which variables (central variables) were statistically influencing the latent variable. Pearson correlation was assessed between statistical non-influential variables and the central variables. Three variables variation (Q/St10, Q/St23 and Q/St24) are statistically responsible for 54% of Q/St25 variation. Top management integrated vision (Q/St10), organizational integration level classification (Q/St23) and audit typology (Q/St24) explains mostly the Q/St25 (Integration level characterization) variation. The other variables are related to these central variables and the Pearson correlation index is presented (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Back office component
Pedro Domingues
PhD Student
Quality and Excellence Research Group
University of Minho