You are on page 1of 147

VITA

Michael Ebitamaehi Odigie
EDUCATION
Ph.D. Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN. USA. Technology Management,
Quality Systems Specialization, 2015.
M.Sc. The University of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK. USA. Mechanical Engineering, 2011.
B.Eng. Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo State., Nigeria. Materials &
Metallurgical Engineering, 2003.

PROFESSIONAL & TEACHING/RESEARCH EXPERIENCE
Global Inspection Manager, Covestro (Bayer MaterialScience), 2012 - Present
Materials & Corrosion Engineering Specialist, Saudi Aramco, 2011-2012
Teaching and Research Assistant, TUSMP/ECRC, the University of Tulsa, 2009-2011
Asset Integrity Engineer, Total S.A., 2006-2011

PAPERS/PRESENTATIONS
Odigie, M.E. (2015). Extant scholarship in the quality profession: a brief review. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Management Research and Innovation, 11(1) 72-80.
Odigie, M.E., Cantrell, J., Badar, M.A. (2014). Roller-type thrust bearing reliability analysis with
Minitab. NED University Journal of Research - Applied Science, 11(4) 3-33.
Odigie, M.E., Martin, R.A., Courbat, M., Sinn, J.W. (2014). Safety in the skies: how aviation
safety management systems interface with quality. Quality Progress, 47(4), 28-33
Odigie, M.E., Shirazi, S.A., McLaury, B.S., Cremaschi, S. (2012). Acoustic monitor threshold
limits for sand detection in multiphase flow production system. SPE International Conference &
Workshop on Oilfield Corrosion
Odigie, M.E., Shirazi, S.A., McLaury, B.S., Cremaschi, S. (2012). Variation in acoustic monitor
threshold limits for sand detection in multiphase flow systems using experimental and statistical
approach. 14th Middle East Corrosion Conference & Exhibition (MECCE) 2012
PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
American Society for Quality, National Association of Corrosion Engineers, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers
A STUDY ON THE INTEGRATION OF QUALITY AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT

SYSTEMS IN SMALL TO MEDIUM-SIZE COMPANIES IN THE USA

_______________________

A Dissertation

Presented to

The College of Graduate and Professional Studies

College of Technology

Indiana State University

Terre Haute, Indiana

______________________

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

_______________________

by

Michael E. Odigie

December 2015

 Michael E. Odigie

Keywords: Technology Management, Quality Management System, Safety Management

System, Integrated Management System, Cluster Analysis
ProQuest Number: 3739178

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 3739178

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
ii

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Committee Chair: M. Affan Badar, Ph.D.

Professor, Department of Applied Engineering & Technology Management

College of Technology

Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809

Committee Member: John W. Sinn, Ed.D.

Professor Emeritus, Quality Systems Specialization, Technology Systems Department,

College of Technology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH 43403

Committee Member: A. Mehran Shahhosseini, D.Eng.

Associate Professor, Department of Applied Engineering & Technology Management

College of Technology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809

Committee Member: Farman Moayed, Ph.D.

Associate Professor, Department of the Built Environment

College of Technology, Indiana State University, Terre Haute, IN 47809
iii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research was to propose an integrated quality and safety management system

and to include a case study of a small to medium-size company. Hierarchical cluster analysis was

used to establish the degree to which integrated models, as described in published articles from

various peer reviewed journals, are quality dominant versus safety dominant. A cluster of safety

dominant integrated model articles was identified and statistically validated as being distinct

from other models. An optimal integrated model was developed from the final cluster analysis

and substantiated by a one-way analysis of variance. It was determined that characteristics of an

optimal integrated model include the key words “risk”, “safety”, “incident”, “injury”, “hazards”,

as well as “preventive action”, “corrective action”, “rework”, “repair” and “scrap”. It also

combines elements of quality function deployment as well as hazard and operability analysis

meshed into a plan-do-check-act type work-flow. The optimized model is a hybrid that consists

of a quality management system as the superordinate strategic element. A safety management

system is deployed as a supporting tactical element. The optimized model was field tested by

experts from the industry. It was determined that the recommended model lead to a 13%

reduction in labor-hours compared to a non-structured integrated model and other processes used

in previous engagements. The combined effect of using three synergistic approaches, quality

function deployment, hazard and operability analysis, and a plan-do-check-act process-based

model not only each serve in their own way to create process improvements, but additionally all

three approaches contribute to organizational knowledge which is considered a quintessential

contributor to achieving a competitive advantage in the modern market place.
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and express profound gratitude to those who in diverse ways

contributed towards the preparation and publication of this dissertation. My sincerest gratitude

and appreciation goes to my Committee Chair, Dr. M. Affan Badar for his incessant

encouragement, diligent guidance and directions towards the successful completion of this work.

I am also thankful to my other Committee Members, Dr. John W. Sinn, Dr. A. Mehran

Shahhosseini, and Dr. Farman Moayed for their invaluable reviews, suggestions and constructive

feedbacks through the course of the study.

I also express my gratitude to Mr. Rich Guhl, for his encouragement and support in

proofreading each chapter. Immense thanks goes to my company (Bayer) and managers, past and

present for their support.

I am most grateful to my wife, Ewoma Michael-Odigie, without whose support, this

success would not have been imaginable. She was always there for me when I needed her and for

her thoughts, prayers, love, understanding, assistance, proofreading and encouragement. In every

way we are life partners and she shares in this milestone.

Ultimately, I thank God for bringing me this far and for giving me strength to carry on. I

acknowledge Him, the source of all truth and the author and finisher of our faith. “Being

confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the

day of Christ Jesus” (Philippians 1: 6, New International Version).
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMITTEE MEMBERS ............................................................................................................ ii 

ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... iii 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................. iv 

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... ix 

LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................x 

INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................11 

Concept of the Study......................................................................................................... 11 

General Area of Concern .................................................................................................. 12 

Background to the Study................................................................................................... 15 

Background of Quality Management Systems ..................................................... 16 

Background on Safety Management Systems ...................................................... 17 

Motivation towards Integrating QMS with SMS .................................................. 18 

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 19 

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 20 

Research Objectives .......................................................................................................... 20 

Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 21 

Statement of Assumptions ................................................................................................ 22 

Scope and Limitations....................................................................................................... 22 

Statement of the Methodology .......................................................................................... 23 
vi

Definition of Terms and Acronyms .................................................................................. 24 

Terminology.......................................................................................................... 24 

Acronyms .............................................................................................................. 25 

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 26 

REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................................................27 

Traditional Concepts of Safety Management Systems ..................................................... 27 

Trends in Quality Management Systems .......................................................................... 29 

Is Safety Equivalent to Quality? ....................................................................................... 31 

A Case Study..................................................................................................................... 35 

Evolution of QMS and SMS Integration .......................................................................... 38 

Precedence for the Study .................................................................................................. 40 

Justification for the Research ............................................................................................ 44 

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 44 

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................46 

Restatement of the Purpose of the Study .......................................................................... 46 

Restatement of the Research Questions ............................................................................ 47 

Research Design................................................................................................................ 47 

Mode of Data Collection ................................................................................................... 48 

Estimation/Analysis of Data ............................................................................................. 52 

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 54 

RESULTS ......................................................................................................................................55 

Data Collection and Index Development .......................................................................... 55 

Descriptive Statistics......................................................................................................... 56 
vii

Hypothesis Statement One: Inverse Relationship of Indices ............................................ 58 

Hypothesis Statement Two: Cluster Analysis of Integrated Quality and Safety

Management Systems Models .......................................................................................... 60 

Hypothesis Statement Three: Statistical Confirmation of Cluster Analysis Results ........ 62 

Cluster Analysis Interpretation ......................................................................................... 66 

Subsequent Cluster Analysis - Further Investigation of Outliers ..................................... 67 

Statistical Confirmation of Subsequent Cluster Analysis ................................................. 69 

Interpretation ..................................................................................................................... 71 

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 72 

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................73 

Research Question One ..................................................................................................... 73 

Research Question Two .................................................................................................... 74 

Research Question Three .................................................................................................. 74 

Research Question Four: Most Optimal Model for IQSMS ............................................. 75 

Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 80 

Model Validation, Implications and Future Work ............................................................ 84 

Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 88 

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................91 

APPENDIX A: TABLE OF ARTICLES & STANDARDS REVIEWED..................................103 

APPENDIX B: CONTRAST TABLE OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM KEYWORDS FROM

ISO 9001, OHSAS 18001 AND ISO 14000 (SOURCE: (Pun & Hui, 2002)) ............................105 

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF QMS AND SMS KEY TERMS GLEANED FROM

ARTICLES AND STANDARDS ................................................................................................106 
viii

APPENDIX D: SUMTOTAL DISTRIBUTION OF KEYWORDS PER REVIEWED

ARTICLES ..................................................................................................................................108 

APPENDIX E: APPROVED IRB SOLICITATION AND SIGNED CONSENT LETTER FROM

PARTICIPANT............................................................................................................................110 

APPENDIX F: SAMPLE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN RESEARCHER AND MODEL

VALIDATION PARTICIPANT..................................................................................................116 

APPENDIX G: SAMPLE FEEDBACK CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN RESEARCHER

AND MODEL VALIDATION PARTICIPANT .........................................................................121 

APPENDIX H: COMPLETE TEXTUAL/TABLE VERSION OF NEW INTEGRATED

MODEL SHOWING CROSS REFERENCE OF CLAUSES FOR QMS AND SMS ................126 
ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Model linking attributes of FAA SMS, ISO 9001 /AS 9100C QMS and quality concepts.

Source: (Odigie, Sinn, Courbat, & Martin, 2014)..........................................................................37 

Table 2. Regression Analysis of QMS vs SMS Indices.................................................................59 

Table 3. Cluster Analysis Amalgamation Table for QMS vs SMS indices ...................................61 

Table 4. One Way ANOVA and Tukey’s Pairwise comparison of 3 Cluster by QMS indices.....63 

Table 5. One Way ANOVA and Tukey’s Pairwise comparison of 3 Cluster by SMS indices .....64 

Table 6. One Way ANOVA/Tukey’s comparison for mean polar angles by Categories ..............70 

Table 7. One Way ANOVA/Tukey’s comparison for new *IQSMS model .................................78 

Table 8. Table representation of the new *IQSMS process model................................................86 
x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Descriptive Statistics for Quality Management Systems Indices ...................................57 

Figure 2. Descriptive Statistics for Safety Management Systems Indices.....................................57 

Figure 3. Scatterplot with Fitted Line of QMS versus SMS Indices .............................................58 

Figure 4. Dendogram of QMS and SMS indices demonstrating 3 clusters ...................................62 

Figure 5. Scatter plot of three clusters for QMS and SMS indices ................................................63 

Figure 6. Individual value plot of 3 clusters by QMS indices .......................................................64 

Figure 7. Individual value plot of 3 clusters by SMS indices ........................................................65 

Figure 8. Scatterplot showing the 3 clusters by integrated QMS and SMS characterization ........67 

Figure 9. Dendogram for subsequent cluster analysis focusing on the outliers.............................68 

Figure 10. Scatterplot with fitted lines for subsequent cluster analysis. ........................................70 

Figure 11. Dendogram to show the position of the new created integrated model *IQSMS. .......77 

Figure 12. Scatterplot showing position of *IQSMS amongst clusters of other models ...............77 

Figure 13. Model showing process for the integration of QMS and SMS ....................................81 
11

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This chapter presents an abridged background against which the research was evaluated

for suitability. The management systems methods being discussed were reviewed. The integrated

quality and safety hybrid management system was introduced and the realization that a standard

optimal hybrid model is lacking was established. The crux of the research was an attempt to

develop an optimized integrated model and implement this model on a case study to see how it

performs compared to a stand-alone QMS and SMS. The research was defined by way of

problem statements and research questions supported by the significance of the study, a

statement of assumptions, as well as a scope of research limitations. The methodology that was

utilized in the research was summarized.

Concept of the Study

Quality and safety management is increasingly becoming the focus of most workplaces in

the global environment. To this end, an evolution of the concepts of safety and quality

management is becoming commonplace in small to medium-size companies in the United States

of America. Discussions of the safety management principles and the relationship between

quality and safety management, as well as the integration of the processes involved in the

prevention of worker risks with the systems of quality and environment is fast becoming a daily

routine towards achieving accreditation, compliance, and standardization. With this in mind, the
12

need for well-developed international and national set-ups in the areas of standards and related

matters on quality and safety management is very evident. Many experts advocate that achieving

quality and safety performance can help organizations foster a competitive edge. This is a direct

result of the effective minimization of financial loss, compliance with local and national

legislation, effective allocation of quality and safety responsibilities, and promotion of

community goodwill (Pun & Hui, 2002). This work discusses the impact of safety-quality

integration within management system. It also compares the compliance requirements of OSHA

regulations for medium-size businesses’ Safety and Health Management systems with that of

ISO 9001 quality management standards and examines the assumptions of existing links amongst

a company’s safety/quality awareness and the interrelationship of various factors affecting

safety/quality management practices. This chapter introduces the study by first outlining the

general area of concern and exploring the background of the study. It then continues to provide

the problem statement, the significance of the study, the research questions, and the underlying

assumptions. The chapter then discusses the scope and limitations of the study before closing

with the definition of terms and acronyms used all through the study.

General Area of Concern

Companies across the globe have long been aware of the importance of workplace safety

and quality management practices using international standards. Unfortunately, most companies

do not see a need for integration of the different principles and concepts used in the management

of both systems. They are not aware of the additional efficiencies that can be brought about by

the synergies of both systems; often they tend to turn a blind eye to the existence of workable

systems that draw strengths from the value of national standard organizations within

international activities (Samuel, 2007). This situation is the same for most small to medium-size
13

companies in the United States of America. Across the spectrum of other industries, such as the

aviation sector, professionals are embracing the notion of continuous improvement and

endeavoring to redefine and fine-tune the way safety is managed. The focus is on creating robust

Safety Management Systems (SMS) that encompass risk management, assurance, promotion,

and policies to identify and address safety issues. This initiative, driven by the International Civil

Aviation Organization (ICAO), European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), and others, has been

advanced by the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) decision to initiate a volunteer

program for the development of SMS for airports and flight schools (Federal Aviation Authority,

2011). The FAA’s concept was to utilize the rubrics of the existing FAA safety guidelines, as

illustrated in the four SMS pillars (Federal Aviation Authority, 2012), intending to be a more

comprehensive strategy for safety management.

The manufacturing industry has long been reputed for its high accident rates when

compared with other industries. It is one of the most unsafe industries worldwide, constantly

accounting for one of the highest fatality rates amongst all industries. The International Labor

Organization (ILO) has made a conservative estimate claiming that at least 60,000 people are

being fatally injured every year on factory floors worldwide (International Labor Organization,

2003). Additionally, in 2010 alone, the manufacturing industry shared 1,243 (21.7 %) of the total

5,734 work-related deaths from injuries in the US, while making up only 8% of the overall

workforce (Dong, Wang, & Herleikson, 2010). Significant improvements in manufacturing

safety performance are still needed in order to reduce both the monetary and social impact on

today’s society.

Recent inquiries have studied how safety performance is affected by the application of

quality management practices and have shown that they both improve the efficiency of
14

production sites and result in favorable safety outcomes (Thomassen, Sander, Barnes, & Nielsen,

2003). Quality Management Systems promote the reduction of waste through the standardization

of the workflow and reduction of workflow variability. The minimization of waste in a

production system is one of the chief foundations of quality-management-enhanced-production.

Improved safety performance, such as fewer injuries and reduced fatality rates are a signal of a

reduction of waste given that poor safety can undeniably be considered a source of waste.

Accidents result in reduced efficiency of a process, resulting in non-value-adding events in

systems and processes. Since quality management principles aim at reducing waste, it would be

adequate to assume that the reduction of occupational hazards is a natural occurring outcome of

the implementation of quality management principles (Howell, Ballard, Abdelhamid, &

Mitropoulos, 2002).

This work presents one approach that underscores the view that a robust Safety

Management System (SMS) can be developed and implemented drawing from the strengths and

attributes inherent in the ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems (QMS). Similarities between

the SMS, in a process environment and quality principles proposed over the years by quality

gurus such as Joseph Juran, Phillip Crosby, and Edwards Deming, were examined to show that

the basic tenets of their philosophies for quality management are much aligned with the rubrics

of the systems for safety management across industries. The study aims to explore these

synergies and propose that an integrated system model that systematically maintains the

requirements of safety and quality while reducing the excessive bureaucracy in the execution of

both processes separately should be adopted.
15

Background to the Study

This section provides an overview of the current implementation procedures of safety

management systems and quality management in small to medium-size complexes. Quality and

safety management systems are widely popular process improvement approaches used around

the world (Dumas, 1987; Federal Aviation Authority, 2014). In recent years, quality, safety, as

well as environmental management systems are being integrated into what is commonly called

integrated management systems (IMS) (Stamou, 2003). The integration of quality, which focuses

on processes and reduction of variation (Quality Council of Indiana, 2012), with safety, which

focuses on the connection between the people’s behavior and the process as well as their

personal well-being (Herrero, Saldana, Manzanedo del Campo, & Ritzel, 2002), is supported by

both practitioners and scholars. The purpose of this research was to explore the concept of

integrating quality and safety management systems using cluster analysis. Until an integrated

quality and safety management system is adequately defined as a distinct approach, it cannot be

compared and contrasted with other continuous improvement methodologies, including quality

management systems and safety management systems from which the integration is derived. A

review on the existing body of knowledge pertaining to the topics of interest was carried out. The

review lays the necessary groundwork for the key ideas of this dissertation, which are related

mainly to quality management enhanced safety management systems, in order to build synergies

between the two. Given this background, a reference to other studies closely related to the one

being undertaken is provided in order to set the research problem within the ongoing dialogue in

the literature and to establish a point of departure and the importance of this study.
16

Background of Quality Management Systems

A quality system can be defined as a process that combines with company system

provisions to ensure quality-perfect products and services. Quality systems are mainly

implemented using the ISO 9000 series of standards (Brunsson & Jacobsson, 2002), which are an

international family of generic quality standards firstly published by ISO in 1987, and updated in

1994,2000, and 2008. These international standards have been embraced by over 100 countries

worldwide including the United States of America (International Organization for

Standardization, 2009). The idea behind the standards is that defects can be prevented through

the development and application of best practices at every stage of a business process from

design through manufacturing and then installation and servicing. ISO 9000 defines a quality

management system as “a management system that aids in directing and controlling an

organization with regard to quality”.

The ISO 9000:1994 series comprises three standards, namely; ISO 9001: design,

development, production, installation and servicing; ISO 9002: production, installation and

servicing; ISO 9003: inspection and testing. ISO 9000:2000 combined the three standards 9001,

9002, and 9003 into one called 9001 based on eight management principles, customer focus,

leadership, involvement of people, process approach, system approach to management, continual

improvement, factual approach to decision making, and mutual beneficial supplier relationships.

ISO 9001:2008 comprises five clauses that contain 23 sub clauses which specify what an

organization must do to conform to the standard. The standard emphasizes greater focus on the

customer, establishment of measures, requirement for measurement and continual improvement,

and continual evaluation of training effectiveness. These standards requires a company to first

document and implement its systems for quality management and then to verify that they are
17

adhering to these requirements by means of an audit conducted by an independent accredited

third party (Guchu & Mwanaongoro, 2012). Small and Medium-size enterprises in the United

States of America have recently started adopting ISO 9001 in order to develop a Quality

Management System (QMS) for their businesses. The benefits of these systems are listed below

(Motwani, Kumar, & Cheng, 1996):

1. Assurance of continual business relations with other players. Reputable companies are

beginning to insist on conducting business only with ISO certified firms.

2. Worldwide recognition; the standards are considered a universally accepted quality

standard.

3. Use of certification label in marketing and advertising.

4. A listing in the international “certified supplier” directory

5. Improved quality and productivity, and reduced costs associated with a basic quality

system.

6. Elimination of expensive, time-consuming, second-party audits by Prospective customers.

With these benefits in sight, the reasons why small to medium-size companies are adopting ISO

certification are not far-fetched.

Background on Safety Management Systems

OSHA 2209-02R 2005 states that “employers are responsible for providing a safe and

healthful workplace for their employees” and further elaborates that OSHA's role is to assure the

safety and health of America's workers by setting and enforcing standards; providing training,

outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual improvement in

workplace safety and health (US Department of Labor, 2014). The main objective of most

OSHA regulations is to specify minimum standards for the operation of enterprises which are
18

compatible with their safety. Historically, manufacturing safety has been built upon the reactive

analysis of past accidents and the introduction of corrective actions to prevent the recurrence of

those events (Herrero, Saldana, Manzanedo del Campo, & Ritzel, 2002). As companies continue

to learn from these occurrences and reduce workplace accidents it becomes increasingly difficult

to make further improvements to the level of safety by using a reactive methodology. Therefore,

a proactive method to managing safety was developed that concentrates on the control of

processes rather than solely relying on inspection and remedial actions on end products. This

innovation in manufacturing system safety is called a Safety Management System (SMS), an

expression indicating that safety efforts are most effective when made a fully integrated part of

the business operation (Calvano, 2001).

Enhancing overall safety in a well-organized manner requires the adoption of a systems

approach to the management of safety. Every segment and level of an organization must become

part of a safety culture that promotes and practices risk reduction by adopting a formal, top-down

business-like approach to managing safety risk that is built on basic system safety principles

(Clemens & Simmons, 1998). Safety management is based on the premise that there will always

be safety hazards and human errors. SMS institutes processes to improve communication

concerning these risks and take action to minimize them. This approach will subsequently

improve an organization’s overall level of safety (Federal Aviation Authority, 2007).

Motivation towards Integrating QMS with SMS

The motivation towards combining attributes of QMS with SMS is the drive to

investigate how the use of quality management practices could result in a safer work

environment. Recent studies have identified the safety outcomes that result from the

implementation of quality management systems. In one study, crews implementing a QMS
19

system had about 45 percent lower accident rates than crews in the same company performing

similar work (Thomassen, Sander, Barnes, & Nielsen, 2003). It has been suggested to implement

QMS strategies to provide an efficient delivery system for safety management practices so as to

improve both safety performance and safety management efforts (Herrero, Saldana, Manzanedo

del Campo, & Ritzel, 2002). A tentative description at this time for the relationship between the

implementation of QMS practices and safety might be that safety performance improves as a

result of the inherent characteristics of QMS principles. However, the underlying causes

correlating QMS practices with improved safety and how they lead to safer environments have

yet to be explored. The topic is still in its infancy and needs to be addressed because it may help

the industry improve productivity while at the same time improving safety performance. At this

point, instituting a quality-extended SMS model can be recognized as a key stage for managing

this gap.

Statement of the Problem

Research on the optimal integration of quality and safety management systems is still not

enough to make definitive conclusions on the characteristics, differences and dominance of one

system from the other within the integrated scheme. Both systems individually has well

documented qualitative benefits but very little documentation has been provided on them when

integrated. Additionally, there is no clear position on the bent of varying integrated systems

models and standards in literature. Because the inclinational of varying integrated models of

quality and safety management systems is unclear and/or mixed, this study intended to

investigate the characteristics, differences and dominance of various integrated models found in

literature and then propose an optimal model for integration.
20

Significance of the Study

This study is significant in the sense that it provides new knowledge to the existing

literature on the topic of QMS and SMS integration. Currently, the amount of empirical evidence

on the hypothetical relationship is minimal given that some discussions seem to be biased by

ideological viewpoints and also lack the support of empirical data (Ghaleiw, 2013). Therefore, it

is anticipated that a more in-depth discussion between these variables can provide a basis for the

development of future production and safety management models as well as future research. By

creating an integrated model, this investigation aims at improving safety effectiveness in industry

while simultaneously reducing non value-adding activities, or waste, which impedes labor

efficiency at the work site and increases hazards. Safety managers, quality systems practitioners,

and contractors in general could benefit from the use of the models developed from this study.

The results can be implemented in the field by serving as an aid to recognize the potential

impacts and synergies when planning for quality and safety strategies.

Research Objectives

As earlier outlined in the significance of this study, the major objectives of this work

were to:

1. Develop an integrated QMS/SMS model through literature review/data mining. The

model comprises a process flow chart as well as a textual table that expresses the

relationship of QMS and SMS theories yielding towards understanding the individual

processes. This provided a larger picture on the association of QMS and SMS and

studied the common grounds used in the minimization of waste and risk. Drawing on

strengths from the work of Pun and Hui (2002), the adoption of a similar process

model was proposed. The model was based primarily on the philosophy of Total
21

Quality and Total Safety as well as the compliance requirements of ISO 9001 and

OHSAS 18001.

2. Work with a group of experts/actual QMS/SMS professionals in the level of

accrediting bodies to validate the developed model. An attempt was made to weight

the panel equally with actual experts from both QMS and SMS practitioners.

3. Through the key experts, investigate the feasibility of the model with a sampled

company by means of a case study using the validated model and discuss the

challenges of adopting an integrated system for quality and safety management.

Research Questions

The central research question that forms the basis of this study is how the implementation

of QMS affects safety performance. In order to explore this relationship, this central question is

further narrowed and broken into the following:

1. Is an Integrated Quality and Safety Management Systems Model (IQSMS) different from

QMS and SMS?

2. What are the characteristics of a quality management system dominant integrated model?

3. What are the characteristics of a safety management system dominant integrated model?

4. What is the most optimal model for an integrated QMS/SMS that possesses near to

almost equally weighted attributes of both systems?

5. What are the major barriers experienced in implementing an integrated system for QMS

and SMS?

The associated hypothesis statements were as follows:

1. There is no significant inverse relationship between quality dominance and safety

dominance as described in the researched literature.
22

2. The distribution of quality management and safety management system models, as

described in the researched literature, is not clustered into two distinct quality

management dominant and safety management dominant versions.

3. There is no significant difference between the ratios of quality management key words to

safety management key words among identified clusters of articles/models.

Statement of Assumptions

In order to answer the above listed critical research questions, this study assumes that the

implementation of quality management practices is directly related to the improvement of safety

performance. Companies implementing robust QMS practices in their work sites will have

improved safety performance due to the inherent characteristics of an effective QMS and as such

these concepts and fundamental principles can be integrated. QMS characteristics, such as the

stabilization of workflow documentation and management responsibilities, encourage less

material in the work area, an orderly and clean workplace, and an overall increased task

predictability and flow reliability. The application of these strategies to safety management

practices also enhances safety and promotes efficiency. In the light of these, this study aims to

address the existing synergies between the implementation of QMS practices and safety

management practices and to develop a model via cluster analysis from these synergies geared

towards improvement in safety performance.

Scope and Limitations

Given that there are a vast array of clustering algorithms, the clusters that resulted were

dependent upon the algorithm deployed and may differ from clusters resulting for divergent

algorithms (Duarte, Montgomery, Fowler, & Konopka, 2012). The hierarchical method of cluster

analysis is an exploratory method which may propose a further non-hierarchical method as a
23

means of complementary corroboration (Sharma, 1996). The target literature for data mining and

model evaluation are a compendium of different authors across the annals of time with no

particular system of selection considering the dearth of literature on the integration of SMS with

QMS. The literature available on the various aspects of an integrated Q-SMS is very limited,

particularly in comparison to the amount of information published on SMSs. Therefore,

information regarding the integration of organizations like mergers, which is a somewhat similar

process to systems integration, but on a different scale, will prove useful and relevant to the

integration of two management systems. The geographical scope and application of the process

model should also be considered as a limitation, considering that the selection of industry experts

used for validating the developed model was restricted to the United States of America. This

allowed for interviews to take place in person when necessary in order to circumvent social and

financial constraints that might not permit international travel. It is possible that findings may not

be directly transferable to other geographical regions due to differences in regulatory

environments and public opinion concerning safety practices in different locations. However,

attempts were made to ensure that the validation implementation is done within an organization

with international presence, which may lessen this concern.

Statement of the Methodology

The mixed method research methodology was employed in this work. By means of a

textual data mining scheme, the analysis investigated for the presence of both quality dominant

and safety dominant variants of integrated quality and safety management systems. Word counts

were utilized for defining and establishing content and attributes for each category. Key words

related with quality and safety management practices respectively were identified from the

International Standards for Quality Management Systems (ISO 9000 series) and Safety
24

Management Systems (OHSAS 18001 series) and subsequently mined from a selection of peer

reviewed articles selected from the EBSCO database focusing on articles that discuss and

propose varying forms of integrated models for quality and safety management systems.

Each article/segment was a sample and was mined for the incidences of key words,

leading to the creation of both a quality and a safety index. Descriptive statistics were computed

for the quality and safety indices. A regression analysis was conducted on the pairs of indices to

determine if an inverse relationship exists, being that this is what was expected if the literature

samples were primarily stratified into quality dominant and safety dominant variants

respectively. Using a method of cluster analysis proposed by Sharma (1996) an evaluation was

performed on the occurrence of key words to see if the samples fall into two distinct clusters of

either quality or safety dominant models. Considering the expected stratification of data into

these clusters, a one-way ANOVA was performed on the mean frequency of quality key words

for each cluster as well as the mean frequency of safety key words for each cluster respectively.

Definition of Terms and Acronyms

The following were the definition of terms and acronyms used throughout this study:

Terminology

Accreditation: A process by which organizations are authorized to conduct a certification of

conformity to prescribed standards (Hoyle, 2006).

Compliance: The act or process of doing what you have been asked or ordered to do: the act or

process of complying (Merriam-Webster, 2014).

Standardization: The process of developing and implementing technical standards. The goals of

right standardization can be to help with independence of single suppliers (commoditization),

compatibility, interoperability, safety, repeatability, or quality (Brunsson & Jacobsson, 2002).
25

Acronyms

ANSI-ANAB – American National Standard Institute – ASQ National Accreditation Board

ASQ – American Society for Quality

BSI – British Standards Institute

BSI PAS – British Standard Institute’s Publicly Available Specification

EASA – European Aviation Safety Agency

EBSCO – Elton B. Stephens Co (database, with a collection of peer reviewed journals/articles)

FAA – Federal Aviation Administration

ICAO – International Civil Aviation Organization

IHST – International Helicopter Safety Team

ILO – International Labor Organization

IQSMS – Integrated Quality and Safety Management Systems

IRB – Institutional Review Board

ISO – International Organization for Standardization

ISU – Indiana State University

NSAI – National Safety Authority of Ireland

NSC – National Safety Council

PDCA – Plan-Do-Check-Act

PSI – Product Support Initiative

OHSAS – Occupational Health & Safety Assessment Series

OSHA – Occupational Safety and Health Administration

QMS – Quality Management Systems

SMS – Safety Management Systems
26

Summary

This chapter introduced the study by first outlining the general area of concern and

exploring the background to the study. It proceeded to provide the statement of the problem, the

significance of the study, the research questions, and the assumptions. The chapter then

discussed the scope and limitations of the study as well as a statement on the methodology before

concluding with the definition of terms and acronyms used throughout the study. This study was

organized into 4 other chapters. Chapter 2 presents a thorough literature review of the existing

body of knowledge concerned with the most fundamental groundwork for the key ideas

pertaining to this study from which a respective point of departure for the research was

established.
27

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In the previous chapter the study was outlined by an introduction, the general area of

concern, and a background to the study. The statement of the problem and the significance of the

study were then provided along with an outline of the research questions and hypotheses. The

chapter further discussed the scope and limitations of the study and concluded by providing the

definition of terms and acronyms used throughout the study. This chapter - Literature Review,

gives an overview of quality management systems and safety management systems. It looks into

the history and early initiatives of the development and implementation of both management

systems and its’ standardization into small and medium-size enterprises in the United States of

America. It further probes into the trend of integrating quality management systems with safety

management systems. The chapter then explored the only known standard that guides

integration, BS PAS 99, and most current integration initiatives from literature. The rationale for

the study was discussed by way of a proposed QMS and SMS integration model. Relevant works

conducted in different geographical regions that outlined the precedence for this study were then

explored. The review concluded by providing the justification for the study.

Traditional Concepts of Safety Management Systems

Within a company process environment, many forms of safety management exist. The

most common types are aligned along the traditional method of safety and the methods and
28

philosophies of quality in conjunction with safety (Smith, 1996). This indicates that, safety

professionals implementing the traditional method direct and control workers so that the

expected company safety standards and regulations are completed. They are also burdened with

the task of enforcing laws and government regulations (Herrero, Saldana, Manzanedo del

Campo, & Ritzel, 2002). They are made aware of new regulations, keen to impose rules and

regulations aligned with these new findings on their employees; they monitor adherence by

executing inspections, auditing the system, following up investigations of accidents and injuries,

and creating recommendations so as to prevent accidents and injuries in the future. In following

this concept, the safety professionals focus on changing the behavior of the worker, motivating

them, and using awards, prizes and tangible incentives to help them work in a safer way

(Herrero, Saldana, Manzanedo del Campo, & Ritzel, 2002). In a quid-pro-quo manner, rewards

are given only to the workers and/or units that meet the predetermined safety objectives (Smith,

1996).

Over time, studies have observed that the traditional safety management programs do not

always improve the results of safety in the workplace because they are centered wholly on the

technical requirements and on obtaining short-term results (Weinstein, 1996). The traditional

safety management program breaks down when everything is working smoothly as companies

with the traditional focus only acts when accidents or injuries occur (Rahimi, 1995). One more

limitation of the traditional safety management program is the nature of its isolation; it is in most

cases not incorporated with the rest of the functions of the organization in which it serves

(Hansen, 1993). The major fundamentals of traditional safety programs include: safety director,

safety committees and meetings relating to safety, list of rules pertaining to safety, and the

posting of slogans, posters, and programs of safety incentives. The safety director who occupies
29

a position inside the organization of the company and, whom in many cases, does not have the

authority to effect changes, bears the overall responsibility of the safety program (Herrero,

Saldana, Manzanedo del Campo, & Ritzel, 2002).

Petersen (1994) presented a set of obligations to management as a way of being proactive

and not focusing on traditional safety management principles. He suggested that management

should: (a) not measure progress by injury ratios; (b) ensure that safety becomes a system, more

than a program; (c) employ statistical techniques to drive the efforts of continuous improvement;

(d) use technical principles and tools for the statistical control of the process; (e) place emphasis

on improving the system; (f) provide benefits to people that discover illegal situations; (g)

formalize the participation of workers in the resolution of problems and decision making; (h)

ensure a well projected ergonomic well-being in the place of work; (i) eliminate the traps within

the system that leads to human errors. With these obligations within the company, the system is

centered on taking a proactive approach and will be more effective than the one that continually

analyzes accidents after they happen in order to generate data on which to base improvements.

Trends in Quality Management Systems

The significance of Quality Management Systems in organizations has increased within

the past twenty five years (Mellat-Parast & Digman, 2008). The ISO 9001 series of standards

that is today the go-to document for quality management systems implementation draws its

strength from the principles of Total Quality Management (TQM) (American Society for

Quality, 2005). The system has taken different forms and shapes over time and has been called

by different names. Whether called Quality Circles (QC), Total Quality (TQ), Total Quality

Control (TQC), Total Quality Improvement (TQI) or TQM, The fundamental goal remains the

same (American Society for Quality, 2005). The beginning of this system of management and its
30

rational approaches should be attributed to the Japanese methods of quality improvement after

World War II. Through the alliance of Japanese scientists, engineers, lawmaking officials, and

policy makers, along with the works of Deming and Juran, the Japanese established a

management philosophy that later led to Total Quality Management (TQM) (Powell, 1995).

Today, the concept of quality has progressed from basic manufacturing and engineering-related

activities to a philosophy that embraces all organizational activities and processes (Mellat-Parast

& Digman, 2008). The entire concept of quality management has its origin in the ideas of quality

gurus (Deming, Juran, Crosby, Feigenbaum, and Ishikawa) whose primary objectives were

customer satisfaction and continuous improvement (Dean & Bowen, 1994).

The idea of quality management systems has been widely used as a management strategy

to improve quality in an organization. It is a continuous process that aims at quality improvement

in all processes and activities in the organization with an ultimate goal to establish a management

system and organizational culture that ensures customer satisfaction and continuous

improvement (Senthil, Devadasan, Selladurai, & Baladhandayutham, 2001; Wicks, 2001;

Selladurai, 2002). When TQM, upon which the ethos of QMS is based, began to gain some

ground following a nationwide push toward improvement in productivity by Japanese engineers

along with the work of Deming and Juran, the system introduced new concepts such as

continuous and customer-centered improvement, quality circles, supplier partnership, cellular

manufacturing, and just-in-time production (Powell, 1995).

The philosophy and practices of TQM did not gain international reputation until the

beginning of the 1980’s. During the early 1980s, some US policy makers and business leaders

noticed that Japanese manufacturing quality had equaled or exceeded US standards, and they

warned that Japanese productivity would soon surpass that of American firms (Khalil, 2009).
31

The use of quality management practices in the US was further expanded by the trend in the

European Union toward quality improvement (Burgelman, Christensen, & Wheelwright, 2008).

With trading and commercial strategy in view, the European Union decided to develop a quality

standard so that they could reduce the time and cost associated with inspecting products

(Brunsson & Jacobsson, 2002). The result of such an agreement led to the development of

several international standards chief of which is the ISO 9000 family of standards. This family of

quality management systems standards, as in the case of the original TQM concept, is designed

to support organizations in ensuring that they meet the needs of customers and other stakeholders

while meeting statutory and regulatory requirements related to a product (Poksinska, Dahlgaard,

& Antoni, 2002). The standards deal with the fundamentals of quality management systems

which also include the eight management principles upon which the family of standards is based

(Tsim, Yeung, & Leung, 2002). Today, various third-party certification bodies provide

independent confirmation that organizations meet the requirements of ISO 9001. Over one

million organizations worldwide are independently certified (International Organization for

Standardization, 2010). This makes ISO 9001 one of the most widely used management tools in

the world today.

Is Safety Equivalent to Quality?

Calvano (2001) notes that quality and safety share a common requirement; they are

everyone’s concern and responsibility. He noted that the basis for the efficient implementation of

the quality and safety system in any organization depends on this notion. An organization’s

policy should always underline how important it is to create and share a common quality and

safety culture. ISO 9000 requested that the top management of an organization appoint a

management representative in charge of establishing, implementing, and maintaining the process
32

needed for the quality management system. This approach is aimed to deeply ingrain the quality

system within the organization. In line with SAE AS 9100C, we can agree on the fact that a

quality system designed to assure quality and safety is already the basis of safety management; it

then becomes evident that every effort should be made to spread the notion that quality and

safety responsibilities lie on everyone and not on an any individual. This implies that when

implementing a good quality system, upper management's priority is to establish a strong

"Quality Culture" supported by a clear commitment from management and with a workforce that

understands Quality in everything always translates into improved Safety. This is the

fundamental link between Quality and Safety, if we look for ever Improving Safety (Calvano,

2001).

In the 2010 BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the absence of a quality culture gave rise to

six serious quality management failures; these failures caused a tragic loss of life and

catastrophic environmental disaster. The absence of a quality culture cost BP a $91 billion drop

in its market value between April and June 2010. It sparked 350 lawsuits from the general public,

damaged its brand image, led environmental groups to attack all offshore drilling, caused

shareholder dissatisfaction and knocked the organization from its position as an industry leader

(Ghaleiw, 2013). This then begs the question, was safety the issue? Would addressing the

quality failures have averted the disaster? Lowellyne (2012) concluded that Safety was not the

issue, it was a lack of an understanding of quality management and its impact on the triple

bottom line: economic, social and environmental. Put simply, to obey the concept of “safety

first” and improve the safety of life and personnel, quality should be first in everything an

organization does. This principle cannot be over emphasized in a process environment that deals

with complex production systems and processes.
33

The significance of Safety Management Systems in organizations has increased within

the last ten years. Stolzer, et al (2011) highlighted the close connection of SMS implementation

with ISO quality management and the Shewhart cycle, made popular by Deming (1950). The

notion of an SMS balancing production and protection (safety) was discussed by Yantiss (2011),

where he observed the safety and quality tools that were weaved throughout the various ICAO

SMS guidance documents and noted that “quality is the key to acceptable safety performance”.

Additional linkages between safety procedures and quality procedures are evident in

documentation and publications ranging from the International Civil Aviation SMS Manual

(International Civil Aviation Authority, 2009) to FAA SMS Implementation and Assurance

Guides (Federal Aviation Authority, 2010) and to documentation developed to assist airport

operators in the implementation of a safety program (Federal Aviation Authority, 2007). The

linkage between safety and quality is evident and is used as a key training aid in the development

of safety management systems (Clemens & Simmons, 1998; International Helicopter Safety

Team, 2007).

Separately, global manufacturers have evolved a quality management system,

increasingly certified to the ISO 9001:2008 QMS implementation standard. The Society of

Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the European Association of Aerospace Industries also

released in 1999 AS9100C, a widely adopted and standardized QMS for the aerospace and

defense industry. This standard fully integrates the entirety of ISO 9000, buffered with additional

requirements for quality and safety. This has been done to increase competitiveness and to

facilitate continuous improvement, offering customers a path to enhanced resource management

and process improvement along with profitability (International Organization for

Standardization, 2009). This QMS is based around four individual key elements in line with the
34

principles of Deming’s Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle (National Safety Authority of Ireland,

2012). The PDCA cycle defines basic requirements to ensure that the customer receives a safe

and reliable product/service, all centered on plan, do, check and act functions (National Safety

Authority of Ireland, 2012).

McNeely (2010) stressed the importance of understanding the differences between

quality and safety as a common theme and that it is a challenge for most organizations. He also

emphasized continuous improvement as an intersection between the two disciplines. The main

difference is that quality systems relate to defect identification while striving to provide a

customer-driven orientation. By contrast, safety systems focuses on hazard identification,

continuous assessment, and risk management, pointed out by Manning (1988), making a similar

argument. One point these articles did not address was whether the management systems and

methods can result in a quality product, and simultaneously affect the safety of that products

production process. Quality assurance strategies, in a broad perspective, may provide a scope

that is wider in range than that of product safety (Manning, 1988). Perhaps Manning was

suggesting that safety focuses more on failures that may result in potential risk of hazard,

possible mitigation, and related effects, while quality may be more holistic in nature.

Product evaluation and reliability testing may also provide additional credence related to

the quality and safety interface. Failures can be analyzed to determine their effects on product

usefulness and quality. Failure analysis techniques can be used to identify potential safety issues.

This analysis, and its’ desired resulting reduction in hazards, may directly impact what Juran

(1998) referred to as the product’s fitness for purpose. The determinants of quality for products

and services encompass reliability, serviceability, maintainability, attractiveness and ultimately

safety (Quality Council of Indiana, 2012). These terms appear to strengthen the relationship
35

between safety and quality. The results of each of their assigned responsibilities can have a

dramatic impact on the overall systems. A more thorough understanding of the processing and

maintenance procedures employed with the quality systems process may result in the

improvement of safety as fewer defects and defectives occur. Similarly, a more thorough

understanding of the hazards associated with the environment as outlined by safety processes and

procedures may result in an improved operation and customer satisfaction.

A Case Study

One area where integration of safety and quality management systems is gaining strong

momentum is in the aviation industry. Embracing the notion of continuous improvement, the

aviation industry is endeavoring to redefine and fine tune the way safety is managed. The focus

is on creating robust Safety Management Systems (SMS) that encompass risk management,

assurance, promotion, and policies to identify and address safety issues. This initiative, driven by

the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), European Aviation Safety Agency

(EASA), and others, has been furthered by the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)

decision to initiate a volunteer program for the development of an SMS for airports and flight

schools (Federal Aviation Authority, 2011). The FAA’s concept was to utilize the rubrics of the

existing FAA safety guidelines, as illustrated in the four SMS pillars (Federal Aviation

Authority, 2010; Federal Aviation Authority, 2012), intending to be a more comprehensive

strategy for safety management. As one of the three collegiate flight schools participating in the

national FAA volunteer SMS pilot project, Bowling Green State University (BGSU) saw this as

an opportunity to ensure continual improvement through the use of 1) FAA and ICAO guidance

manuals, 2) standardized aviation safety practices, 3) gap analyses, and 4) quality management

tools and assessment.
36

Recent work at Bowling Green State University (BGSU), in the Department of

Engineering Technology’s Quality Systems (QS) program and Aviation Studies (AVS) program,

also underscores the interdependency of safety and quality in both process and results. BGSU

faculty, staff and students have been engaged in developing an SMS program by documenting

existing policy and procedures. It became readily apparent that the process to do this was very

similar to the processes outlined in ISO 9000 QMS and the practices as stated by Deming, Juran

and Crosby. In almost every case the practices outlined in ISO 9000 QMS have mirror images in

both the theories of QMS practitioners and SMS. Management commitment and responsibilities,

roles and accountabilities, analysis techniques, safety assurance practices and

organizational/cultural change processes are nearly identical in theory and practice for QMS and

SMS. One example of this type interrelationship is the applicability of the Quality

Transformation Toolkits and DMAIC methodology to address define, measure, analyze, improve

and control outcomes (Sinn, 2006)

As a working example, the model in table 1 was utilized when educational experiences

for safety and quality were provided in actual courses for development of the SMS as part of the

FAA volunteer program designed to develop a new flight school industry standard. This

involved training and educating students, staff, and faculty on competencies involving SMS and

QMS. Faculty and students, to further the project, began drafting parts of the SMS along with

course requirements in both Aviation and QS courses. Documents from 2010 coursework served

as a basis for SMS documentation. A level 1 FAA gap analysis was conducted in November

2012.
37

Table 1

Model linking attributes of FAA SMS, ISO 9001 /AS 9100C QMS and quality concepts. Source:

(Odigie, Sinn, Courbat, & Martin, 2014)

FAA SMS ISO 9001 /AS
Quality Bases and Relationships (Deming, Juran, Crosby
Framework 9100C QMS Philosophies)
1.0: Safety 5.0: Organization leaders can apply varying methods in providing
Policy Management clear and concise vision for the organization’s future as well
Setting vision as set challenging goals and targets. These methods are
Responsibility
& goals inseparable for both quality and safety. It is only through unity
of purpose and direction of employees that these objectives
can be achieved. Leaders must maintain an environment
where employees are fully involved, establishing trust and
eliminating fear.
2.0: Safety 7.0: Product Techniques of hazard identification and mitigation for an
Risk Realization organization are all harbingers to product and service
Management realization. Organization effectiveness and efficiency depends
Hazards on the ability to identify, understand and manage interrelated
identified & processes and risks as a system. Understanding these
assessed interdependencies is key to mitigating any hazard. Managing
activities and resources as a process provides clear indication
of inputs and outputs, achieving desired outcomes.
3.0: Safety 6.0: Resource Awareness, training, education and promotion are all
Promotion Management contingent on people involvement which is treated by both
Training & standards. Human resource is central to the core competency
Support for of every company. Involving people and their capabilities can
strong safety only bring benefit to an organization attaining SMS or QMS.
culture This is achievable by motivating and holding individuals
accountable for their own performance and involving them in
decision making to inspire innovation and creativity.
4.0: Safety 8.0: Keeping the PDCA wheel moving, the quality cycle ensures
Assurance Measurement, that identified gaps are analyzed and closed. Continuously
Data Analysis and improving organization processes and systems leads to a near
collection, Improvement complete improvement of the organizational overall
gap analysis, performance. All measures of assurance are based on robust
and feedback planning, measurement, checking and gap analysis that is
proposed by both standards. These principles also underscore
what Juran referred to as fitness for purpose.
38

The SMS framework was further developed by a team of graduate students from a QS

class. This project interfaced tools for auditing the initiation and implementation of the BGSU

SMS using DMAIC continual assessment and improvement tools. Documentation was

developed and data was gathered from additional gap analysis techniques. The student team

posed numerous questions related to system inputs, processes and outcomes. The final focus was

a self-sustaining audit system integrating the fundamental components of QMS, SMS, and

practitioner theory and application.

Evolution of QMS and SMS Integration

Many practitioners advocate that achieving quality and safety performance can help

organizations foster a competitive edge. This fact is attributable to the minimization of financial

loss, compliance with legislation, effective allocation of quality and safety responsibilities, and

promotion of community goodwill (Pun & Hui, 2002). If we analyze the progress of quality

management, the results should show three stages of growth that includes quality control; quality

assurance and total quality. In the same vein, the evolution of the safety management system also

cuts across three stages of safety control, safety assurance or guarantee, and total safety (Herrero,

Saldana, Manzanedo del Campo, & Ritzel, 2002). The earliest work that showed synergies in the

concepts of quality and safety was Dumas (1987). Dumas conducted a study in more than 200

companies for 5 years and discovered that programs of quality and programs of safety have the

same components. In his study, he concluded that “safety is a dimension of quality, after

everything, the elimination of defects includes the elimination of practices of unsafe work.” If we

focus on a safety program as a consequence of making things well, then the program will

undoubtedly bear quality attributes. It goes without saying that since the objective of quality

control is to improve the quality of the products and or services through the detection and
39

elimination of defects, we can define the objective of safety control as the reduction of injuries

through the elimination of unsafe acts and work conditions (Minter, 1991).

In a safety management process, the first phase involves several techniques of safety

measures that are used to control accidents and injuries, one of which is statistical analysis.

Herrero et al. (2002) has indicated that the technique of statistical process control (SPC) is used

to control worker risk. SPC is a tool that is used to control the quality of the processes. With

SPC, we can show that the outcomes of a system do not have a constant value because random

variations will always exist (Herrero, Saldana, Manzanedo del Campo, & Ritzel, 2002). In order

to improve the results of safety within an organization and take on a proactive means of

achieving good results, it is necessary to measure the performances of safety before the accidents

happen (Krause & Hidley, 1989). When organizations measure the number of accidents and

injuries, the number of defects produced by a system is actually being measured. Several authors

indicate that the quality management philosophy could improve the management of any area

inside the company, and they lend special attention to the improvement of the safety

management and to the improvement of environmental management.

Deacon (1994) affirms that the United Kingdom since 1992 have viewed occupational

safety and health as an integral part of a quality management system as depicted in the model HS

(G) 65 and the norm BS7850. The British model HS (G) 65, published in 1991, was used for

safety and health management and the quality regulation BS7850 from 1992 added to the

traditional concept of quality management that satisfaction of the customer, safety, health,

environment, and managerial objectives are checks to each other. Weinstein (1996) created the

first Safety Hazard Management System (SHMS), which integrates the principles of total quality

management, the requirements of the ISO 9000, and the technical requirements. Rahimi (1995)
40

proposed integrating the long term strategic planning of safety inside total quality management.

This led to the development of a conceptual framework that included the concepts of strategic

safety management and self-managed teams. A major characteristic of Rahimi’s model is the

integration of teams from safety and quality. The concept included integrating the organization

of a company into teams, with workers from several levels, in order to have on every team

people with enough experience to design and supervise the physical components of the

environment of work as well as plan, organize, direct, and control the actions that need to be

carried out. These work teams do not remove the authority of top management but work to

provide additional tools for continuous improvement. Rahimi’s model opened up a new road for

integrating teams that focuses on quality and safety management systems within an organization.

Precedence for the Study

In reviewing the literature, it was found that various work has been done that discusses

the elements and importance of integrating quality, safety, and environmental management

systems. However, very few of these works proposes a framework or model for integrating only

quality and safety management practices without environmental management system. Brief

reviews of some of the work used for the data mining and cluster analysis in this study are

presented below:

1. Manuele (1994) study entitled “How Do Safety, Ergonomics and Quality Management

Interface?” Discusses how safety, ergonomics and quality management can be achieved

within the corporate set-up. Role of safety professionals, Nature of hazards management;

Importance of hazard identification and analysis, Description of a model program to

achieve safety, Steps of a model program for hazards management, Impact of ergonomics

on the practice of safety, Compliance with the law, Outline for quality management.
41

2. Pun & Hui (2002) study entitled “Integrating the safety dimension into quality

management systems: a process model” discusses the factors affecting safety- quality

integration in quality management systems. It also compares the compliance

requirements of OHSAS 18001 occupational health and safety management standard with

that of ISO 9001 (quality) and ISO 14001 (environmental) management standards. The

work examined the hypothesized links among company size, safety/quality awareness

and interrelationship of various factors affecting safety/quality management practices.

The study concluded by proposing a process model of safety-focused quality

management (SQM) as well as a guideline for its implementation.

3. Herrero et.al (2002) study entitled “From the traditional concept of safety management to

safety integrated with quality” Focuses on the evolution of the concepts of safety and

quality management in the common workplace in Spain. The traditional programs of

safety were explored showing strengths and weaknesses. The concept of quality

management was also reviewed. They concluded by presenting an analysis of the

relationship between quality and safety from data collected from a company in Spain.

4. In the work “Integrated Management Systems (IMS) in Small Medium-Sized Enterprises:

Theory and Practice” Stamou (2003), explored the subject of Integrated Management

Systems in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) in the United Kingdom. Based

on a critical analysis of the literature, as well as on a questionnaire survey, the theory and

the actual picture of SMEs were investigated in order for the drivers, benefits, and

barriers of IMS implementation to be identified. The research concludes that small and

medium-size companies need support and guidance to overcome their weaknesses and
42

proposes elements of a best practice model which can enable the sector to take advantage

of an integrated management system.

5. Gunduz & Simsek (2007) study entitled “A strategic safety management framework

through balanced scorecard and quality function deployment” proposed a safety

management framework for construction companies using quality tools like quality

function deployment and balance score card. Results of their survey were used to set the

final strategic goals in the balanced scorecard. Safety performance measures and

initiatives were used to accomplish the goals in the balanced scorecard.

6. Wang (2008) study entitled “The Practical Research of HSE and Quality Integrated

Management System in SINOPEC Co. Tianjin Branch” concluded that separate

execution of the Quality Management and HSE Management Systems results in a heavy

burden to the enterprise as well as inconsistent link up in the course of system publicity,

authentication, and practical execution. Taking the integration and execution of Quality

Management Systems (QMS) and Health, Safety and Environment Management Systems

(HSEMS) as a subject, the study focused on the management principle and running mode

of QMS’s and HSEMS’s as well as the possibility and effectiveness of integration using a

branch of SINOPED in China as a case study.

7. Zhu (2008) study entitled “A Study of Performance Evaluation for Enterprises that

implemented Quality, Environment, and Occupational Health and Safety Integrated

Management System” looked into the improvement brought about from the

implementation of quality, environment, and occupational health and safety as an

integrated management system within an enterprise in China. The study discussed the

survey of the research on performance evaluation for enterprises that implemented the
43

integrated management system and then established the basic structure of the integrated

standard documents and put forward the steps to implement the integrated system. It

concluded by presenting a model process for integration and evaluated the efficacy using

an oil construction company in China.

8. Celik (2008) study entitled “Designing of integrated quality and safety management

system (IQSMS) for shipping operations” proposed a systematic approach for exploring

the compliance level of the international safety management (ISM) code with the ISO

9001:2000 in order to structure an integrated quality and safety management system

(IQSMS) for shipping operations. He employed a multi-attribute fuzzy axiomatic design

(MAFAD) research methodology to focus on the problems. The outcomes of his research

originally ensure decision aid for the relevant executives in ship management companies

who eagerly insist to implement quality integrated ISM code.

9. Santos et.al (2013) study entitled “The main benefits associated with health and safety

management systems certification in Portuguese small and medium enterprises post

quality management system certification” characterized how Portuguese Small and

Medium-size Enterprises (SMEs) view the Occupational Health and Safety Management

Systems (OHSMSs) certification process, after receiving the Quality Management

System (QMS) certification and concluded that the main benefits that Portuguese SMEs

gained from the referred certifications have been improved working conditions, ensuring

compliance with legislation, and better internal communication about risks and hazards.

They also presented the main difficulties in achieving an OHSMS certification and listed

them as high certification costs, difficulties motivating personnel, difficulties in changing

the company’s culture, and increased bureaucracy.
44

Justification for the Research

The literature review for this study supported the need to look into the development of an

optimal model for the integration of quality and safety management system by looking into the

bent of all models proposed over time. A number of researchers recommend that a holistic model

of integrated quality and safety management system needs to be defined (Celik, 2008). A

contribution to this priority is to identify and study organizations that are successful practitioners

of this system. Therefore, the overall objective of this study is to provide the reader with an

analysis of previously proposed models, discuss their bent and then propose an optimized model

for the integration of these systems. This research first conducted an analysis of any published

material relating to QMS and SMS integration, and then worked to identify elements of an

optimal model that can enable integrated companies to overcome their weaknesses and take

advantage of the benefits that integrated management systems can offer. The results and findings

of this study will be shared among the national and regional standards bodies and institutions, as

well as business organizations operating within the sector, in an effort to assist in the

improvement of Quality Management Systems and Safety Management Systems integration and

overall quality and safety culture.

Summary

The Literature Review provided an overview of Quality Management Systems as well as

Safety Management Systems. It examined the history and early initiatives in the planning and

implementation of quality management systems and safety management systems. It further

looked into the evolution of the integration of both systems globally. The trends and challenges

of integration were amplified through one case study at Bowling Green State University under

the aegis of the United States FAA. The rationale for the study was also discussed by way of
45

many empirical models proposed from previous studies. The review concluded by providing the

justification for the study.
46

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

The previous chapter provided an overview of quality management systems, safety

management systems, as well as an integrated management system. It also examined the history

and early initiatives in the planning and implementation of these systems. Using a case study, the

literature review discussed the trends and challenges experienced with the implementation of an

integrated system, as well as explored the current initiative by the FAA for flight schools in the

United States of America. The chapter also discussed various studies in other regions pertaining

to integration and models proposed by these studies, precedence for the study, and the

justification for the study. This chapter restated the purpose of the study and the research

questions. It then described the research design used in the study, mode of data collection, and

data processing and analysis techniques to be employed in the study.

Restatement of the Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to develop and propose a process model for the

development and implementation of an integrated quality and safety management system based

on the assessment of characteristics, differences, and dominance
47

Restatement of the Research Questions

The central research question that forms the basis of this study is the intent to expand on

how the implementation of QMS affects safety performance. In order to explore this

relationship, this central question is further narrowed and broken into the following:

1. Are an Integrated Quality and Safety Management Systems Model (IQSMS) different

from QMS and SMS?

2. What are the characteristics of a quality management system dominant integrated model?

3. What are the characteristics of a safety management system dominant integrated model?

4. What is the most optimal model for an integrated QMS/SMS that possesses near to

almost equally weighted attributes of both systems?

5. What are the major barriers experienced in implementing an integrated system for QMS

and SMS?

The associated hypothesis statements were as follows:

1. There is no significant inverse relationship between quality dominance and safety

dominance as described in the researched literature.

2. The distribution of quality management and safety management system models, as

described in the researched literature, are not clustered into two distinct quality

management dominant and safety management dominant versions.

3. There is no significant difference between the ratios of quality management key words to

safety management key words among identified clusters of articles/models.

Research Design

The research design comprised a literature study whereby various integrated management

system models were investigated and categorized as having a quality dominance, safety
48

dominance, or undetermined dominance. Text mining was utilized for determining content and

attributes for each category. The data/text mining was combined with statistical/cluster analysis,

the context and theory of which was informed by the literature search. A process model was

developed and further validated by a consortium of experts in the field selected from the ANSI-

ANAB certified accrediting bodies in the USA and the NSC; these experts were contacted via

the internet. Using these experts, the developed integrated model was tested with a case

study/example, and final discussion/recommendations were provided based on the case study.

Mode of Data Collection

In the first phase of this work, a comprehensive review of literature and international

standards was conducted through a collection of existing integrated system models from different

articles culled from journals in the “EBSCO Academic Search Complete” database for post

analysis. The Boolean search criteria used for the EBSCO download was occurrences of “Quality

Management System”, Integrated Management System”, Safety Management System”,

“Integrated Quality and Safety Management System”, “IMS”, Safety-Quality”, and Quality-

Safety-Integrated” within the Title of works restricted to only those in peer-reviewed journals. A

total combined hit of about 1095 articles were returned for all the search criteria. A review of

some of the titles reveals that a majority of the hits were not related to integrated quality and

safety management systems, they were either discussing the individual systems or applying them

in processes and ways that did not lead to the creation of a framework or model. From the

review, a total of 26 articles pertaining to integrated management systems of quality and safety

combined with a development of models or frameworks was selected for the purpose of this

research. Other articles that did not meet the criteria for this selection were discarded and not

considered. The list of articles and standards reviewed for this work is presented in Appendix A.
49

The researcher reviewed each article for context and subjectively assigned whole articles, or

sections thereof, as valid text mining samples. Key words that were exclusively associated with

quality and safety were identified, based upon keywords and key phrases parsed from ISO

9000:2008 and OHSAS 18001:2007, as well as quality management versus safety management

contrast tables found in the literature (Appendix B). The work of Pan and Hui (2002) contained

tables of dimensions tools, techniques and principles which compare and contrast quality

management with safety management. From these tables, common terms which distinctly

describe quality systems and safety systems respectively become apparent (Appendix C). The

under listed process was used to mine keywords from the documents reviewed.

 The documents were first converted to a text format with a .txt extension from their

original format.

 Segments of the documents that are not part of the main body of the articles like

reference tables, table of contents etc. were deleted.

 The articles/documents were then dumped individually into the term extraction module of

a text mining freeware provided by fivefilters.org.

 The freeware was setup to mine text and phrases greater than 3 characters long.

 A list of the text and phrases mined by the software was then manually reviewed for

context to remove duplicates, prepositions, conjunctions, and other general English words

that are not related to the study but necessary to compile a sentence.

 Starting with the keywords from the international standards (ISO 9001:2008 for Quality;

OHSAS 18001:2007 for Safety), a comparison with contrast tables from literature (Pan &

Hui, 2002) was done to obtain optimal Quality and Safety keywords respectively.
50

 Text mining was also done for the selected segments of the articles downloaded from

literature.

 All text mined from the articles were then tabulated in Microsoft Excel, the keywords

from the standards were also tabulated in Microsoft Excel.

 A VLOOKUP and ERROR count logic nested in an IF statement was created to match

each tabulated text from the articles to the standard keywords generated for QMS and

SMS respectively. The logic statements are given below:

o =IFERROR(VLOOKUP($B16,'ISO 9001'!$A:$B,2,FALSE),0)

o =IFERROR(VLOOKUP($B16,'OHSAS 18001'!$A:$B,2,FALSE),0)

o =IFERROR(VLOOKUP($B16,AS9100C!$A:$B,2,FALSE),0)

o =IFERROR(VLOOKUP($B16,'PAS 99'!$A:$B,2,FALSE),0)

o =IFERROR(VLOOKUP($B16,'All Models Extract'!$A:$B,2,FALSE),0)

 Using the above logic statements, the keywords and phrases were crossed referenced with

the selected articles from the peer reviewed EBSCO database literatures that pertain to

development of management system models. Standard references like BSI PAS 99, ISO

9001:2008, OHSAS, 18001, and SAE AS9100C were used as control groups for

subsequent cluster analysis of other literature articles.

 The counts of the respective terms were aggregated into a single count for the QMS and

SMS terms. Appendix D presents respective word counts per reviewed articles.

 Care was taken to ensure that key words associated with unintended definitions were not

included in the counts.

 A frequency was calculated by dividing the single count associated with QMS and SMS

respectively by the total number of words found in the article/segment.
51

 These indices were further standardized using Minitab by dividing by the standard

deviation of the count of the key terms in the control documents.

 These indices were subject to descriptive statistical analysis and further inferential

statistical analysis by means of a cluster analysis supported by Tukey’s post-hoc

processing.

 Following the statistical analysis, an optimal model for quality and safety management

system was created and recommended.

The second phase of the study involved the validation and finalization of the process

model using experts in the field of integrated management system. A list of accredited bodies for

management systems certification was obtained by permission form the ANSI-ANAB

accreditation board website. ANSI-ANAB maintains a global repository of accrediting bodies for

management system certification. This list is available to any interested party and is accessible

via http://anabdirectory.remoteauditor.com/. A search criterion to return organizations with a

presence in the USA and accredited for integrated management system certification was used. A

total hit of about 56 accredited bodies was returned. The next process was to send an e-mail to

representatives of these organizations using the contact information from the ANSI-ANAB

directory soliciting their assistance for the work process. The Indiana State University

Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocol for contacting participants for an academic research

project and the corresponding consent form was completed and adhered to. A copy of the

correspondence between the researcher and expert participants as well as one of the

signed/approved IRB consent documents are shown in Appendix E and Appendix F respectively.

From the list of the experts contacted only about 5 were willing to participate in the project and

follow through with the process. These experts assisted in the review, finalization and validation
52

of the process model created. A documented response of feedback and comments from one of the

experts is also shown in Appendix G. Following the creation of the model from the cluster and

statistical analysis, the experts were provided with the draft model and asked to validate the

model by first reviewing and determining its feasibility within a small to medium-size

organization and return back with comments or modifications to improve feasibility. To ensure

consistency in their review, in addition to the model, the experts were provided with a short

questionnaire in line with the following:

1. Is this model feasible?

2. What are the benefits?

3. What are the major barriers in implementing the model?

4. What would you change to ensure feasibility?

After a series of modifications to the model based on their contributions, they were again

asked to conduct one of their audit/accreditation engagements by following the model and

returning back with success factors using the following metrics:

1. Was the implementation feasible?

2. What were the benefits?

3. What were the barriers?

4. What did you change to accomplish the audit /certification goal?

Estimation/Analysis of Data

In addition to basic descriptive statistics - sum, mean, standard deviation, frequency, and

percentage, the data collected from the text mining were analyzed utilizing the statistical

techniques of one-way ANOVA combined with Tukey’s Pairwise comparison. Each article

resulted in a pair of indices, one each for QMS and for SMS. A regression analysis was
53

conducted on the pairs of indices to determine if an inverse relationship exists. This is what was

expected if the literature samples were primarily stratified into QMS and SMS dominant variants

respectively. The regression analysis was performed using Minitab 17 and was assessed via

visual consideration of the scatter plot and statistical consideration of the p-value.

Furthermore, a cluster analysis (Sharma, 1996) was performed on the pairs of indices for

the analyzed models to see if the samples fall into three distinct clusters, quality and safety

management systems dominant models as well as an integrated model. The squared Euclidean

distance between samples was used to assess the similarity or differences, thereby forming

clusters of Integrated Quality and Safety management articles/segments based upon key terms

counted in the literature. A dendrogram was used to visually depict the clusters created via the

hierarchical method. The knee in the similarity level of the clusters analysis, along with the

dendogram, was utilized for determining the final partition of clusters. The selection of the final

number of clusters was dependent upon subjective interpretability of the solution (Sharma,

1996).

Using Minitab 17, following the stratification of the data into QMS and SMS dominant

clusters, a one-way ANOVA was performed on both indices corresponding to each cluster. The

statistical significance of the distinctiveness of the mean index value assigned to each cluster was

determined by consideration of the p-value. A p-value below the alpha value of 0.05 is an

indication that the mean index values are not equal and that at least one cluster is distinctly

different from the others. The identification of the distinct cluster was determined by visual

observation of the sample means and corresponding intervals, the Tukey’s pairwise comparison,

as well as a visual assessment of the individual value plots also provided by Minitab 17. The key

words used in the text mining were used to identify potential clusters. At least one of these
54

clusters was determined to be distinctly different from the others, as characterized by the key

words, providing validation that the integrated model represented by the cluster is represented in

the literature. Based upon this analysis, the particular models of interest upon which a new

optimal model was built from, were those that reflect a quality as well as safety inclination.

Further, the optimal model was formulated as a model that is supported by, and advances, the

tenets of both QMS and SMS.

Summary

This chapter restated the purpose of the study and the research questions. It then

described the research design and mode of data collection. The data processing and statistical

analysis techniques used in the study were explained and discussed.
55

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The previous chapter outlines the methods used to collect and analyze data in the course

of this study. In this chapter, the results of the data collection and analysis are described. The

statistical significance of hypothesized relationships was examined. The hierarchical method of

cluster analysis was iteratively deployed so as to identify hypothesized integrated quality and

safety management models as well as the bent of the nonintegrated models. The identified

clusters were statistically tested for heterogeneity between the integrated models. The intent was

to answer the research questions pertaining to the hypothesized integrated models.

Data Collection and Index Development

Twenty six articles from various peer reviewed literature were determined to have

sufficient description of quality management and safety management systems so as to warrant

being included in the research. Each article was assumed to represent quality and safety

management systems as a distinct model consisting of particular characteristics and therefore this

research uses the term “model” interchangeably with “article” when referring to the assessment

of any given article. Textual data mining methodology was used to collect the data from each

article. It is hypothesized that these data will not follow a normal distribution since they are

independently mined from different articles that are independent of one another. A test for

normality and heterogeneity was necessary since they are assumptions necessary for ANOVA
56

(Norusis, 2008). Key words associated with the hypothesized integrated models were counted,

and an index value for said models was calculated for each article. These indices reflect the

proportion of QMS key words and SMS key words respectively, as compared to the total count

of words in the article that pertains to integrated QMS and SMS. Those sections of the articles

which are completely void of subject were omitted from the data mining. Four standards

documents (ISO 9001:2008; OHSAS 18001; SAE AS9100C, and BSI PAS 99), were used as a

control platform for the study and also used to normalize the key terms gleaned from the twenty

six selected articles. The QMS associated key terms used in the initial analysis were “quality

systems”, “customer focus”, “traceability”, conformity”, “defect”, etc., The SMS associated key

words were “risk”, “safety”, “hazard”, “occurrence”, “human factor”, etc. A glossary of all the

key terms is given in the Appendix B.

Descriptive Statistics

The analysis started with a descriptive statistics conducted for the two indices as

displayed in Figures 1 and 2 with the standardized values of QMS indices (QMS_STD) and SMS

indices (SMS_STD) on the x-axis, plotted against their occurrences (frequencies) on the y-axis.

The distribution of the QMS index follow a normal distribution; since the p value on the

Anderson Darling test for normality is greater than the alpha value of 0.05, we can conclude that

we do not have enough evidence to suggest that the data does not follows a normal distribution.

The distribution for the SMS indices is also normal following a p value of 0.155 which is also

greater than the alpha value. It is not important that the mean QMS index is slightly greater than

that of the SMS index because it is simply a reflection of the respective key words selected for

the data mining study. Nonetheless, descriptive statistics is not an important part of cluster
57

analysis since cluster analysis does not make any distributional assumptions (Sharma, 1996).

Summary Report for QMS_STD
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared 0.64
P-Value 0.083
Mean 1.1077
StDev 0.4497
Variance 0.2022
Skewness -0.274549
Kurtosis -0.501986
Frequency

N 26
Minimum 0.2790
1st Quartile 0.7178
Median 1.2060
3rd Quartile 1.4130
Maximum 1.9552
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 0.9261 1.2893
QMS_STD 95% Confidence Interval for Median
0.9367 1.3562
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
0.3527 0.6208

95% Confidence Intervals

Mean

Median

0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

Figure 1. Descriptive Statistics for Quality Management Systems Indices

Summary Report for SMS_STD
Anderson-Darling Normality Test
A-Squared 0.54
P-Value 0.155
Mean 1.3313
StDev 1.0292
Variance 1.0593
Skewness 0.427994
Frequency

Kurtosis -0.395443
N 26
Minimum 0.0000
1st Quartile 0.4243
Median 1.4900
3rd Quartile 2.0261
Maximum 3.8297
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
0 1 2 3 4 0.9156 1.7470
SMS_STD 95% Confidence Interval for Median
0.4823 1.8830
95% Confidence Interval for StDev
0.8072 1.4207

95% Confidence Intervals

Mean

Median

0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Figure 2. Descriptive Statistics for Safety Management Systems Indices
58

Hypothesis Statement One: Inverse Relationship of Indices

According to step two of the methodology analysis, a regression analysis was conducted

for the QMS index against the SMS index to check for an inverse relationship. Figure 3 shows a

scatter plot drawn for a 95% confidence interval (CI) within a 95% prediction interval (PI). The

prediction interval, which is sometimes called the Prediction Band, provides a measurement of

the certainty of the scatter about a certain regression line. In this case a 95% prediction

interval/band indicates that, in general, at least 95% of the points being analyzed will be

contained within the bands. The use of the PI also helps providing an estimate of an interval in

which future observations for similar data will fall, with a certain probability, given what has

already been observed (Faraway, 2002).

Fitted Line Plot
QMS_STD = 1.105 + 0.00217 SMS_STD
2.5 Regression
95% CI
95% PI
2.0
S 0.458954
R-Sq 0.0%
R-Sq(adj) 0.0%
1.5
QMS_STD

1.0

0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4
SMS_STD

Figure 3. Scatterplot with Fitted Line of QMS versus SMS Indices
59

Table 2

Regression Analysis of QMS vs SMS Indices

Regression Analysis: QMS_STD versus SMS_STD

Analysis of Variance

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Regression 1 1.5389 1.53886 1.57 0.221
SMS_STD 1 1.5389 1.53886 1.57 0.221
Error 28 27.4611 0.98075
Lack-of-Fit 27 27.3693 1.01368 11.04 0.234
Pure Error 1 0.0919 0.09186
Total 29 29.0000

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
0.990331 5.31% 1.92% 0.00%

Coefficients

Term Coef SE Coef T-Value P-Value VIF
Constant 1.722 0.294 5.86 0.000
SMS_STD -0.230 0.184 -1.25 0.221 1.00

Regression Equation

QMS_STD = 1.722 - 0.230 SMS_STD

Fits and Diagnostics for Unusual Observations

Obs QMS_STD Fit Resid Std Resid
9 0.661 0.840 -0.180 -0.21 X
28 4.526 1.690 2.836 2.98 R
29 4.121 1.646 2.475 2.58 R

R Large residual
X Unusual X

The plot in Figure 3 and analysis in Table 2 indicates that there is no correlation between

the QMS index and the SMS index. The regression analysis supporting the scatter plot shown in

Table 2 shows a p-value of 0.22, which is greater than the alpha value of 0.05, and an R2 value of

5.31% (closer to 0 and farther from +1 and -1) which concludes that the null hypothesis of
60

independence between variables should be accepted. The relationship between the QMS index

and the SMS index is not significant since P is greater than alpha value of 0.05.

Hypothesis Statement Two: Cluster Analysis of Integrated Quality and Safety Management

Systems Models

Step three of the analysis was based on a subsequent cluster analysis which was

necessary to draw further insight into the understanding of the relationship between the indices.

Table 3 shows the result of this methodology. Cluster analyses helps in identifying a group - in

this case a group of articles as measured by their QMS and SMS indices respectively - that are

homogenous in nature as wells as distinctly different from other similar groups (Sharma, 1996).

Afterwards, the hierarchical method of cluster analysis was performed iteratively. From the

dendogram shown in Figure 4, the incremental drop in similarity level is visually apparent.

Following each additional step in the amalgamation table the similarity level drops by values not

exceeding single digits until the 27th step. At this point the total number of clusters reduces from

four clusters to three clusters, dropping the similarity level from 66 to 49. The three cluster

solution is the solution after which the similarity level begins to level off, creating a knee effect.

The three cluster solution exhibits homogeneity within the clusters and heterogeneity between

clusters.

The hierarchical method of cluster analysis is an exploratory method where the contexts

of the derived cluster solutions help to inform the optimal cluster solution, thus the cluster

analysis solution should be evaluated for its interpretability (Sharma, 1996). Investigations into

the content of the articles may reveal some characteristics that might suggest that additional

clusters are warranted. This would indicate that the totalities of integrated models are not

concentrated only in the QMS or SMS dominant models, as hypothesized. The articles in the
61

three cluster solution were targeted for context evaluation as pertains to their level of QMS and

SMS indices.

Table 3

Cluster Analysis Amalgamation Table for QMS vs SMS indices

Cluster Analysis of Observations: QMS_STD, SMS_STD
Standardized Variables, Euclidean Distance, Complete Linkage
Amalgamation Steps
Number
of obs.
Number of Similarity Distance Clusters New in new
Step clusters level level joined cluster cluster
1 29 98.2679 0.09254 12 16 12 2
2 28 97.9660 0.10867 14 18 14 2
3 27 97.5028 0.13341 12 15 12 3
4 26 96.9082 0.16518 2 3 2 2
5 25 96.7561 0.17331 11 26 11 2
6 24 96.6332 0.17987 10 23 10 2
7 23 96.4313 0.19066 4 20 4 2
8 22 96.2989 0.19773 1 2 1 3
9 21 96.0383 0.21165 19 25 19 2
10 20 94.8412 0.27561 7 27 7 2
11 19 93.0670 0.37040 4 21 4 3
12 18 92.7537 0.38713 5 13 5 2
13 17 92.2108 0.41614 10 14 10 4
14 16 91.9771 0.42863 22 24 22 2
15 15 91.6997 0.44345 6 8 6 2
16 14 91.6383 0.44673 28 29 28 2
17 13 90.7161 0.49599 10 11 10 6
18 12 90.3419 0.51599 12 19 12 5
19 11 85.7420 0.76174 1 6 1 5
20 10 82.8433 0.91660 10 17 10 7
21 9 82.4883 0.93556 7 12 7 7
22 8 81.6695 0.97931 5 22 5 4
23 7 73.6958 1.40531 28 30 28 3
24 6 71.4238 1.52669 1 7 1 12
25 5 68.0344 1.70777 5 10 5 11
26 4 66.2612 1.80250 1 4 1 15
27 3 49.1262 2.71794 1 9 1 16
28 2 28.0133 3.84591 1 5 1 27
29 1 0.0000 5.34252 1 28 1 30
Final Partition Number of clusters: 3
Average Maximum
Within distance distance
Number of cluster sum from from
observations of squares centroid centroid
Cluster1 16 9.82421 0.687495 1.85427
Cluster2 11 3.11989 0.479549 0.88492
Cluster3 3 1.04262 0.532947 0.79282
62

Dendrogram
Complete Linkage, Euclidean Distance

5.34
Distance

3.56

1.78

0.00
3 4 4 6 7 7 7 2 7 7 9 3 5 9 9 9 6 3 0 3 0 0 5 8 2 4 7 8 9 2
99 9 9 9 9 99 9 9 9 9 00 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 01 9 9 0 0 00 9 9 9 9 00 0 1 0 1 00 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 00 00 0 1
-1 -1 e-1 -1 a-1 -1 -2 i-2 -2 l. -2 l.-2 -2 s-1 l-2 k -2 l.-1 -1 -2 l.-2 l.-2 l.-2 l.-2 l.-2 i-2 l.-2 l.-2 k -2 -2 -2 I-2
n n l in l n p u g a a p i a i a k u a a a a a t a a e 1 C S
t o r se ue t e zel so ou H lli n et et ou ur t et el et j ac mo et et et et et o n et et s 00 0 0 B
ugh ete an ins an kin Gr & Da i c ne Gr C gli C c k Dy t a do on er on ed C r o lo Si m 9 91
e n t n v i S a ra S r b re b e & ISO AS
Ro
P M i
W M S jec P u ko d d B ib ar a im m ss m er Re u z
& ro Raj re A Bel W er n S Ba ha n Ah H E
er P ad B ra nd SA
ah AS B
A
b
G
u
an S
D OH

Observations

Figure 4. Dendogram of QMS and SMS indices demonstrating 3 clusters

Hypothesis Statement Three: Statistical Confirmation of Cluster Analysis Results

The three clusters were then graphically depicted in a scatter plot as shown in Figure 5.

The two variables are still the QMS and SMS indices respectively. The three clusters are coded

as blue (blue circle symbol), red (red square symbol), and green (green diamond symbol). The

blue cluster appears to have higher percentages and distribution of SMS key words. The red and

green clusters appear to have larger percentages of QMS key words compared to SMS keywords.

This is further analyzed and confirmed statistically with a one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s

pairwise comparison as shown in Table 3. One cluster QMS index mean is statistically different

as verified by the 0.00 p-value. A closer look at the sample means and confidence intervals

values, the Tukey’s Pairwise comparison values on Table 3, as well as the additional individual

value plot shown in Figure 6 provides clarity that the green clusters have a statistically higher
63

QMS index mean than do the other two clusters. The grouping of the mean values by the

Tukey’s analysis statistically validates the differences in the clusters as given by the cluster

analysis.

Scatterplot of QMS_STD vs SMS_STD
5 Clusters
Blue
Green
Red
4

3
QMS_STD

2

1

0
0 1 2 3 4
SMS_STD

Figure 5. Scatter plot of three clusters for QMS and SMS indices

Table 4

One Way ANOVA and Tukey’s Pairwise comparison of 3 Cluster by QMS indices

One-way ANOVA: QMS_STD versus 3 clusters_Colors
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
3 clusters_Colors 2 22.491 11.2455 46.65 0.000
Error 27 6.509 0.2411
Total 29 29.000
Means
3 clusters_Colors N Mean StDev 95% CI
Blue 16 1.187 0.489 (0.936, 1.439)
Green 3 4.025 0.555 (3.443, 4.607)
Red 11 1.080 0.480 (0.777, 1.384)
Pooled StDev = 0.490994
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
3 clusters_Colors N Mean Grouping
Green 3 4.025 A
Blue 16 1.187 B
Red 11 1.080 B
64

Individual Value Plot of QMS_STD vs 3 clusters_Colors
5

4

3
QMS_STD

2

1

0
Blue Green Red
3 clusters_Colors

Figure 6. Individual value plot of 3 clusters by QMS indices

Performing similar analysis utilizing the SMS index shows that the blue cluster has far and away

the largest mean proportion of SMS key words as shown in Figure 7.

Table 5

One Way ANOVA and Tukey’s Pairwise comparison of 3 Cluster by SMS indices

One-way ANOVA: SMS_STD versus 3 clusters_Colors
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
3 clusters_Colors 2 21.522 10.7612 38.86 0.000
Error 27 7.478 0.2770
Total 29 29.000

Means
3 clusters_Colors N Mean StDev 95% CI
Blue 16 2.052 0.644 ( 1.782, 2.322)
Green 3 0.498 0.462 ( -0.126, 1.121)
Red 11 0.3188 0.2864 (-0.0068, 0.6443)
Pooled StDev = 0.526262
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

3 clusters_Colors N Mean Grouping
Blue 16 2.052 A
Green 3 0.498 B
Red 11 0.3188 B
65

Individual Value Plot of SMS_STD vs 3 clusters_Colors
4

3
SMS_STD

2

1

0

Blue Green Red
3 clusters_Colors

Figure 7. Individual value plot of 3 clusters by SMS indices

Table 5 presents the result of the one-way ANOVA and the Tukey’s Pairwise comparison

using the SMS indices. The results statistically validate the cluster analysis showing that at least

one of the clusters is different from the others. Combining this with the regression analysis

results, it thus can be inferred that there is not an inverse relationship between the proportion of

QMS key words and the proportion of SMS key words, converse to what might be expected if

the data mined integrated model articles pertain to either QMS dominant or SMS dominant

models only. From Figure 5, the red cluster contains articles consisting of comparably small

indices of both QMS and SMS. The presence of this red cluster likely obscures a statistically

validated inverse relationship.
66

Cluster Analysis Interpretation

The next step of the analysis was done with the above research findings in view. The

identified clusters were assessed for distinct inherent characteristics, for the purpose of

identifying specific integrated models of QMS and SMS (IQSMS). Investigation into the content

of the articles identified three categories into which to sort the models. These categories are

defined as follows:

1. IqSMS – These are articles for which the IQSMS models are SMS dominant (upper case

SMS) and quality subordinate (lower case q)

2. Integrated (IQSMS) – These articles integrated the QMS and SMS approaches together

into a single tool box, for which the problem being addressed determined the relative

QMS/SMS emphasis and which corresponding tools were utilized

3. IQ-sms – These are articles for which the IQSMS models are quality dominant (upper

case Q) and safety management subordinate (lower case sms)

4. Control - A control group comprising solely of indices from ISO 9001, OHSAS 18001,

BSI PAS 99, and SAE AS 9100C was also designated to identify their bent on SMS or

QMS.

As shown in Figure 8, all the control groups aligned along their respective bent, all QMS

related control, ISO 9001, and SAE AS 9001 fit completely into the upper left of the 45 degree

diagonal. OHSAS 18001 fit below the reference line as expected. The cluster plot shows that

PAS 99, a supposedly integrated model was more skewed towards QMS cluster direction. This

was further investigated. All but two of the IQ-sms models fit effectively into the lower left (Red

Boxed Zone) and above the 45 degree diagonal reference line indicating that these models were

derived based upon a high proportion of QMS key words and a low proportion of SMS key
67

words. The other two, which were later treated as outliers, fall within the Blue Boxed Zone. The

IqSMS and IQSMS models fall into both of the remaining two clusters which consist of a low

proportion of QMS key words.

Scatterplot of QMS_STD vs SMS_STD
5 Categories
Control_ISO
Green Control_OHSAS
Control_PAS
4 Control_SAE
45 Degree Reference Integrated (IQSMS)
Line IQ-sms
IqSMS
3
QMS_STD

2
Red Blue

1

0
0 1 2 3 4
SMS_STD

Figure 8. Scatterplot showing the 3 clusters by integrated QMS and SMS characterization

The integrated models also fall into the two lower clusters. Theoretically, these integrated

articles would tend to fall along the forty five degree diagonal. Thence, going forward, the

articles mostly aligned to the reference diagonal were used for the final model.

Subsequent Cluster Analysis - Further Investigation of Outliers

The models that were furthest displaced from their respective clusters, the outliers, was

subsequently analyzed using a form of non-hierarchical cluster analysis. New key words

dominant in those articles were identified and used for a subsequent cluster analysis by adding

them to the initial total keywords used for the early analysis. This practice is consistent with the

exploratory approach of iteratively optimizing the clusters until the most interpretive solution is

discovered (Taylor, 2012).
68

A further review of SMS dominant articles lead to the addition of five new key words for

the new iteration. Those words were, “approach”; “integration”; “measures”; “permission”, and

“audit element”. These words were chosen as they appear to be distinctly related to an integrated

management system and appear in the SMS control document. The same approach was used to

select QMS related words for addition to the analysis and the following key words were chosen

from the four outliers. The words were, “control”; “process”; “method”; “order”, and “report”.

The new analysis was performed with the linkages set to single and squared Euclidean

distance. This gives us the ability to identify nonhomogeneous clusters (Sharma, 1996) as

expected for the IQ-sms category. A six cluster dendogram as shown in Figure 9 became the

most optimal.

Dendrogram
Single Linkage, Squared Euclidean Distance

3.79
Distance

2.53

1.26

0.00
9 3 03 9 4 95 94 9 7 97 07 9 6 09 96 0 2 14 00 0 7 09 10 13 05 08 07 1 0 99 02 09 07 13 12 0 8 09
- 19 -20 -19 s-19 -19 -19 -19 .-20 -19 l-2 0 -19 .-20 .-2 0 .-20 -20 -2 0 .-20 .-20 .-2 0 i-20 -20 .-2 0 .-19 i-20 .-2 0 -20 -20 I -2 0 -20 -20
n u n i le la n al k a in al al al g ik al al al t ek al al u al p p S 1 C
t o o rse r t ue el so et ac et te et et et lin el et et et on s et et H et o u ou B 90 0 100
ugh St am et e Cu an anz kin vic Dyj gli i ns r o lo er Dal C do on e d C Sim on ck & ne Gr Gr O 9
Ro P M M Sin ko a e re e b r & ss r a un di c t S IS A S
& a j e lib W er Reb am r na Si m Ah
m
u z an ar P r ed o je AB E
r R B H B Be d ah W d Pr SA
ahe un Abr Ba AS
n G
Da HS
O
Observations

Figure 9. Dendogram for subsequent cluster analysis focusing on the outliers.
69

From the dendrogram it could be seen that all of the control models were to the far right

almost as single article clusters. As expected the two QMS related models, ISO 9001 and SAE

AS 9100C, together formed one cluster. The BSI PAS 99 model stood alone as a single cluster

along with the ABS Group 2013 model for IMS. Another single cluster was the OHSAS 18001

model for SMS. All other models to the left of OHSAS Project make up one cluster, with about

23 observations. To the far left, two other models by Roughton and Stamou made the last cluster

together making a total of 6 optimal clusters. Looking at the distribution of the articles across

clusters it can be seen that they are fairly aligned along similarities with a majority being IqSMS

models.

Statistical Confirmation of Subsequent Cluster Analysis

To further understand the similarities in the cluster distribution, a new scatter plot shown

in Figure 10 was created based upon the addition of the new key words. The IQ-sms articles,

being QMS dominant, was expected to have a larger ratio of QMS index to SMS index, as

compared to other models. A suitable way to display this condition with a single measure is

based upon the polar coordinate system (Sharma, 1996; Taylor, 2012). Tracing the horizontal

line at QMS index equals zero and measuring counterclockwise, the angle for each data point

was identified and recorded. It became immediately apparent, that two of the five largest polar

angles are attributable to QMS data points as is expected.

By means of a one-way ANOVA shown in Table 6 combined with a Tukey Pairwise

comparison, the statistical significance of the observed differences in mean polar angles, by

category, was analyzed. The p-value of 0.000, which is less than alpha of 0.05, indicates that the

polar angle means (radians) of the four categories are not equal and it is clear from the grouping

of the Tukey Pairwise comparison, with 95% confidence intervals, that the mean of the IQ-sms
70

group, 1.3919 radians, is the mean that differs from all others. The remaining groups have some

levels of overlap in their confidence intervals.

Scatterplot of QMS_STD vs SMS_STD
0
Categories
Integrated (IQSMS)
4
IQ-sms
IqSMS

3 Unique
-
ad
s
QMS_STD

IQ-s m

Outlier
1.39 r

S
2 SM ad
IQ 7 6 r
0.
S
Iq SM d
1 ra
0.27

0 0

0 1 2 3 4
SMS_STD

Figure 10. Scatterplot with fitted lines for subsequent cluster analysis.

Table 6

One Way ANOVA/Tukey’s comparison for mean polar angles by Categories

One-way ANOVA: Angle_Rad versus Categories
Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Categories 2 2.9590 1.47949 48.87 0.000
Error 27 0.8174 0.03027
Total 29 3.7763
Means
Categories N Mean StDev 95% CI
Integrated (IQSMS) 5 0.756 0.321 ( 0.596, 0.915)
IQ-sms 2 1.3919 0.1172 (1.1395, 1.6443)
IqSMS 23 0.2714 0.1334 (0.1970, 0.3459)

Pooled StDev = 0.173989
Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence
Categories N Mean Grouping
IQ-sms 2 1.3919 A
Integrated (IQSMS) 5 0.756 B
IqSMS 23 0.2714 C
71

This indicates that the IQ-sms articles, which present IQSMS models that are QMS dominant,

have a higher ratio of QMS key words as compared to SMS key words, than do the two

remaining group of models, which are either SMS dominant or of an equal integration.

Interpretation

The final step in the methodology of this research was conducted by assessing the models

contained within the identified clusters, in order to determine what makes the clusters unique.

The reason for the two IQ-sms clusters is clearly attributable to their QMS nature and inclination,

however the uniqueness of one of the IqSMS cluster was not understood and was therefore

investigated further resulting in the following findings:

1. The unique outlier to the far right of the IqSMS cluster in Figure 10 consists of an article

that describes a very distinct model that integrates QMS and SMS within the contest of

“Marine health, safety, quality, and Environmental and energy management”.

2. The bent of the integration was more within the context of its presentation and the work

environment for its implementation.

3. It also focused its integration on environmental and energy management systems.

4. It could have fallen into the IQSMS model if most of the keywords were not more related

to the environment and marine service.

5. It is possible that removing the 15% of the occurrences of the key word “environment”

that are associated with “environmental management system”, “marine environment”,

and other related key words would move this article back into the Integrated IQSMS

cluster.

6. The cluster at the top far left of Figure 10 consists of a QMS dominant management

system models, which were in fact added as control models, so it was not surprising to
72

see them aligned to the top of QMS polar coordinates. IQ-sms contains very little

integration of SMS.

Summary

This chapter described the results of the data collection and analysis. The statistical

significance of hypothesized relationships was also examined. The cluster analysis was

iteratively deployed so as to identify hypothesized integrated quality and safety management

systems (IQSMS) models. The identified clusters were statistically tested for heterogeneity

between IQSMS models. The intent was to answer the research questions pertaining to the

hypothesized IQSMS models. This was based on the assumption that the key words selected are

good representations for QMS and SMS dominant models respectively.
73

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The main objective of this chapter was to determine the answers to the research questions

as informed by textual data mining of the integrated twenty-six quality and safety management

articles and models contained therein. Cluster analysis was used to determine if hypothesized

models existed. The cluster analysis was statistically validated with one-way ANOVA combined

with Tukey’s Pairwise comparisons. The final research question was addressed by the

recommendation of an optimal IQSMS model as informed by the textual data mining analysis as

well as an extrapolation of articles cited and analyzed. The model was field tested using experts

in the industry and recommendations from the experts incorporated for a final optimal model

presented hereinafter.

Research Question One

The research has established that there are varying interpretations of IQSMS and as such

there is no one IQSMS model that can be compared to either QMS or SMS. All of the articles

assessed contained IQSMS models which consisted of both QSM and SMS to some degree.

From the cluster analysis, the QMS models were also aligned differently from the SMS models;

that is not to say that all organizations that embrace QMS do not use certain methodologies

typified in SMS in accordance with the OHSAS 18001 project and documents processes for

SMS. In conducting a QMS practice, most organizations already inculcate some elements of
74

SMS methodologies (Hansen, 1993). Interestingly, about 85% of the models analyzed were more

IqSMS, indicating a strong bent towards safety management systems at the expense of quality

when integration is attempted. This was in line with earlier findings by Pun & Hui (2002). These

models are not very different from the control OHSAS project model document.

Research Question Two

The textual data mining criteria used the following key words associated with QMS:

“Preventive action”, “Corrective Action”, “Rework”, “Regrade”, “Repair”, and “Scrap” amongst

others. Given that the QMS dominant Integrated (IQ-sms) model was identified and validated via

cluster analysis and one-way ANOVA, it can be postulated that these key words represent

distinct characteristics of an IQ-sms model (A quality dominant integrated model). The two

articles associated with this model ascertain QMS as the dominant philosophy, and that SMS was

one tool among others that can be utilized in support of the integrated management systems

objectives (Federal Aviation Authority, 2014). Some IQ-sms case studies demonstrate the use of

SMS methodologies in order to achieve QMS objectives such as setting up safety measures

within the shop floor to improve work place efficiency as a means of preventive actions (Howell,

Ballard, Abdelhamid, & Mitropoulos, 2002), and the removal of bottlenecks that have stagnated

quality management progress that conversely affects workers safety (Calvano, 2001).

Research Question Three

The textual data mining criteria used the following key words associated with SMS:

“Risk”, “Safety”, “Incident”, “Injury”, “Assurance”, “Hazards”, Performance”, and “Human

Factor”, amongst others. The data mining research resulted in an almost homogenous SMS

dominant (IqSMS) integrated management system model. The OHSAS project document as well

as all IqSMS models together occupied a distinct single group of clusters. This is a testament that
75

these key words are inherent characteristics of a safety dominant integrated management system

model.

Research Question Four: Most Optimal Model for IQSMS

Focusing on the integrated (IQSMS) models supported by other differing IqSMS and IQ-

sms models, an evaluation to meet the root intent of the methodologies, integrated quality, and

safety management systems model was performed.

A detailed review of the attributes of the five IQSMS models from the cluster analysis

research was conducted. In “Integrated management systems: An agile manufacturing enabler”,

Bamber et.al (2000), proposed a framework for integration in manufacturing systems using

systems thinking similar to the work of Conti (2008), “Systems Thinking: The New Frontier in

Quality Management”, both models were based on the strengths of TQM enabled by systems

thinking using a holistic approach that incorporates societal reflections in creating a management

system. In “A Framework for Implementation of Integrated Quality System (IQS) in

Manufacturing – Based on Survey Findings”, Ahmed etal (2005), using survey methodology,

focused on creating an integrated model for quality and environmental systems and posited that

the same philosophy is applicable to safety and other management system. Abrahamsson etal

(2010), in “Integrated Management Systems - testing a model for integration”, uses effects,

barriers, and drivers for integration to create and test a model from a survey methodology. The

PAS99 model follows an extension of ISO 9001 management philosophy with the EOQOM

(Environment, Occupational Health, Quality, and Other Management) model. 3 of these

integrated IQSMS models as well as the PAS 99 model incorporated elements of the Plan-Do-

Check-Act process. However, none of the models considers crucial elements of quality

management and safety management like QFD and HAZOP. Thus, a *IQSMS model which
76

optimally satisfies these intents was derived by combining attributes of all the IQSMS models as

well as those of PAS 99. This was the optimal model recommended for field testing and

validation. The major finding of the textual data mining analysis and resulting scatterplot is that

the quality dominant IQ-sms model is a distinct, albeit minority, version of IQSMS. The vast

majority of the other versions of the models studied, except for the one outlier, are

indistinguishable safety dominant IqSMS models. A process-based model combined with a

textually articulated table format was derived from this research and recommended. Key words

were further mind to verify the bent of the new model, hereinafter referred to as *IQSMS.

A dendogram shown in Figure 11, to observe the cluster position and distribution of the

new model was drawn. The new model was optimized alongside 5 other clusters, falling within

the catch-all cluster position. The recommended model was superimposed unto the scatter plot of

the other models based on a single linkage, squared Euclidean cluster analysis as shown in

Figure 12. As expected, it was observed that the new *IQSMS model falls within the cluster of

the integrated model (IQSMS), however more towards the IQ-sms region than to the IqSMS

region.
77

Dendrogram
Single Linkage, Squared Euclidean Distance

3.75
Distance

2.50

1.25

0.00
93 03 9 4 9 5 94 97 97 07 96 0 9 96 02 14 00 07 09 1 0 13 05 08 07 10 15 9 9 02 09 07 13 12 0 8 00 9
- 19 -20 -19 s-19 -19 -1 9 -1 9 .-20 -19 l-20 -19 .-20 .-2 0 . -2 0 -20 -20 .-20 .-20 .-20 i -2 0 -2 0 . -20 -20 .-19 i-20 .-20 -2 0 -2 0 I-20 -20 -2
o n o u en t i ele lla on t al ck ta ein t a l ta l t al n g lik t a l t a l t a l n t sek t al MS t a l u t a l up up BS 00 1 0 0C
ght am t ers Cu r nu n ze ins c e yja li e n st o e o e r e a lli C e o e n e d e Co im n e QS k e & H e e Gr o Gr o 9 1
u St P e a k i i
M M a Sin kov D ibag We rr er be mb D
l e rd o e S o *I ac n in t S O 9
Ro j l e a n a SimAh m & nss r r P u d d je c A B IS A S
& a e H e R B r uz a a e o E
r R B Be nd r a
h W dr Pr SA
he Ba AS
ana Gu Ab S
D H
O
Observations

Figure 11. Dendogram to show the position of the new created integrated model *IQSMS.

Scatterplot of QMS_STD vs SMS_STD
0
4 Categories
Integrated (IQSMS)
IQ-sms
IqSMS
3
QMS_STD

2

1 *IQSMS

0 0

0 1 2 3 4
SMS_STD

Figure 12. Scatterplot showing position of *IQSMS amongst clusters of other models
78

As expected, a one-way ANOVA analysis shown in Table 7 combined with Tukey’s

Pairwise comparison, puts the *IQSMS model as a blend between IQ-sms and IQSMS. It was

expected that the model would fall along these lines with a polar angle close to 1.230 radians

within a 95% confidence interval, reflecting a balanced proportion of SMS and QMS indices that

shows the new model as optimally integrated.

Table 7

One Way ANOVA/Tukey’s comparison for new *IQSMS model

One-way ANOVA: Angle_Rad versus Categories

Factor Levels Values
Categories 4 *IQSMS, Integrated (IQSMS), IQ-sms, IqSMS

Source DF Adj SS Adj MS F-Value P-Value
Categories 3 3.367 1.12226 29.29 0.000
Error 27 1.035 0.03832
Total 30 4.401

Model Summary

S R-sq R-sq(adj) R-sq(pred)
0.195743 76.50% 73.88% *

Means

Categories N Mean StDev 95% CI
*IQSMS 1 1.230 * ( 0.829, 1.632)
Integrated (IQSMS) 6 0.670 0.355 ( 0.507, 0.834)
IQ-sms 2 1.3919 0.1172 (1.1079, 1.6759)
IqSMS 22 0.2727 0.1364 (0.1870, 0.3583)

Pooled StDev = 0.195743

Tukey Pairwise Comparisons
Grouping Information Using the Tukey Method and 95% Confidence

Categories N Mean Grouping
IQ-sms 2 1.3919 A
*IQSMS 1 1.230 A B
Integrated (IQSMS) 6 0.670 B
IqSMS 22 0.2727 C

Means that do not share a letter are significantly different.
79

The new recommended model differs from other models identified thus far in that it

introduces House of Quality (Quality Function Deployment, QFD) as a means of obtaining

customer expectations from the outset of considering integration or setting up a QMS program. It

also introduces the need for Hazards and Operability (HAZOP) studies for SMS implementation

from the outset of considering integration. It is structured as a plan-do-check-act (PDCA) within

a PDCA system (American Society for Quality, 2005), to allow for a robust integration of

measures and methodologies pertaining to QMS and SMS. These three methods have been

synthesized into a derived and recommended model, as supported by the literature and all the

models reviewed. This model, which is informed by the textual data mining research as well as

an extrapolation of the literature, is shown in Figure 13.

This model, however well balanced, is still somewhat a QMS dominant model that holds

up quality and some elements of safety systems as the strategic element and audit guide for the

entire model and processes. The model consists of establishing a target condition based on the

combined requirements of OHSAS 18001 and ISO 9001, comparing targeted objectives to the

current condition, and then following the established QMS principles and practices, in particular

the PDCA method of continual improvement investigation by the workforce at large, in pursuit

of the target condition (Rother, 2010). This will lead to a robust organizational learning as well

as process improvement that may largely contribute to a sustaining competitive advantage

(Behling, 2014; De Mast, 2006).

In support of this new model strategy, there are two supporting methodologies that

operate in parallel. SMS can be used as a tactical project tool to address complex safety problems

with unknown solutions (Dumas, 1987; Deacon, 1994; International Helicopter Safety Team,

2007), as depicted in the integrated model proposed by Weinsten (1996), as well as Herrero et al
80

(2012). Finally, quality function deployment (QFD) and HAZOP analysis should be deployed at

regular intervals for monitoring key metrics and elimination of unwanted elements detected

therein (Yantiss, 2011). This practice also leads to process improvement and organizational

learning (Rother, 2010).

Discussion

From this work, it can be said that the textual data mining research substantiates the

presumption that quality and safety integrated management system models are not standardized.

At one end of the spectrum is the article “A New Process-Based Approach for Implementing an

Integrated Management System: Quality, Security, Environment” which projects a safety

dominant IMS, risk management thinking, incorporated safety principles and emphasizes a

safety dominant approach with quality systems playing a complementary role to safety systems.

At the other end of the spectrum is the article “Systems Thinking: The New Frontier in Quality

Management” which is an integrated model but can be inferred as more quality systems

dominant.

From the articles, there is a far-reaching agreement that quality systems and safety

systems can and should be optimally aligned to profitably alleviate the bureaucratic challenges

an organization faces when attempting to treat both systems separately (Pun & Hui, 2002; Wang,

2008). An optimal unified approach to both management systems is desired (Weinstein, 1996;

Yantiss, 2011). However, researchers also question how this objective could possibly be

achieved given that QMS and SMS as a separate philosophy is so recognized and already well

into its lifecycle within industry.
81

Begin: Motivate and 
redesign the 
organization 
Quality and Business  Safety and Business 
1 , P Objectives Aligned Objectives Aligned

Establish Policies & Objectives 
per clauses 4.2, 4.3.1 of OHSAS 
18001 in accordance with 
House of  Clause 5.4 requirement of ISO  Regulatory 
Customer  Competitive  System 
Quality  9001‐2008 HAZOP Study Requirement 
Expectations Benchmarking Requirements
(QFD) for Safety

Establish & Document MOC 
Process Per Clauses 4.3.1 of 
Technical  OHSAS 180001 Technical 
Feasibilities Feasibilities

Determine Roles, 
Responsibilities & 
Authority per clause 4.4.1 
of OHSAS 18001
2 , D
Conduct First 
Pass Internal 
Audit per 8.2.2 of 
ISO 9001

Are Clauses  5.1,
Implement the requirement of   Reassure Clause 4.1 of 
YES  5.2, 6.2 of ISO 9001  NO
Clause 4.5 of OHSAS 18001 OHSAS 18001
Satisfied?
4 , A 3 , C 4 , A

YES

Develop & Modify the plans for 
Are Clauses 7.3 & 7.5  of  manufacturing operations with 
YES
ISO 9001 Satisfied? respect to Clause 4.4.6 of 
OHSAS 18001
5 , C 6 , A

Execute audit process with  Implement Manufacturing 
respect to Clause 4.5.5 of  emergency procedure for the  NO
OHSAS 18001 & 8.2.2 of ISO  clause 4.4.7 of OHSAS 18001
9001 by means of a detailed  LEGEND
procedure
NO 8 , A 6 , A
YES N , X

Implement Clause 4.5.2, 4.2, 
4.4.4 of OHSAS 18001 & 5.4 & 
4.2.2 of ISO 9001  by means of  Are Clauses 7.5,7.6 & 8.2  Stage  PDCA 
a detailed procedure of ISO 9001 Satisfied? Gate stage
9 , D 7 , C

Conclude the process with  END: Establish a robust and 
Are Clauses 5.6, 8.4, 8.5 
YES implementing clause 4.6, 4.1, &  Integrated SMS/QMS 
10 , C of ISO 9001 Satisfied?
4.5.4 of OHSAS 18001 framework

Figure 13.Model showing process for the integration of QMS and SMS
82

Sustainable competitive advantage is generated by the competencies that are developed

as a result of practicing an improvement methodology (De Mast, 2006). On the areas of

organizational learning, the competencies are not easily replicated. The work of Hines et al,

(2004) also use the vehicle of organizational learning to describe how a quality improvement

process has evolved from a tool based tactical instrument to a strategy that seeks to maximize the

learning opportunities for employees. Each potential revision is addressed according to the

scientific method wherein subsequent analyses build on the knowledge gained previously. These

improvement loops provide short term project results and organizational learning as a long term

investment. Approaches to immediate results and organizational learning are afforded in the

proposed *IQSMS model in three ways.

The PDCA method that brings all the individual processes together as used by Toyota

(and others) is the cornerstone of the quality improvement processes strategic approach (Rother,

2010). The lower level problem solving methods typically used in continuous improvement

processes, of which QMS possesses some of the attributes such as PDCA, are often insufficient

for resolving complex matters (American Society for Quality, 2005). Therefore the combined

HAZOP methodology of addressing complex workplace hazardous problems in a tactical way

(Krause & Hidley, 1989; Maragakis, et al., 2009) is merged into this model.

Thirdly, the QFD process is continually applied to process metrics as a tactical means of

identifying and collecting customers’ expectation as well as developing a scorecard to improve

the company’s objective. A key to improving the integrated management system with a quality

dominant process is linking the design of products to the processes that produce them. Quality

Function Deployment (QFD) is a means of translating customer requirements into appropriate

technical requirements for each stage of product or service development and production
83

(Condrea, Stanciu, & Aivaz, 2012). The ability to survive in competition is conditioned by the

recognition of the transformation that is brought about by an effective management system.

As a part of the QMS development method, QFD is oriented to the customer and involves

the management in the orientation towards the consumer’s process (Condrea, Stanciu, & Aivaz,

2012). Thus integrating this into the *IQSMS model is crucial for all firms, but especially for

those with a process environment and customer requirements which are rapidly changing. For

SME’s an efficient and certified integrated system in conformity with the international standards

represents a real chance to survive in a competitive environment, being that the business could be

enabled to design the quality of products as well as simultaneously achieving the quality of all

processes in conformity with the set objectives. The HAZOP analysis improves the SMS aspect

of the *IQSMS model; in the day to day operation of the process, a safety risk assessment is

congruent to the efficient work place objective of producing a quality product and a chief

cornerstone in the practice of SMS. An important element of a safety risk assessment is the

identification of hazards (Maragakis, et al., 2009) . Effective safety management methods

involve the identification of hazards associated with the day-to-day operations of an organization

or changes to the operations of an organization, the assessment of the risks associated with those

hazards, and the implementation and management of measures to reduce those risks to

acceptable levels; or the application of barriers and/or mitigations of the hazards (Maragakis, et

al., 2009). A connection of both systems, combined with an audit process to ensure the process is

evergreen as shown in the new *IQSMS model, produces an organization with a competitive

advantage.
84

Model Validation, Implications and Future Work

In furtherance of this research, and as a means to address research question number 5, the

new model was validated by experts in the field of quality and safety management systems. The

consortium of experts was selected from the ANSI-ANAB certified accrediting bodies in the

USA and the NSC; these experts were contacted via the internet. An attempt was made to

weight the panel of experts equally with actual experts from both QMS and SMS practitioners.

ANSI-ANAB maintains a global repository of accrediting bodies for management system

certification. This list is accessible to any interested party and is accessible via

http://anabdirectory.remoteauditor.com/. A search criterion to return organizations with a

presence in the USA and accredited for integrated management system certification was used. A

total hit of about 56 accredited bodies was returned. The next process was to send an e-mail to

representatives of these organizations using the contact information from the ANSI-ANAB

directory soliciting their assistance for the work process. The final model shown in Figure 13

was produced after a series of changes and modifications from the initial draft model and varying

levels of feedback on how to improve feasibility and usability. One opinion was to create an

accompanying table format that presents the model in a way that shows what elements and

clauses of the two integrated management systems complements each other. Table 8 presents an

abridged version of this document. The complete version is given in Appendix H. The table

format allows for easier use of the model during an audit engagement as well as a process review

to align segments of the clauses that should be the new area of focus. With this textual version of

the model, it became possible to perform a cluster analysis of the new model using same data

mining technique that was deployed for this research. The result of this data mining as presented

and discussed in earlier parts of this chapter showed that this model is well optimized.
85

Another important feedback from the field validation process for the model was to

consider the incorporation of an environmental management system, however, this was not done

so as to maintain the focus of this study. The necessity of showing full systems integration by

referencing the clauses comparison matrix found in the OHSAS 18001 standard Annex A rather

than reference the clause numbers in the flowchart, as done in the earlier draft of the model, was

also discussed. The use of gate numbers within the flow chart was as a result of this

recommendation. Another input from the validation process was the incorporation of the

management of change cycle into the PDCA loop as well as implementing the internal audit

process earlier in the model to define the process for assessing whether clauses have been

satisfied.

In furtherance of the research study, the final validated model was implemented within a

medium-size complex by one of the experts. It was observed that the process model resulted in

about a 13% reduction in labor-hours as compared to other processes used for this client in

earlier engagements. Specific company data was not provided as a result of company policies.

However, a broad feedback based on this above result provided inputs to answer research

question five of this study. It was noted that the model is feasible and a welcome improvement to

the integrated management system audit. It could be better integrated if a consideration was

made to incorporate an environmental management system platform to encompass the entire

gamut of IMS. The nonexistence of an environmental aspect in the integration could serve as a

major barrier for companies in the process of accepting an integrated management system.
86

Table 8

Table representation of the new *IQSMS process model

PDCA *IQSMS ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/
Gate Checks
P  1  5.4  Planning  4.2  4.2 ‐ OH&S policy  ISO 9001: 5.4.2 
5.4.1 Quality  4.3.1 Top management  Quality 
objectives  4.4.1  shall define and  management 
Top management  authorize the  system planning 
shall ensure that  organization’s  Top management 
quality objectives,  OH&S policy and  shall ensure that a) 
including those  ensure that within  the planning of the 
needed to meet  the defined scope  quality 
requirements for  of its OH&S  management 
product [see 7.1 a)],  management  system is carried 
are established at  system it:   out in order to 
relevant functions and    meet the 
levels within the  4.3.1 ‐ Hazard  requirements given 
organization. The  identification, risk  in 4.1, as well as the 
quality objectives shall  assessment and  quality objectives, 
be measurable and  determining  and b) the integrity 
consistent with the  controls  of the quality 
quality policy.  The organization  management 
shall establish,  system is 
implement and  maintained when 
maintain a  changes to the 
procedure(s) for  quality 
the ongoing hazard  management 
identification, risk  system are planned 
assessment, and  and implemented. 
determination of   
necessary controls.  OHSAS 18001: a) is 
  appropriate to the 
  nature and scale of 
the organization’s 
OH&S risks; b) 
includes a 
commitment to 
prevention of injury 
and ill health and 
continual 
improvement in 
OH&S management 
and performance  
87

Companies that already have the separate processes running and are seeking integration

would rather go for all three processes rather than just two of the three. This will result in more

savings and better allocation of resources. In the light of this, it could be inferred that some of the

major barriers to integration is cost (Stamou, 2003) as well as readiness of the organization since

the process for developing a management system is quite time consuming and involves a lot of

documentation and change in company culture (Herrero, Saldana, Manzanedo del Campo, &

Ritzel, 2002).

Following this study, it can be inferred that integrated quality and safety management

system models can be organized into unique and distinct categories based upon key terms

utilized in describing them in research articles by way of cluster analysis. Most models

considered in this body of research were of a safety dominant nature or of a balanced integration;

however, the broad spectrum of these variants could not be distinguished based upon key terms

utilized. Future work should be done by deploying the same text mining research approach using

different key terms that might better be able to provide some discrimination. The determination

of such terms will further inform the underlying *IQSMS models. The identification of a distinct

safety dominant *IQSMS model implies that the variation amongst such models is greater than

the variation between these safety dominant models and all other models, following a one-way

ANOVA type of thinking. The model developed in this research provides such an optimized

process for consideration. It is recommended that further case study organizations that utilize

such a model be identified and studied for objective and detailed assessment of the model.

Numerous opportunities for future research abound given that the nature of cluster

analysis is bounded only by the algorithms selected. Continued search for an algorithm that

distinguishes quality dominant integrated management system models from balanced integrated
88

models is an area recommended for future research. Future work related to integrated

management system models in general, and this optimal model in particular, is also

recommended. One such work can be along theoretical lines in further developing a model which

combines safety as the dominant component and quality and quality function deployment as

subordinate components. Additional recommended prospects for future work includes applied

studies in other industrial environments like a service organization consisting of case study data

that reflect the execution of the optimal integrated quality and safety management system model

described in the work, as a means of assessing the effectiveness of the model herein.

Conclusion

The objective of this chapter was to answer the research questions as informed by the

study. The research consisted of textual data mining of integrated quality and safety management

system articles and the models contained therein. Cluster analysis was employed to determine if

hypothesized models existed. The cluster analysis was statistically validated with one-way

ANOVA combined with Tukey’s Pairwise comparison. To answer the fourth research question,

an optimal integrated system model was developed and recommended as informed by the data

mining analysis as well as an extrapolation of articles cited and analyzed. The derived and

recommended model is a hybrid that consists of a quality management system as the

superordinate strategic element. A safety management system is deployed as a supporting

tactical element, for the purpose of addressing complex work place risk and safety challenges

and variation with unknown solutions that are incurred during work processes. Quality function

deployment and HAZOP analysis is also used as a continual tactical tool for monitoring and

addressing customer satisfaction metrics as well as hazard and risk mitigation respectively.

Within the context of the research and following the limitation of the articles reviewed, it can be
89

said that the model is an all-inclusive model that contributes to systems and process

improvement as well as organizational learning, a primary contributor to organizational

competitive advantage in the modern market place. In furtherance of the research study, the final

recommended model was tested and validated by subject matter experts in the industry within a

medium-size client. It was observed that the process model resulted in about a 13% reduction in

labor-hours as compared to other processes used for same and other similar clients in earlier

engagements.

However, it should be noted here that given the vast array of clustering algorithms

available, the clusters that resulted were dependent upon the algorithm deployed and may differ

from clusters resulting for divergent algorithms (Duarte, Montgomery, Fowler, & Konopka,

2012). Using other clustering algorithms might result in conclusions differing from the ones

reached in this study. More so, the target literature for data mining and models evaluation are a

compendium of different authors with no particular system of selection considering the dearth of

literature on the integration of SMS with QMS. The literature available on the various aspects of

an integrated Q-SMS is very limited, particularly in comparison to the amount of information

published on individual systems of QMS and SMS. Therefore, a Boolean search that results in

more integrated Q-SMS articles different from the ones analyzed in this study, as well as using

different keywords for cross referencing, might lead to different conclusions. The geographical

scope and application of the process model should also be considered as a limitation, considering

that the selection of industry experts used for validating the developed model was restricted to

the United States of America. This allowed for interviews and communication, when necessary,

to take place in person in order to circumvent social and financial constraints that might not

permit international travel. It is possible that the findings may not be directly transferable to
90

other geographical regions, due to differences in regulatory environments and public opinion

concerning safety practices in different locations. However, attempts were made to ensure that

the validation implementation is done within an organization with international presence, which

may lessen this concern.
91

REFERENCES

Abrahamsson, S., Hansson, J., & Isaksson, R. (2011). Integrated Management Systems - testing a

model for integration. In J. Martin, & C. Baccarani (Ed.), 14th Toulon-Verona

Conference: Organizational Excellence in Service (pp. 22-35). Alicante, Spain: Uppsala

University Publications. Retrieved Feb 22, 2015, from Uppsala University Publications:

http://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:477005/FULLTEXT02.pdf

Ahmed, S., Nader, A., & NG Shian , K. (2005). A Framework for Implementation of Integrated

Quality System (IQS) in Manufacturing - Based on Survey Findings. Retrieved Oct 10,

2013, from ResearchGate:

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/252063778_A_framework_for_implementation_

of_integrated_quality_system_(IQS)_in_manufacturing__based_on_survey_finding

American Society for Quality. (2005). The Certified Manager of Quality/organizational

Excellence Handbook (3rd ed.). (R. T. Westcott, Ed.) Milwaukee, WI, USA: ASQ

Quality Press.

Bamber, C. J., Hides, M. T., & Sharp, J. M. (2000). Integrated management systems: An agile

manufacturing enabler. 1st International Conference on System Thinking in Management

(pp. 83-88). Geelong, Australia: http://dblp.uni-trier.de/. Retrieved Oct 16, 2013, from

http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-72/010%20Hides%20Management.pdf
92

Behling, D. (2014). Learning from Experience. Quality Progress, 47(2), 14-19. Retrieved Nov 1,

2013, from http://rube.asq.org/quality-progress/2014/02/lean/learning-from-

experience.pdf

British Standards Institute. (2012). Specification of common management system requirements as

a framework for integration. Retrieved Dec 12, 2013, from BSi Shop:

http://www.bsigroup.com/en-GB/pas-99-integrated-management/

Brunsson, N., & Jacobsson, B. (2002). A World of Standards. (K. Bengt, Ed.) Oxford, United

Kingdom: Oxford University Press.

Burgelman, R., Christensen, C., & Wheelwright, S. (2008). Strategic Management of Technology

and Innovation. (J. E. Biermat, Ed.) McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Calvano, M. (2001, February). Quality is Safety. Retrieved Jun 23, 2012, from Magister Ludi

Aviations: http://www.magisterludi.com/public_html/aviation/publications/

Celik, M. (2008). Designing of integrated quality and safety management system (IQSMS) for

shipping operations. Safety Science, 47(5), 569-577.

Clemens, P. I., & Simmons, R. J. (1998). System safety and risk management: A guide for

engineering educators. Retrieved Jun 2, 2014, from cdc.gov:

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/topics/SHAPE/pdfs/safriskengineer.pdf

Condrea, E., Stanciu, A. C., & Aivaz, K. A. (2012). The Use of Quality Function Deployment in

the Implementation of the Quality Management System. (M. Savsar, Ed.) Rijeka, Croatia:

Intech Europe.

Conti, T. (2010). Systems thinking in quality management: The New Frontier in Quality

Management. The TQM Journal, 22(4), 352-368.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17542731011053280
93

De Mast, J. (2006). Six sigma and competitive advantage. Total Quality Management and

Business Excellence, 17(4), 455-464. Retrieved Jul 5, 2013, from

http://ibisuva.nl/assets/publicaties/artikelen/2006-demast-six.pdf

Deacon, A. (1994). The role of safety in total quality management. The Safety and Health

Practitioner, 12(1), 18-21.

Dean, J. W., & Bowen, D. E. (1994). Management theory and total quality: improving research

and practice through theory development. Academy of Management Review "Total

Quality", 19(3), 392-418. Retrieved Aug 6, 2014, from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/258933?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Dong, X. S., Wang, X., & Herleikson, B. (2010). Work-Related Fatal and Nonfatal Injuries

among U.S. Construction Workers, 1992-2008. Silver Spring, MD: CPWR Data Center.

Retrieved Jan 20, 2014, from http://www.cpwr.com/sites/default/files/publications

Duarte, B., Montgomery, D., Fowler, J., & Konopka, J. (2012). Deploying LSS in a global

enterprise – project identification. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 3(3), 187 -

205.

Dumas, R. (1987). Safety and Quality; The Human Dimension. Professional Safety, 32(12), 11-

14. Retrieved Sep 6, 2013, from

http://search.proquest.com/openview/30b5c0c1b70236a3dc9109d93efad7f4/1?pq-

origsite=gscholar

Faraway, J. J. (2002). Practical Regression and Anova using R. Retrieved Sep 22, 2015, from

https://cran.r-project.org/doc/contrib/Faraway-PRA.pdf
94

Federal Aviation Authority. (2007). Advisory Circular 150/5200-37 Introduction to safety

management systems (SMS) for airport operators. Retrieved Oct 15, 2014, from

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.infor

mation/documentid/22333

Federal Aviation Authority. (2010). Safety management system assurance guide. Retrieved Dec

2, 2013, from

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms/speciifics_by_aviation_industry.type/air_operati

ons/media/sms_assurance_guide.pdf

Federal Aviation Authority. (2010). Safety Management Systems (SMS) Framework. Retrieved

Dec 2, 2013, from

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms/specifics_by_aviation_industry_type/air_operat

ors/media/sms_framework.pdf

Federal Aviation Authority. (2011). About FAA. Retrieved Dec 1, 2013, from Safety

Management System SMS Pilot Projects Overview:

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/sms/pilot_projects/overview/

Federal Aviation Authority. (2012). Order VS 8000.367A: Aviation Safety (AVS) Safety

Management System Requirements. Retrieved Nov 10, 2014, from

http://www.faa.gov/documentlibrary/media/order/faa%20order%208000.367a.pdf

Federal Aviation Authority. (2014). Safety Management System Manual v4.0. Retrieved Dec 2,

2013, from www.faa.gov:

https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/faa_ato_SMS_manual_v4_20140901.

pdf
95

Ghaleiw, M. (2013, Sep). Quality vs. Safety. ASQ Quality Progress, 46(9), 22-27. Retrieved Jun

12, 2014, from http://rube.asq.org/quality-progress/2013/09/risk-management/quality-vs-

safety.pdf

Guchu, G., & Mwanaongoro, Z. (2012). ISO Quality Management System Implementation for

Small to Medium Manufacturing Firms Kenya. Proceedings of the 2012 Mechanical

Engineering Annual Conference on Sustainable Research and Innovation, 3rd - 4th May.

4, pp. 140 - 143. Nairobi, Kenya: Jkuart-Sri. Retrieved Jul 2, 2014, from

http://www.jkuat-sri.com/ojs/index.php/proceedings/article/view/202

Gunduz, M., & Simsek, B. (2007). A strategic safety management framework through balanced

scorecard and quality function deployment. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,

34(1), 622-630. doi:10.1139/l06-163

Hansen, L. L. (1993). Safety management: a call for revolution. Professional Safety, 38(3), 16-

21.

Herrero, S. G., Saldana, M. A., Manzanedo del Campo, M. A., & Ritzel, D. O. (2002). From the

traditional concept of safety management to safety integrated with quality. Journal of

Safety Research, 33(1), 1-20. Retrieved Feb 15, 2013, from

http://158.132.155.107/posh97/private/qualtiy/sms-quality-Herrero.pdf

Hines, P., Holweg, M., & Rich, N. (2004). Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean

thinking. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 24(10), 994-

1011. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01443570410558049
96

Howell, G., Ballard, G., Abdelhamid, T., & Mitropoulos, P. (2002). Working near the edge: a

new approach to construction safety. 10th Annual International Group of Lean

Construction Conference (IGLC-10). Gramado, Brazil: http://p2sl.berkeley.edu/.

Retrieved May 10, 2014, from http://p2sl.berkeley.edu/2009-09-

09/Howell&Ballard&Abdelhamid&Mitropoulos%202002%20Working%20Near%20the

%20Edge%20=%20LCISAfetyWP.pdf

Hoyle, D. (2006). ISO 9000 Quality Systems Handbook: Using the Standards as a Framework

for Business Imptovement (6th ed.). London & New York: Routledge: Taylor & Francis

Group.

International Civil Aviation Authority. (2009). Order Number: 9859: Safety management

manual (SMM). Retrieved Aug 12, 2013, from http://www.ulc.gov.pl/:

http://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyManagement/Documents/(SMM) 3rd

Ed._Final_icons_May 13.pdf

International Helicopter Safety Team. (2007). Safety management system toolkit. International

Helicopter Safety Symposium 2007 Sep 19 - 21. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Retrieved

June 13, 2013, from http://www.ihst.org/Portals/54/SMS-Toolkit.pdf

International Labor Organization. (2003). Safety in numbers: Pointers for global safety culture at

work. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Retrieved May 5, 2013, from

http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/protection/safework/worldday/report_eng.pdf

International Organization for Standardization. (2009). Selection and use of the ISO 9000 family

of standards. ISO/TC 176. Retrieved July 6, 2013, from

http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_9000_selection_and_use-2009.pdf
97

International Organization for Standardization. (2010). The ISO Survey of Certifications 2009.

International Organization for Standardization. Retrieved Oct 21, 2014, from

http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref1363

Khalil, T. (2009). Management Of Technology: The Key to Competetiveness and Wealth

Creation. (R. Shankar, Ed.) McGraw-Hill Education (India) Pvt Limited.

Krause, T., & Hidley, J. (1989). Behavioural Based Safety Management: Parallels with the

quality improvement process. Professional Safety, 34(10), 20-25.

Lowellyne , J. (2012, October 21). BP’s Deepwater: A Quality Issue or a Safety Issue? Retrieved

Jun 10, 2013, from http://lowellynejames.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/bps-deepwater-

horizon-quality-issue-

or.html?goback=.gmp_1908534.gde_1908534_member_177266591

Manning, R. I. (1988). Quality vs. Safety. Quality Progress, 21(6), 70-71. Retrieved Feb 20,

2014, from http://asq.org/qic/display-item/?item=7450

Manuele, F. A. (1994). How Do Safety, Ergonomics and Quality Management Interface?

Industrial Management, 36(5), 4-6. Retrieved Feb 10, 2013, from

https://www.questia.com/magazine/1P3-21188/how-do-safety-ergonomics-and-quality-

management-interface

Maragakis, I., Clark, S., Piers, M., Prior, D., Tripaldi, C., Masson, M., & Audard, C. (2009).

Guidance on Hazard Identification. Safety Management System and Safety Culture

Working Group - European Strategic Safety Initiative. Retrieved May 2, 2015, from

https://www.easa.europa.eu/essi/documents/ECASTSMSWG-

GuidanceonHazardIdentification.pdf
98

Mellat-Parast, P., & Digman, L. (2008). Learning: The Interface of Quality Management and

Strategic Alliances. International Journal of Production Economics, 114(2), 820-829.

doi:doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.04.003

Merriam-Webster. (2014). Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Encyclopaedia Britanica. Retrieved

Oct 22, 2015, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compliance

Minter, S. G. (1991). Quality and Safety Unocal's Winning Combination. Occupational Hazards,

53(10), 47-50. Retrieved Jan 8, 2015, from https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-

11533693/quality-and-safety-unocal-s-winning-combination

Motwani, J., Kumar, A., & Cheng, C. H. (1996). A roadmap to implementing ISO 9000.

International Journal of quality and reliability management, 13(1), 72-83.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02656719610108332

National Safety Authority of Ireland. (2012, February). ISO 9001 Quality Management System.

Dublin: National Safety Authority of Ireland. Retrieved May 12, 2013, from

http://www.nsai.ie/nsai/files/db/db3c0675-bb94-4608-a1cd-9f458699561e.pdf

Norusis, M. J. (2008). SPSS Statistics 17.0 Guide to Data Analysis. Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey, USA: Prentice Hall.

Odigie, M. E., Sinn, J. W., Courbat, M. E., & Martin, R. A. (2014, April). Safety in the Skies:

How aviation safety management systems interface with quality. Quality Progress, 47(4),

pp. 28-33. Retrieved Aug 10, 2014, from http://rube.asq.org/quality-

progress/2014/04/quality-management/safety-in-the-skies.pdf

Peterson, D. (1994). Integrating quality into total quality management. Professional Safety,

39(6),. Professional Safety, 28-30. Retrieved Sep 2, 2014, from

http://usfa.kohalibrary.com/app/work/48846
99

Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J., & Antoni, M. (2002). The state of ISO 9000 certification: a study

of Swedish organizations. The TQM Magazine, 14(5), 297–306.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09544780210439734

Powell, T. C. (1995). Total Quality Management as Competitive Advantage: A Review and.

Empirical Study. Strategic Management Journal, 16(1), 15-37. Retrieved Dec 2, 2014,

from http://www.thomaspowell.co.uk/article_pdfs/TQM_as_CA.pdf

Pun, K.-F., & Hui, I.-K. (2002). Integrating the safety dimension into quality management

systems: a process model. Total Quality Management, 13(3), 373-391.

doi:10.1080/09544120220135246

Quality Council of Indiana. (2012). Certified Quality Management Associate Primer. (B.

Wortman, Ed.) Terre Haute: Quality Council of Indiana.

Rahimi, M. (1995). Merging strategic safety, health and environment into total quality

management. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16(2), 83-94.

doi:doi:10.1016/0169-8141(94)00074-D

Rother, M. (2010). Toyota kata: managing people for improvement, adaptiveness, and superior

results. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Samuel, E. F. (2007). Quality and Production Standards in Latin America and the Carribean.

Fifth LACCEI International Latin American and Caribbean Conference for Engineering

and Technology 29 May – 1 June 2007 (pp. 1A.1-1 -1A.1-10). Tampico, México.:

LACCEI. Retrieved Mar 5, 2013, from http://www.laccei.org/LACCEI2007-

Mexico/Papers%20PDF/GE018_Samuel.pdf
100

Santos, G., Barros, S., Mendes, F., & Lopes, N. (2013). The main benefits associated with health

and safety management systems certification in Portuguese small and medium enterprises

post quality management system certification. Safety Science., 51(1), 29-36.

doi:doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2012.06.014

Selladurai, R. (2002). An organizational profitability, productivity, performance (PPP) model:

going beyond TQM and BPR. Total Quality Management, 13(5), 613-619. Retrieved Jun

15, 2015, from http://www.mujweb.cz/jwj/bpr/MyAthens-

soubory/PPP_za_BPR_a_TQM.pdf

Senthil, V., Devadasan, S., Selladurai, V., & Baladhandayutham, R. (2001). Integration of BPR

and TQM: past, present and future trends. Production Planning & Control, 12(7), 680-

688. doi:10.1080/09537280110073969

Sharma, S. (1996). Applied Multivariate Techniques. (T. Kent, & P. Sellers, Eds.) New York:

John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Sinn, J. W. (2006). Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) For Lean And Six Sigma:

Infrastructure For Understanding Process. Retrieved Aug 10, 2013, from Lean Six

Sigma Quality Transformation Toolkit (LSSQTT):

http://www.bgsu.edu/colleges/technology/faculty/sinn/TQTT.htm

Smith, T. A. (1996). Will safety be ready for workplace 2000. Professional Safety, 41(2), 37-38.

Retrieved Nov 12, 2014

Stamou, T. (2003). Integrated Management Systems in Small Medium-Sized Enterprises

((Masters Thesis). University of East Anglia, School of Environmental Sciences.

Norwich: http://www.uea.ac.uk/. Retrieved Jul 13, 2013, from

http://www.uea.ac.uk/env/all/teaching/eiaams/pdf_dissertations/2003/Stamou_Fanis.pdf
101

Stolzer, A. J., Halford, C. D., & Goglia, J. J. (2011). Safety Management Systems in Aviation

(Ashgate Studies in Human Factors for Flight Operations) (2nd ed.). Burlington,

Vermont, USA: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Taylor, J. (2012). Development of An Optimal Lean Six Sigma Model (PhD Dissertattion).

Indiana State University, College of Technology. Terre Haute: Published by ProQuest

LLC (2014). Retrieved from http://gradworks.umi.com/36/39/3639847.html

Thomassen, M. A., Sander, D., Barnes, K. A., & Nielsen, A. (2003). Experience and results from

implementing Lean construction in a large Danish contracting firm. 11th Annual

International Group for Lean Construction Conference (IGLC-11). Blacksburg, Virginia:

IGLC. Retrieved May 7, 2014, from http://www.iglc.net/Papers/Details/270

Tsim, Y., Yeung, V., & Leung, E. T. (2002). An adaptation to ISO 9001:2000 for certified

organisations. Managerial Auditing Journal, 17(5), 245-250.

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02686900210429669

US Department of Labor. (2014, May 12). Small Business Handbook: Small Business Safety

Management Series OSHA 2209-02R 2005. Retrieved Sep 13, 2013, from Occupational

Safety and Health Administration (OSHA):

https://www.osha.gov/Publications/smallbusiness/small-business.pdf

Wang, G. (2008). The Practical Research of HSE and Quality Integrated Management System in

SINOPEC Co. Tianjin Branch. (Order No. H284960). ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

A&I. (1026726887). Retrieved Dec 12, 2013, from

http://ezproxy.indstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/10267268

87?accountid=11592
102

Weinstein, M. B. (1996). Improving safety programs through total quality. Occupational

Hazards, 58(8), 1-4. Retrieved Feb 8, 2014, from

https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-18634962/improving-safety-programs-through-

total-quality

Wicks, A. C. (2001, July). The value dynamics of total quality management: ethics and the

foundations of TQM. Business Ethics Quarterly, 11(3), pp. 501-535. Retrieved Mar 6,

2014, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3857851

Yantiss, B. (2011). SMS Implementation. In A. J. Stolzer, C. D. Halford, & J. J. Goglia, Safety

Management Systems in Aviation (Ashgate Studies in Human Factors for Flight

Operations) (pp. 161-169). Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Zhu, X. Q. (2008). A study of performance evaluation for enterprises that implemented quality,

environment, and occupational health and safety integrated management system (Order

No. H279359). Tianjin University. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (1026723532).

Retrieved Dec 11, 2013, from

http://ezproxy.indstate.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/10267235

32?accountid=11592
103

APPENDIX A: TABLE OF ARTICLES & STANDARDS REVIEWED

Models Authors Year
1 Integrating a total quality management system into safety and Roughton 1993
health programs
2 Integrating safety into total quality management Petersen 1994
3 How Do Safety Ergonomics and Quality Management Manuele 1994
Interface
4 Safety and total quality management. Curtis 1995
5 Development and evaluation of an ISO 9000-harmonized Dyjack 1996
occupational health and safety management system
6 Total Quality Approach to Safety Management Weinstein 1996
7 A methodology for integrating safety, environmental, Quality Danaher & Sinkinson 1997
and Risk Management Systems
8 Achieving safety performance excellence through total quality Manzella 1997
management
9 Integrating safety and quality - Building to achieve excellence Warrack etal. 1999
in the workplace
10 Integrated management systems: An agile manufacturing Bamber etal. 2000
enabler
11 From the traditional concept of safety management to safety Herrero etal. 2002
integrated with quality
12 Integrating the safety dimension into quality management Pun & Hui 2002
systems a process model.
13 Integrated Management Systems in Small Medium-Sized Stamou 2003
Enterprises: Theory and Practice
14 A Framework for Implementation of Integrated Quality Ahmed etal. 2005
System (IQS) in Manufacturing - Based on Survey Finding
15 Integrated Management Systems_ QES Model and Small Rajkovic etal. 2007
Medium-Sized Enterprises
16 CQI IMSIG Integrated management system definition and Dalling 2007
structuring guidance Issue 1
17 A strategic safety management framework through balanced Gunduz & Simsek 2007
scorecard and quality function deployment.
18 Systems Thinking: The New Frontier in Quality Management Conti 2008
19 A New Process-Based Approach for Implementing an Badreddine etal. 2009
Integrated Management System: Quality, Security,
Environment
20 Application of food safety and quality management systems to Belibagli etal 2009
bulgur processing
104

Models Authors Year
21 Designing of integrated quality and safety management system Celik 2009
(IQSMS) for shipping operations
22 An empirical study on the integration of management system Bernardo etal. 2010
audits
23 Integrated Management Systems - testing a model for Abrahansson etal. 2011
integration
24 An empirical analysis of the integration of internal and Simon etal. 2013
external management system audits
25 Marine health, safety, quality, Environmental and energy ABS Group 2013
management
26 A Methodology to Develop the Integration of the Rebelo etal. 2014
Environmental Management System with Other Standardized
Management Systems
27 Occupational health and safety management systems – OHSAS Project Group 2007
Requirements - OHSAS 18001:2007
28 Quality Management Systems Requirement - ISO 9001:2008 ISO 9001 2008
29 Quality Management Systems - Requirements for Aviation, SAE AS 9100C 2009
Space and Defense Organizations - SAE AS9100C
30 PAS-99 Specification of common management system BSI 2012
requirements as a framework for integration
105

APPENDIX B: CONTRAST TABLE OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM KEYWORDS FROM

ISO 9001, OHSAS 18001 AND ISO 14000 (SOURCE: (PUN & HUI, 2002))
106

APPENDIX C: GLOSSARY OF QMS AND SMS KEY TERMS GLEANED FROM

ARTICLES AND STANDARDS

Safety Management Systems (SMS) Quality Management Systems
(QMS)
Acceptable Level of Safety Performance Quality Systems
Acceptable Risk Quality
Accident Requirement
Accountable Executive Grade
Alert Level Customer Satisfaction
Best Practice Capability
Consequence Competence
Corrective Action System
Emergency Response Plan Management System
Error Quality Management System
Failure Quality Policy
Gap Analysis Quality Objective
Hazard Management
Hazard Analysis Top Management
Hazard Identification Quality Management
High Risk Quality Planning
Human Factors Quality Control
Incident Continual Improvement
Investigation Effectiveness
Latent Conditions Efficiency
Level of Safety Organization
Likelihood Organizational Structure
Low Risk Infrastructure
Management of Change Work Environment
Medium Risk Customer organization
Occurrence Supplier organization
Open Reporting Culture Interested Parties
Operational personnel Process
Organizational Hazard Product
Oversight Project
Performance Based Standards Design and Development
Predictive Procedure
107

Safety Management Systems (SMS) Quality Management Systems
(QMS)
Prescriptive Standards Quality Characteristic
Preventive Action Dependability
Proactive Traceability
Reactive Conformity
Risk Non Conformity
Risk Analysis Defect
Risk Assessment Preventive action
Risk Control Corrective Action
Risk Management correction
Risk Matrix rework
Safety Re-grade
Safety Action Plan repair
Safety Assurance scrap
Safety Case concession
Safety Culture deviation permit
Safety Library release
Safety Management information
Safety Management Implementation Plan specification document
Safety Management System (SMS) quality manual
Safety Manager Quality Plan document
Safety Performance record document
Safety Performance Indicator objective evidence
Safety Performance Target inspection
Safety Policy test
Safety Promotion verification
Safety Risk Management validation
Serious Incident qualification process
Serious Injury review
Service Provider audit
Severity audit program
State Safety Oversight audit findings
State Safety Program (SSP) technical expert
Surveillance audit team
System Description
Tolerable Risk
APPENDIX D: SUMTOTAL DISTRIBUTION OF KEYWORDS PER REVIEWED ARTICLES

Models/Articles  Total Word  QMS  SMS 
Count 
01  Integrating a total quality management system into safety and health programs  1621  115  94 
02  Integrating safety into total quality management  452  26  33 
03  How Do Safety Ergonomics and Quality Management Interface  775  56  37 
04  Safety and total quality management.  511  14  27 
05  Development and evaluation of an ISO 9000‐harmonized occupational health and safety  873  28  59 
management system 
06  Total Quality Approach to Safety Management  859  54  47 
07  A methodology for integrating safety, environmental, Quality and Risk Management  388  45  25 
Systems 
08  Achieving safety performance excellence through total quality management  651  52  37 
09  Integrating safety and quality_Building to achieve excellence in the workplace  821  26  73 

108
10  Integrated management systems: An agile manufacturing enabler  954  63  15 
11  From the traditional concept of safety management to safety integrated with quality  1303  79  46 
12  Integrating the safety dimension into quality management systems a process model.  2074  108  71 
13  Integrated Management Systems in Small Medium‐Sized Enterprises: Theory and  3852  167  93 
Practice 
14  A Framework for Implementation of Integrated Quality System (IQS) in Manufacturing ‐  903  59  5 
Based on Survey Finding 
15  Integrated Management Systems_ QES Model and Small Medium‐Sized Enterprises  678  46  25 
16  CQI IMSIG Integrated management system definition and structuring guidance Issue 1   437  30  12 
17  A strategic safety management framework through balanced scorecard and quality  1013  111  36 
function deployment. 
18  Systems Thinking: The New Frontier in Quality Management  1435  75  3 
19  A New Process‐Based Approach for Implementing an Integrated Management System:  973  94  68 
Quality, Security, Environment 
20  Application of food safety and quality management systems to bulgur processing  1379  58  55 
Models/Articles  Total Word  QMS  SMS 
Count 
21  Designing of integrated quality and safety management system (IQSMS) for shipping  169  3  10 
operations  
22  An empirical study on the integration of management system audits  128  5  3 
23  Integrated Management Systems ‐ testing a model for integration  1334  111  36 
24  An empirical analysis of the integration of internal and external management system  153  4  4 
audits 
25  Marine health, safety, quality, Environmental and energy management  4670  360  111 
26  A Methodology to Develop the Integration of the Environmental Management System  1543  79  48 
with Other Standardized Management Systems 
27  Occupational health and safety management systems – Requirements ‐ OHSAS  1858  185  63 
18001:2007 
28  Quality Management Systems Requirement ‐ ISO 9001:2008  2428  509  7 
29  Quality Management Systems ‐ Requirements for Aviation, Space and Defense  2586  499  18 
Organizations ‐ SAE AS9100C 

109
30  PAS‐99 Specification of common management system requirements as a framework for  2579  425  74 
integration 
110

APPENDIX E: APPROVED IRB SOLICITATION AND SIGNED CONSENT LETTER FROM

PARTICIPANT
111
112
113
114
115
116

APPENDIX F: SAMPLE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN RESEARCHER AND MODEL

VALIDATION PARTICIPANT
117
118
119
120
121

APPENDIX G: SAMPLE FEEDBACK CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN RESEARCHER

AND MODEL VALIDATION PARTICIPANT
122
123
124
125
APPENDIX H: COMPLETE TEXTUAL/TABLE VERSION OF NEW INTEGRATED MODEL SHOWING CROSS REFERENCE

OF CLAUSES FOR QMS AND SMS

PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
P  1  5.4  Planning  4.2  4.2 ‐ OH&S  ISO 9001: 5.4.2 Quality management system planning 
5.4.1 Quality  4.3.1 policy  Top management shall ensure that a) the planning of the 
objectives  4.4.1  Top  quality management system is carried out in order to meet 
Top management  management  the requirements given in 4.1, as well as the quality 
shall ensure that  shall define  objectives, and b) the integrity of the quality management 
quality objectives,  and authorize  system is maintained when changes to the quality 
including those  the  management system are planned and implemented. 
needed to meet  organization’s   
requirements for  OH&S policy  OHSAS 18001: a) is appropriate to the nature and scale of the 

126
product [see 7.1 a)],  and ensure  organization’s OH&S risks; b) includes a commitment to 
are established at  that within the  prevention of injury and ill health and continual 
relevant functions  defined scope  improvement in OH&S management and OH&S performance; 
and levels within the  of its OH&S  c) includes a commitment to at least comply with applicable 
organization. The  management  legal requirements and with other requirements to which the 
quality objectives  system it:   organization subscribes that relate to its OH&S hazards; d) 
shall be measurable    provides the framework for setting and reviewing OH&S 
and consistent with  4.3.1 ‐ Hazard  objectives; e) is documented, implemented and maintained; 
the quality policy.  identification,  f) is communicated to all persons working under the control 
risk assessment  of the organization with the intent that they are made aware 
and  of their individual OH&S obligations; g) is available to 
determining  interested parties; and h) is reviewed periodically to ensure 
controls  that it remains relevant and 
The  appropriate to the organization.  
organization 
shall establish, 
implement and 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
maintain a 
procedure(s) 
for the ongoing 
hazard 
identification, 
risk 
assessment, 
and 
determination 
of necessary 
controls. 
 
4.4.1 ‐ 

127
Resources, 
roles, 
responsibility, 
accountability 
and authority 
Top 
management 
shall take 
ultimate 
responsibility 
for OH&S and 
the OH&S 
management 
system. 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
D  2        4.4.1     Top management shall demonstrate its commitment by: 
a) ensuring the availability of resources essential to establish, 
implement, maintain and improve the OH&S management 
system; 
b) defining roles, allocating responsibilities and 
accountabilities, and delegating authorities, to facilitate 
effective OH&S management; roles, responsibilities, 
accountabilities, and authorities shall be documented and 
communicated. 
The organization shall appoint a member(s) of top 
management with specific responsibility for OH&S, 
irrespective of other responsibilities, and with defined roles 
and authority for: 

128
a) ensuring that the OH&S management system is 
established, implemented and maintained in accordance with 
this OHSAS Standard; 
b) ensuring that reports on the performance of the OH&S 
management system are presented to top management for 
review and used as a basis for improvement of the OH&S 
management system. 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
C  3  5.1  5.1 Management        a) Communicating to the organization the importance of 
5.2  commitment  meeting customer as well as statutory and regulatory 
6.2. Top management  requirements, 
1  shall provide  b) establishing the quality policy, 
evidence of its  c) ensuring that quality objectives are established, 
commitment to the  d) conducting management reviews, and 
development and  e) ensuring the availability of resources. 
implementation of   
the quality  The organization shall 
management system  a) determine the necessary competence for personnel 
and continually  performing work affecting conformity to product 
improving its  requirements, 
effectiveness  b) where applicable, provide training or take other actions to 

129
  achieve the necessary competence, 
5.2 Customer focus  c) evaluate the effectiveness of the actions taken, 
Top management  d) ensure that its personnel are aware of the relevance and 
shall ensure that  importance of their activities and how they contribute to the 
customer  achievement of the quality objectives, and 
requirements are  e) maintain appropriate records of education, training, skills 
determined and are  and experience (see 4.2.4). 
met with the aim of 
enhancing customer 
satisfaction. 
 
6.2 Human resources
6.2.1 General ‐ 
Personnel 
performing work 
affecting conformity 
to product 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
requirements shall 
be competent on the 
basis of appropriate 
education, training, 
skills and experience. 

130
A  4        4.1  The  4.5.1 ‐ Performance measurement and monitoring 
4.5  organization  The organization shall establish, implement and maintain a 
shall establish,  procedure(s) to monitor and measure OH&S performance on 
document,  a regular basis. This procedure(s) shall provide for: 
implement,  a) both qualitative and quantitative measures, appropriate to 
maintain and  the needs of the organization; 
continually  b) monitoring of the extent to which the organization’s OH&S 
improve an  objectives are met; 
OH&S  c) monitoring the effectiveness of controls (for health as well 
management  as for safety); 
system in 
accordance 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
with the 
requirements 
of this OHSAS 
Standard and 
determine how 
it will fulfil 
these 
requirements. 
The 
organization 
shall define 
and document 
the scope of its 

131
OH&S 
management 
system. 

C  5  7.3  7.3 Design and        During the design and development planning, the 
7.5  development  organization shall determine 
7.3.1 Design and  a) the design and development stages, 
development  b) the review, verification and validation that are appropriate 
planning The  to each design and development stage, and c) the 
organization shall  responsibilities and authorities for design and development. 
plan and control the  The organization shall manage the interfaces between 
design and  different groups involved in design and development to 
development of  ensure effective communication and clear assignment of 
product.  responsibility. 
   
7.5 Production and  Controlled conditions shall include, as applicable: a) the 
service provision  availability of information that describes the characteristics 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
7.5.1 Control of  of the product, 
production and  b) the availability of work instructions, as necessary, 
service provision  c) the use of suitable equipment, 
The organization  d) the availability and use of monitoring and measuring 
shall plan and carry  equipment, 
out production and  e) the implementation of monitoring and measurement, and 
service provision  f) the implementation of product release, delivery and post‐
under controlled  delivery activities. 
conditions.  

A  6        4.4.6 4.4.6    
4.4.7  Operational 
control 

132
The 
organization 
shall determine 
those 
operations and 
activities that 
are 
associated with 
the identified 
hazard(s) 
where the 
implementatio
n of 
controls is 
necessary to 
manage the 
OH&S risk(s). 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
This shall 
include the 
management 
of change 
 
4.4.7 ‐ The 
organization 
shall establish, 
implement and 
maintain a 
procedure(s): 
a) to identify 
the potential 

133
for emergency 
situations;  
b) to respond 
to such 
emergency 
situations. 
C  7  7.5  7.5.2 Validation of        Validation shall demonstrate the ability of these processes to 
7.6  processes for  achieve planned results. 
8.2  production and   
service provision  The organization shall identify the product status with 
The organization  respect to monitoring and measurement requirements 
shall validate any  throughout product realization. 
processes for   
production and  If any customer property is lost, damaged or otherwise found 
service provision  to be unsuitable for use, the organization shall report this to 
where the resulting  the customer and maintain records. 
output cannot be   
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
verified by  As applicable, preservation shall include identification, 
subsequent  handling, packaging, storage and protection. Preservation 
monitoring or  shall also apply to the constituent parts of a product. 
measurement and,   
as a consequence,  Where necessary to ensure valid results, measuring 
deficiencies become  equipment shall 
apparent only after  a) be calibrated or verified, or both, at specified intervals, or 
the product is in use  prior to use, against measurement standards traceable to 
or the service has  international or national measurement standards; where no 
been delivered.   such standards exist, the basis used for calibration or 
  verification shall be recorded (see 4.2.4); 
7.5.3 Identification  b) be adjusted or re‐adjusted as necessary; 
and traceability  c) have identification in order to determine its calibration 

134
Where appropriate,  status; 
the organization  d) be safeguarded from adjustments that would invalidate 
shall identify the  the measurement result; 
product by suitable  e) be protected from damage and deterioration during 
means throughout  handling, maintenance and storage. 
product realization.  
 
7.5.4 Customer 
property 
The organization 
shall exercise care 
with customer 
property while it is 
under the 
organization's 
control or being used 
by the organization. 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
The organization 
shall identify, verify, 
protect and 
safeguard customer 
property provided 
for use or 
incorporation into 
the product.  
 
7.5.5 Preservation of 
product 
The organization 
shall preserve the 

135
product during 
internal processing 
and delivery to the 
intended destination 
in order to maintain 
conformity to 
requirements.  
 
7.6 Control of 
monitoring and 
measuring 
equipment 
The organization 
shall determine the 
monitoring and 
measurement to be 
undertaken and the 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
monitoring and 
measuring 
equipment needed 
to provide evidence 
of conformity of 
product to 
determined 
requirements. 
 
8.2 Monitoring and 
measurement 
8.2.1 Customer 
satisfaction ‐ As one 

136
of the 
measurements of 
the performance of 
the quality 
management 
system, the 
organization shall 
monitor information 
relating to customer 
perception as to 
whether the 
organization has met 
customer 
requirements. The 
methods for 
obtaining and using 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
this information shall 
be determined. 

A  8  8.2. 8.2.2 Internal audit  4.5.5  Internal audit  A documented procedure shall be established to define the 
2  The organization  The  responsibilities and requirements for planning and 
shall conduct  organization  conducting audits, establishing records and reporting results. 

137
internal audits at  shall ensure 
planned intervals to  that internal 
determine whether  audits of the 
the quality  OH&S 
management system management 
a) conforms to the  system are 
planned  conducted at 
arrangements (see  planned 
7.1), to the  intervals to: 
requirements of this  a) determine 
International  whether the 
Standard and to the  OH&S 
quality management  management 
system requirements  system: 1) 
established by the  conforms to 
organization, and  planned 
b) is effectively  arrangements 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
implemented and  for OH&S 
maintained.  management, 
including the 
requirements 
of this OHSAS 
Standard; and 
2) has been 
properly 
implemented 
and is 
maintained; 
and 3) is 
effective in 

138
meeting the 
organization’s 
policy and 
objectives; 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
D  9  5.4  5.4.1 Quality  4.5.2 Evaluation of  a) the OH&S policy and objectives; 
4.2. objectives  4.2  compliance  b) description of the scope of the OH&S management 
2  Top management  4.4.4  4.5.2.1  system; 
shall ensure that  Consistent with  c) description of the main elements of the OH&S 
quality objectives,  its  management system 
including those  commitment to  and their interaction, and reference to related documents; 
needed to meet  compliance  d) documents, including records, required by this OHSAS 
requirements for  [see 4.2c)], the  Standard; 
product [see 7.1 a)],  organization  and 
are established at  shall establish,  e) documents, including records, determined by the 
relevant functions  implement and  organization to 
and levels within the  maintain a  be necessary to ensure the effective planning, operation and 
organization. The  procedure(s)  control of processes that relate to the management of its 

139
quality objectives  for periodically  OH&S 
shall be measurable  evaluating  risks. 
and consistent with  compliance   
the quality policy.  with applicable  The organization shall establish and maintain a quality 
  legal  manual that includes 
4.2.2 Quality manual requirements  a) the scope of the quality management system, including 
The organization  (see 4.3.2). The  details of and justification for any exclusions (see 1.2), 
shall establish and  organization  b) the documented procedures established for the quality 
maintain a quality  shall keep  management system, or reference to them, and 
manual that includes  records of the  c) a description of the interaction between the processes of 
results of the  the quality management system. 
periodic 
evaluations. 
 
4.2 ‐ OH&S 
policy 
Top 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
management 
shall define 
and authorize 
the 
organization’s 
OH&S policy 
and ensure 
that within the 
defined scope 
of its OH&S 
management 
system it 
 

140
4.4.4 ‐ 
Documentation
‐ The OH&S 
management 
system 
documentation 
shall include: 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
C  14  5.6  5.6 Management  4.6  4.6 ‐  Records from management reviews shall be maintained 
8.4  review  4.1  Management   
8.5  5.6.1 General  4.5.4  review  A documented procedure shall be established to define 
Top management  Top  requirements for 
shall review the  management  a) reviewing nonconformities (including customer 
organization's  shall review  complaints), 
quality management  the  b) determining the causes of nonconformities, 
system, at planned  organization’s  c) evaluating the need for action to ensure that 
intervals, to ensure  OH&S  nonconformities do not recur, 
its continuing  management  d) determining and implementing action needed, 
suitability, adequacy  system, at  e) records of the results of action taken (see 4.2.4), and 
and effectiveness.  planned  f) reviewing the effectiveness of the corrective action taken. 
This review shall  intervals, to 

141
include assessing  ensure its 
opportunities for  continuing 
improvement and  suitability, 
the need for changes  adequacy and 
to the quality  effectiveness. 
management  Reviews shall 
system, including the  include 
quality policy and  assessing 
quality objectives.   opportunities 
  for 
8.4 Analysis of data  improvement 
The organization  and the need 
shall determine,  for changes to 
collect and analyze  the OH&S 
appropriate data to  management 
demonstrate the  system, 
suitability and  including the 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
effectiveness of the  OH&S policy 
quality management  and OH&S 
system and to  objectives. 
evaluate where  Records of the 
continual  management 
improvement of the  reviews shall 
effectiveness of the  be retained. 
quality management   
system can be made.  4.1 ‐ General 
This shall include  requirements 
data generated as a  The 
result of monitoring  organization 
and measurement  shall establish, 

142
and from other  document, 
relevant sources.  implement, 
  maintain and 
8.5 Improvement  continually 
8.5.1 Continual  improve an 
improvement  OH&S 
The organization  management 
shall continually  system in 
improve the  accordance 
effectiveness of the  with the 
quality management  requirements 
system through the  of this OHSAS 
use of the quality  Standard and 
policy, quality  determine how 
objectives, audit  it will fulfil 
results, analysis of  these 
data, corrective and  requirements. 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
preventive actions   
and management  4.5.4 ‐ Control 
review.  of records 
8.5.2 Corrective  The 
action  organization 
The organization  shall establish 
shall take action to  and maintain 
eliminate the causes  records as 
of nonconformities  necessary to 
in order to prevent  demonstrate 
recurrence.  conformity to 
Corrective actions  the 
shall be appropriate  requirements 

143
to the effects of the  of its OH&S 
nonconformities  management 
encountered.  system and of 
this OHSAS 
Standard, and 
the results 
achieved. 
The 
organization 
shall establish, 
implement and 
maintain a 
procedure(s) 
for the 
identification, 
storage, 
protection, 
PDCA *IQSM ISO 9001 OHSAS 18001 Requirement/Checks
S Gate
retrieval, 
retention and 
disposal of 
records. 
Records shall 
be and remain 
legible, and 
traceable. 

144