out_33333 (5)
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
Related Interests
Documents Similar To out_33333 (5)
- Chapter 27Uploaded by
afsana2islam2dina - Director VP Quality Manufacturing in Los Angeles CA Resume Thomas ZhuUploaded byThomasZhu2
- TNDUploaded byvipuljagrawal
- SHEQ CharterUploaded byDylan Ramasamy
- Quality Service StandardsUploaded byDania Shah
- Checklist of OHSAS 18001 Mandatory DocumentationUploaded byCarla Baraybar
- Composition of Hsse CommitteeUploaded byJunard M. Lu Hap
- Presentation3.pptxUploaded bynida
- Basic ISM Questions and AnswersUploaded byDeepesh Merchant
- urec generic participation agreement 12 13Uploaded byapi-269276950
- SMS Manual Part 6r1Uploaded byFais Isaac
- Safety Slide PbrUploaded bysantoshkumar777
- Kick-Off Meeting BLD4 Vinaconex E&C Rev.3 (END)Uploaded byRoseaAlexander
- ISO 9001-2000 ClauseUploaded bysrkadali
- Engropolymer-AR-2015.pdfUploaded byMubashir Ali Khan
- TPMUploaded byRidha Faturachmi
- The Railways Safety of Transport Safety of Work and Safety of LifeUploaded bysaravanan
- 14484_01Uploaded bylotanna
- Toolbox Safety Talks 51 CommunicationUploaded byCarlos Alberto Arduz
- 234_PGDHSEUploaded bySantanu Kumar Sahu
- Pre Start Up Review Checklist Sems_ii_-_element_9Uploaded byHitul Joshi
- Lect 3Uploaded byASIM RIAZ
More From Usama Waly
- Risk and Uncertainty 2009Uploaded byUsama Waly
- OutUploaded byUsama Waly
- out_33333 (3)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- out_33333 (6)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- Ash, Irene_ Ash, Michael-Handbook of Adhesive Chemical and Compounding Ingredients-Synapse Information Resources (2013)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- out_33333 (1)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- out_33333 (2)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- Stamatis, D. H.-failure Mode and Effect Analysis - FMEA From Theory to Execution-American Society for Quality (ASQ) (2003)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- Monika Ambrus, Rosemary Rayfuse, Wouter Werner-Risk and the Regulation of Uncertainty in International Law-Oxford University Press (2017)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- OHSAS Project Group - Implementation Guidance for Migrating to ISO 45001Uploaded byUsama Waly
- Nielsen Elsa, Grete Ostergaard, John Christian Larsen-Toxicological Risk Assessment of Chemicals_ a Practical Guide-Informa Healthcare (2008)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- out_33333 (4)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- Elsa Nielsen, Grete Ostergaard, John Christian Larsen-Toxicological Risk Assessment of Chemicals_ a Practical Guide-Informa Healthcare (2008)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- out_33333 (5)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- out_33333 (7)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- Copy Env. Aspect Worksheet for Power PlantsUploaded byUsama Waly
- 20181007_141705Uploaded byUsama Waly
- (Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality 34) Adrian v. Gheorghe, Dan v. Vamanu, Polinpapilinho F. Katina, Roland Pulfer-Critical Infrastructures, Key Resources, Key Assets_ Risk, VulnerabilityUploaded byUsama Waly
- (Trace Metals and Other Contaminants in the Environment) -Lead and Public Health_ Science, Risk and Regulation (2011)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- (the Handbook of Environmental Chemistry 23) D. Barceló, R. M. Darbra, B. Bilitewski (Auth.), Bernd Bilitewski, Rosa Mari Darbra, Damià Barceló (Eds.)-Global Risk-Based Management of Chemical AdditiveUploaded byUsama Waly
- 352962847 هام هام هام Interested Parties Needs Expectations as Per Iatf 16949 2016Uploaded byUsama Waly
- 293008911-F103-12-QMS-2015-ISO-9001-2015-Checklist-Guidance-Doc-CopyUploaded byUsama Waly
- 339286159-ISO-9001-2015-Checklist-pdfUploaded byUsama Waly
- 352962847 Interested Parties Needs Expectations as Per Iatf 16949 2016Uploaded byUsama Waly
- 325167092-ISO-9001-2015-CluasesUploaded byUsama Waly
- Asbury, Stephen-Health and Safety, Environment and Quality Audits _ a Risk-based Approach-Taylor and Francis (2018)Uploaded byUsama Waly
- 04 Procedure for Determining Context and Interested Parties Integrated EnUploaded byUsama Waly
- 260505386 Risk Register ExampleUploaded byUsama Waly
- 04 Procedure for Determining Context and Interested Parties EnUploaded byUsama Waly
- (Sustainable Improvements in Environment Safety and Health) Alston, Frances_ Millikin, Emily J._ Piispanen, Willie-Industrial Hygiene _ Improving Worker Health Through an Operational Risk Approach-CRCUploaded byUsama Waly
Popular in Business
- Proyecto Colaborativo HSEQUploaded bydeptosig
- copy of problem 19-7 qUploaded byapi-250474715
- Enunciado: Un Almacén de repuestos compra de distintos proveedores y después las distribuye de acuerdo con la demanda, en centros de venta detallista. El almacén trabaja cinco días a la semana. Los siguientes son los datos aplicables a los rodamientos de bolas de 2 pulgadas de diámetro. Demanda diaria promedio = 200 rodamientos Desviación estándar de la demanda diaria (st ) = 30 rodamientos Tiempo de entrega (L) = 3 días Costo de manejo de inventario (H) = $9.40/unidad/mes Costo de ordenar (S) = $ 35/pedido Nivel de servicio deseado = 92%Uploaded byOferta Fer
- Z00010000120144008ch08 - Accounting for ReceivablesUploaded byStevenBonny
- 20160422180457Uploaded bycarolvale
- Artigo Acadêmico - Lean Startup - Julio LussariUploaded byJuLio Lussari
- Acca f9 Class Notes 2010 Final 21 JanUploaded byArshadul Hoque Chowdhury
- Klein 3Uploaded byRashi Naresh Gupta
- Administracion de Operaciones - funcion de las operacionesUploaded bycarlos
- Chapter 14 OutlineUploaded bysalehinfmsalehi9571
- FORMACION DE EMPRESAS.pdfUploaded byJuan Galdos
- Territory ManagementUploaded byMark Raffaele
- 1189.pdfUploaded bydknews
- Empresas FamiliaresUploaded byNahuelOddone
- Management Accounting PMA1A - Need Solution - Ur Call Away - 9582940966Uploaded byAmbrish (gYpr.in)
- Customer Feedback of Fabrics With Reference to Mayur Suitings and Shirtings TaxtilrsbwUploaded byJitendra Virahyas
- Administracion Por Objetivos (Apo)Uploaded byCarlos Landeta
- Challenges Facing Micro and Small Enterprises in Accessing Credit Facilities in Kangemi Harambee Market in Nairobi City County, KenyaUploaded byIJSRP ORG
- 6-f47Uploaded byMatt Zabak
- Sec Guide to Mutual FundsUploaded byBhavesh Laxkar
- Importance of Accounting SoftwareUploaded byRifát Khàn ßørnø
- resoluçoes do forum concurseiros contabilidadeUploaded byDemis Silva
- Sharekhan - Derivatives DigestUploaded bypankajparimal
- 1329.pdfUploaded bydknews
- ESTADOS FINANCIEROS.docxUploaded bymaria
- International Labor RelationsUploaded bysamrulezzz
- U District Small Business Vulnerability Study 12-12-2017Uploaded byThe Urbanist
- Ageing Buildings Conference - Kuala LumpurUploaded bythetrialboy8
- Caso BimboUploaded byMichelle Baquedano Muro
- INNOVACION DISRUPTIVAUploaded byAndrés Granada