Introduction
Integrating ISO 9001: 2008 with EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma encompass linking quality management with environmental management. Reflectively, these standards of quality certification have similar advantages in saving of costs and improving effectiveness and efficiency in management of business entity. As a matter of fact, EFGM demands definite procedural process for identification and assessment of how different production methods complement and fit uniformly to promote sustainable excellence. Despite lack of direct comparison in ISO 9001: 2008, critical information from it is vital in carrying out the needed impact and aspect assessments. On the other hand, the DGEP certification operates on excellence and initiatives for excellence that operate optimally in a business environment.
In addition, the Six Sigma is a sequence of business events which delivers positive outputs which develop business aim of reliability in the production chain. Six Sigma ensures that production processes that are necessary are improved through proactive management of the factors of production such as labour, time, and optimal production capacity. This analytical treatise attempts to explore how ISO 9001: 2008 can be integrated with EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma.
Integrating ISO 9001: 2008 with EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma
The ISO 9001: 2008, EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma systems require legal design control clauses in regulating the management processes which must align to similar set codes and standards. These management quality assessment certification procedures require definite objective revolving on quality which must be integrated as a desired threshold for quality policy. In fact, despite differences in formality of quality plans documentation, requirements for quality are the same for the ISO 9001: 2008, EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma. Notwithstanding, these quality standards demand existence of defined responsibilities that are clearly written down. These responsibilities incorporate job description and scope of cover as the basis for distributing quality measurement (Tricker 2010).
The above standards of certification require quantifiable training needs and verifiable procedures for providing the same. In the process of carrying out their verification, the subject team in both cases is expected to be qualified for specific duties assigned. Notably, these standards of certification require documented management systems that are flexible and professional in line with defined standards. These standards must include documented control management systems that are regularly audited and formally scheduled in line with expected procedures (Tricker 2010). These procedures incorporate same personnel and methods for management review. From this reflection, it is apparent that these standards share same non-conformity corrective measures and documentation control.
The process of integrating ISO 9001: 2008 with EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma documentation systems is not complex since EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma have compatible design specification standards that are almost similar. Therefore, integrating documentation systems for these standards of certification involves application of an “integrated system approach which is highly recommended” (Shahin and Pourbanman, 2011, p. 56). Due to presence of overlapping concepts in their documentation systems, it is possible to reuse, reference, and combine them in order to reduce and lower costs on rework since they share similar procedures. After management review of the documentation systems, it is healthy to fuse the similar normative references since they share same scope in definition and terms of reference.
After this, the system should then factor similar documentation adjustments in order to tone down noticeable variances such as records of control and frequency of recording. When this is successfully assimilated into the latter, it is within desirable limits to roll out the integration procedure to include entire control and evaluation changes. In the process of doing so, it is possible to create a complete and comprehensive documentation system which incorporates variances that might exist between these standards of certification. At the same time, the new documentation system will be intrinsic of management reviews and audits that are recorded periodically in line with evaluation records of the certification officer (Nuseirat 2009).
In order to prepare and conduct a successful internal audit of the success of this integration, it is necessary to adopt a macro adjustment within micro units of evaluation. This procedure involves micro audits carried out to macro manage a firm and review the same for quality in management system. Moreover, it is important to concentrate the audit to communication and finance departments in order to determine documentation and integration of the channels for communication within the firm. In the integration statement, the underlying key procedure for reviewing authenticity of information obtained will rely on cost and time variances measurement in line with modern quality control organs running the process (Tricker 2010).
Special attention should then be directed towards measuring compliance and consistency indicators and matrixes of performance evaluation through integration of a proactive, objective oriented, and goal facilitated behaviour audit. In addition, it is vital to identify specific operations that are quantifiable and controlled from the central organs of management. For instance, quality integration management system performs optimally via integration of appropriate scientific methods and techniques. To enrich artistic managerial talents, scientific techniques come in handy to not only magnify the margins of success, but also to ensure a smooth transition of an idea or an event after another. Besides, to avoid an imminent failure, it is vital for the integrated management system to focus on a defined edge since “proper tailoring of techniques and tools assume as an essential part of the regulatory strategy” (Shahin and Pourbanman 2011, p. 32).
Inclusion of compliance and consistency indicators in the integration system is necessary to monitor achievement compliance and efficiency in resource use and reuse. When these contingencies are balanced and quantified, an independent audit report is likely to be within reach (Shahin and Pourbanman 2011). Though the whole process is dynamic and requires flexibility in carrying out evaluation, the basic underlying concepts and aspects of accountability and responsibility should be part and parcel of every procedure. Despite the fact that the degree of accuracy on reviewing quality of management may present some challenges, it is possible to build a framework for operation monitoring process which incorporates preventive and corrective actions to make such entities consistent (Nuseirat 2009).
Since the success and failure of an entity are dependent on the effectiveness and quality of the operations management systems since planning, integration, implementation, and control are integrated to indicate direction of performance. Thus, the proposed integration system should strike an optimal performance balance; the process of designing a quality operations management system should commence with a clear overview of budgeting, objectivity, and scheduling for the certification procedure (Nuseirat 2009). In addition, this part should include control procedures and assessment. In order to come up with a viable integrated system, it is of essence to include quality control, progress measurement, and flexibility to accommodate any eventuality since EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma have compatible design specification standards.
Despite constant metamorphosis of operations management designs in the market, determinant of quality basically remains unchanged in the EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma specification standards. Irrespective of the size and nature of a business entity, quality in operations management is the major verification factor for success of a short term, middle term, and long term projections as internalized in the ISO 9001:2008 (Tricker 2010).
Basically, Six Sigma is aimed to reduce wastage of production resources that can be experienced in long queues and ineffective task outputs. Quality control is commonly utilized to promote quality of business products. Six Sigma usually integrate employees to provide the highest quality of products through self assessment and proactive approach to skills tests. Six Sigma is done to prepare, synchronize and manage the multifarious activities of company through efficiency module.
This alternative can be compared to the three balls that are juggled by the circus performers. By implementing the Six Sigma alternative, the company can visualize the future risks and hurdles in the implementation of any production plan and can take suitable remedial measures for unforeseeable risks such as machine breakdown. The other quality systems such as the ISO 9001: 2008, EFQM, and AKA DGEP share same specification standards on quality performance measurement. It is thus possible to integrate this element into a single desired threshold for quality policy (Nuseirat 2009).
The initial step towards actualisation of an integrated quality policy comprising of ISO 9001: 2008, EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma quality operations management system involves research and the creation of an informed authentication and verification method. In order to achieve this, the existing forms of system monitoring in the ISO 9001: 2008, EFQM, AKA DGEP and Six Sigma should be periodically upgraded to introduce multiple operating system models such as quality threshold analysis that is compatible with tracking and analysis within and without an entity applying for certification. Basically, the quality threshold procedure should incorporate the aspects of cost, dependability, speed, quality, and flexibility. These variables are achievable through verifying the value delivery, value addition, and creativity (Tricker 2010).
Reflectively, these techniques and tools of certification will be more essential when integrated to cover wider areas of assessing the quality threshold in the management, operations, and logistics functions of an organization. Despite having this efficient operations certification system, the proposed system may not match with the business laws of different geographical regions and markets where they are applied. For instance, the DGEP lacks mechanism of monitoring progress at micro level but depends on macro auditing. However, this can be overcome by integration of the Six Sigma element to review efficiency of the factors of production (Tricker 2010).
Conclusion
In conclusion, ISO 9001: 2008 and other certification systems discussed share similarities in documentation systems, quality policy, management review, and implementation scope. To enrich artistic managerial talents, a balance in the factors of certification comes in handy to not only magnify the margins of success, but also to ensure a smooth transition of an idea or an event after another in the process of auditing the quality threshold. The process of integrating documentation systems for these certification standards encompasses merging compatibility designs. Generally, success of auditing of the integrated certification system depends on management systems in place in an organization against the set standards.
References
Nuseirat, A. (2009). DGEP. Web.
Shahin, A., & Pourbanman, R. (2011). Integration of EFQM and the ultimate Six Sigma: A proposed model. International Business Research, 4(1), 29-87. Web.
Tricker, R. (2010). ISO 9001: 2008 for Small Businesses. Melbourne: Butterworth-Heinemann. Web.