Development of a method for ranking factors that influence the maturity of project quality management processes

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2018.140796

Keywords:

risk-dominant factor, project quality management, organizational maturity of processes, expert evaluation

Abstract

According to the results of the theoretical analysis of well-known and widely practically applied standards of quality management and project management, as well as models of maturity assessment of processes, 13 key risk-dominant factors influencing the maturity of project quality management processes have been identified.

A methodology of ranking risk-dominant factors, which highly influence the organizational maturity of quality management processes in projects, has been developed. The basis of the developed methodology is the expert method. A distinctive feature of the methodology when it is implemented is to obtain a nomenclature of ranked key risk-dominant factors, taking into account the expertise of experts. This result is achieved through the involvement of two target groups, «Process Implementers» and «Consumers of the Process Results and Stakeholders», for peer review. A systematic scientifically-based ranking of risk-dominant factors in accordance with the proposed methodology contributes to the objective assessment of the potential of quality management processes in projects. In addition, it will increase the likelihood of obtaining expected results of processes and will determine the priority directions of growth and organizational changes of processes to achieve the target levels of maturity. The proposed methodology can be implemented in the processes of certification, self-assessment and auditing in a QMS.

The practical testing of the proposed methodology was carried out using the example of the «Project Launch» process. According to the results of the expert evaluation of the «Process Implementers», it has been established that the factor «The degree of documenting the process» and, to a lesser extent, the «The degree of applicability of the process evaluation results for its improvement» is influenced to a greater extent by the maturity of the investigated process. According to the results of the expert evaluation «Consumers of the Process Results and Stakeholders», the following has been established. To a greater extent, the maturity of the investigated process is influenced by the factor «The degree of the possibility of integrating the process with other internal and external processes. «To a lesser extent, the factor is «Behaviour of the process implementers». There is a high degree of consistency between expert assessments within each group and a significant connection between the assessments of the two groups of experts.

Author Biography

Iryna Lazko, LTD "Khimtechnologya" Severodonetsk Institute of PJSC "HEI"IAPM" Smetanina str., 26а, Severodonetsk, Ukraine, 93400

PhD, Professor

Department of standardization and management by quality

 

References

  1. DSTU ISO 9001:2015 (ISO 9001:2015, IDT) (2016). Systemy upravlinnia yakistiu. Vymohy. Kyiv, 22.
  2. ISO 9001:2015. Quality management systems – Requirements (2015). International Organization for Standardization, 29.
  3. Harrington, H. J. (2006). Project Management Excellence: The Art of Excelling in Project Management. Paton Press, 214.
  4. Belaychuka, A. A., Eliferova, V. G. (Eds.) (2016). Svod znaniy po upravleniyu biznes processami: BPM CBOK 3.0. Moscow, 480.
  5. Ahen, D. M. (2005). CMMI: Kompleksniy podhod k sovershenstvovaniyu processov. Prakticheskoe vvedenie v model'. Moscow: MFK, 300.
  6. Repin, V. (2013). Biznes processy. Modelirovanie, vnedrenie, upravlenie. Moscow, 511.
  7. DSTU ISO/IEC 33001:2016 (ISO/IEC 33001:2015, IDT) (2016). Informatsiyni tekhnolohiyi. Otsiniuvannia protsesu. Poniattia ta terminolohiya. Kyiv, 20.
  8. ISO/IEC 33001:2015 (2015). Information technology – Process assessment – Concepts and terminology. International Organization for Standardization, 19.
  9. Litvak, B. G. (1996). Ekspertnye ocenki i prinyatie resheniy. Moscow: Patent, 271.
  10. Hrabovetskyi, B. Ye. (2010). Metody ekspertnykh otsinok: teoriya, metodolohiya, napriamy vykorystannia. Vinnytsia: VNTU, 171.
  11. Kryuchkovskiy, V. V. Petrov, E. G., Sokolova, N. A., Hodakov, V. E. (2011). Introspektivniy analiz. Metody i sredstva ekspertnogo ocenivaniya. Herson: Grin' D.S., 168.
  12. Lavrish, I. I. (2011). Samoorganizaciya ob'ektov upravleniya i mery soglasovaniya interesov sub'ekta i ob'ekta upravleniy. Avtomatizaciya i sovremennye tekhnologii, 3, 36–41.
  13. Radkevych, A. V., Netesa, A. M. (2017). Determination and ranging of organizational and technological factors that define the rational decisions of re-bars connection. Science and Transport Progress. Bulletin of Dnipropetrovsk National University of Railway Transport, 3 (69), 171–181. doi: https://doi.org/10.15802/stp2017/104543
  14. Hrabovetskyi, B. Ye., Zianko, V. V. (2013). Identyfikatsiya zmistu ta ranzhuvannia faktoriv, shcho obmezhuiut rozvytok venchurnoho biznesu, na osnovi metodu ekspertnykh otsinok Delfi. Visnyk Vinnytskoho politekhnichnoho instytutu, 4, 46–54.
  15. Hrabovetskyi, B. Ye., Prytsiuk, L. A. (2011). Otsinka priorytetnosti faktoriv, shcho vplyvaiut na zrostannia obsiahiv realizatsiyi avtomobiliv, zapasnykh chastyn, dokhodu vid nadannia posluh na osnovi metodu ekspertnykh otsinok Delfi. Visnyk Khmelnytskoho natsionalnoho universytetu, 2 (5), 258–264.
  16. Maslennikov, E. V. (2017). Opportunities of use of expert knowledge as the source of concepts of development of the organizations. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science, 23 (2), 229–249. doi: https://doi.org/10.24290/1029-3736-2017-23-2-229-249
  17. Martino, Dzh. (1997). Tekhnologicheskoe prognozirovanie. Moscow: Progress, 591.
  18. Beshelev, S. D., Gurvich, F. G. (1980). Matematiko-statisticheskie metody ekspertnyh ocenok. Moscow: Statistika, 263.
  19. Serenkov, P. S., Romanchak, V. M., Gurevich, V. L. (2010). Minimizaciya pogreshnostey ocenivaniya pokazateley kachestva ekspertnymi sistemami. Pribory i metody izmereniy, 1, 141–146.
  20. DSTU ISO 10006:2005 (ISO 10006:2003, IDT) (2007). Systemy upravlinnia yakistiu. Nastanovy shchodo upravlinnia yakistiu v proektakh. Kyiv, 27.
  21. ISO 10006:2017. Quality management – Guidelines for quality management in projects (2017). International Organization for Standardization, 34.
  22. ISO 21500:2012. Guidance on project management (2012). International Organization for Standardization, 36.
  23. DSTU ISO/IEC 33020:2016 (ISO/IEC 33020:2015, IDT) (2016). Informatsiyni tekhnolohiyi. Otsiniuvannia protsesu. Struktura vymiriuvannia protsesu dlia otsiniuvannia mozhlyvostei protsesu. Kyiv, 18.
  24. ISO/IEC 33020:2015 (2015). Information technology – Process assessment – Process measurement framework for assessment of process capability. International Organization for Standardization, 18.
  25. Hammer, M. (2010). Faster Cheaper Better: The 9 Levers for Transforming how Work Gets Done. Crown Business, 302.
  26. Askol'skaya, E. A. (2010). Nekotorye aspekty metodiki otbora ekspertov na osnove ocenki stepeni doveriya k urovnyu professional'nogo suzhdeniya // Izvestiya OGAU, 4 (28), 170–172.
  27. Kryvda, O. V., Voitiuk, O. V. (2014). Model Delfi yak tekhnolohiya pryiniattia hospodarskykh rishen. Suchasni problemy ekonomiky ta pidpryiemnytsta, 14, 257–262.
  28. Horbatko, V., Petrenko, I. (2008). Metod «Delfi» ta spetsyfika yoho zastosuvannia u prohnoznykh rozrobkakh. Politychnyi menedzhment, 6, 174–182.
  29. Kurtov, A. I., Polikashyn, O. V., Potikhenskyi, A. I., Aleksandrov, V. M. (2017). Ekspertni otsinky. Metod "Delfi" yak tekhnolohiya pryiniattia upravlinskykh rishen. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats Kharkivskoho universytetu Povitrianykh Syl, 1, 118–122.
  30. Buharin, S. N., Divueva, N. A., Maryshev, E. A. (2014). Vybor rezul'tiruyushchego ranzhirovaniya v processe nauchno-tekhnicheskoy ekspertizi innovacionnyh proektov. Innovatika i ekspertiza, 1, 114–120.
  31. Ruposov, V. L. (2015). Metody opredeleniya kolichestva ekspertov. Vestnik IrGTU, 3 (98), 286–292.
  32. Postnikova, V. (2012). Analysis of approaches to formation of expert group membership focused on preparing and making decisions. Science and Education of the Bauman MSTU, 12 (5), 333–346. doi: https://doi.org/10.7463/0512.0360720
  33. Korobov, V. B. (2005). Sravnitel'niy analiz metodov opredeleniya vesovyh koefficientov «vliyayushchih faktorov». Sociologiya: metodologiya, metody, matematicheskoe modelirovanie (4M), 20, 54–73.
  34. Chernysheva, T. Yu. (2009). Ierarhicheskaya model' ocenki i otbora ekspertov. Doklady TUSUR. Upravleniya, vychislitel'naya tekhnika i informatika, 1 (19), 168–173.
  35. Putivtseva, N. P., Igrunova, S. V., Beketova, E. Y., Capitan, S. A. (2016). Implementation of the hyerarchical multicriteria procedure of the evaluation of experts’ quality. Research Result. Information technologies, 1 (1). doi: https://doi.org/10.18413/2518-1092-2016-1-1-39-47
  36. Buharin, S. N., Divueva, N. A. (2013). Problema ocenki kompetentnosti s uchetom psihologicheskih svoystv. Innovatika i ekspertiza, 1 (10), 108–115.
  37. Korobov, V. B. (2003). Organizaciya provedeniya ekspertnyh oprosov pri razrabotke klassifikacionnyh modeley. Sociologicheskie issledovaniya, 11, 102–108.
  38. Azgal'dov, G. G. (2012). Kvalimetriya dlya vsekh. Moscow: ID InformZnanie, 165.
  39. Velychko, O., Gordiyenko, T., Kolomiets, L. (2017). A comparative analysis of results of the group expert assessment of metrological assurance of measurements. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 6 (9 (90)), 30–37. doi: https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2017.114468
  40. Korobov, V. B. (2013). Nekotorye problemy primeneniya ekspertnyh metodov na praktike. Nauchniy dialog. Estestvoznanie. Ekologiya. Nauki o zemle, 3 (15), 94–108.
  41. Velychko, O. M., Hordienko, T. B., Kolomiets, L. V. (2014). Metodyka otsinky kompetentnosti ekspertiv z urakhuvanniam kharakterystyk nevyznachenosti danykh. Metallurh. y hornorud. prom-st., 3 (288), 135–137.
  42. Velychko, O., Gordiyenko, T. (2015). Evaluation of competence of the experts in field of metrology and instrumentations. XXI IMEKO World Congress “Measurement in research and industry”. Prague, Czech Republic, 5. doi: https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.1.2624.9365
  43. Velychko, O., Gordiyenko, T., Kolomiets, L. (2017). A comparative analysis of the assessment results of the competence of technical experts by different methods. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 4 (3 (88)), 4–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2017.106825
  44. Velychko, O. M., Hordienko, T. B., Haber, A. A., Kolomiets, L. V. (2014). Otsiniuvannia kompetentnosti ekspertiv u sferi vyshchoi osvity. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats ODATRIa, 2 (5), 32–37.
  45. Davydenko, Ye. O. (2012). Formalizatsiya protsesu formuvannia skladu ekspertnoi hrupy dlia analizu ryzykiv IT-proektiv. Vestnyk KhNTU, 1 (44), 163–168.
  46. Karatanov, A. V., Druzhinin, E. A. (2014). Informacionnye tekhnologii ekspertnogo ocenivaniya proektnyh resheniy pri formirovanii edinogo informacionnogo prostranstva. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats Kharkivskoho universytetu Povitrianykh Syl, 3 (40), 155–160.
  47. Kalinina, I. O., Hozhyi, O. P., Musenko, H. O. (2013). Vrakhuvannia kompetentnosti ekspertiv u metodakh bahatokryterialnoho analizu v zadachakh ratsionalnoho vyboru. Naukovi pratsi [Chornomorskoho derzhavnoho universytetu imeni Petra Mohyly]. Ser.: Kompiuterni tekhnolohiyi, 191 (179), 116–123.
  48. Leonov, V. V., Voronych, B. O. (2014). Metodyka otsinky kompetentnosti ekspertiv u protsesi rozrobky propozytsiy do prohramnykh dokumentiv. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats Tsentru voienno-stratehichnykh doslidzhen «Natsionalnoho universytetu oborony Ukrainy imeni Ivana Cherniakhovskoho, 3 (52).
  49. Rayhman, E. P., Azgal'dov, G. G. (1974). Ekspertnye metody v ocenke kachestva tovarov. Moscow: Ekonomika, 151.
  50. Podolianchuk, S. V. (2014). Vyznachennia kompetentnosti ekspertiv z otsiniuvannia naukovoi diyalnosti u vyshchomu pedahohichnomu navchalnomu zakladi. Teoriya i praktyka upravlinnia sotsialnymy systemamy, 4, 112–122.
  51. Hordienko, T. B., Velychko, O. M. (2014). Metodyka otsinky kompetentnosti ekspertiv iz zastosuvanniam metoda analizu ierarkhiy. Metallurg. i gornorud. prom-st', 2 (287), 86–89.
  52. Kadenko, S. V., Tsyhanok, V. V. (2017). Vyznachennia vidnosnoi kompetentnosti ekspertiv pid chas ahrehatsiyi parnykh porivnian. Reiestratsiya, zberihannia i obrobka danykh, 19 (2), 69–83.
  53. Polegen'ko, A. F., Knyazskiy, A. V. (2014). Ocenka otnositel'noy kompetentnosti ekspertov v ekspertnoy gruppe s ispol'zovaniem matric parnyh sravneniy. Ozbroiennia ta viyskova tekhnika, 3, 49–55.
  54. Kolpakova, T. A. (2011). Opredelenie kompetentnosti ekspertov pri prinyatii gruppovyh resheniy. Radioelektronika, informatyka, upravlinnia, 1, 40–43.
  55. Koczkodaj, W. W., Szybowski, J., Wajch, E. (2016). Inconsistency indicator maps on groups for pairwise comparisons. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 69, 81–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2015.11.007
  56. Popov, G. A., Popov, A. G. (2017). Rezul'tiruyushchaya ocenka pri nalichii neskol'kih variantov ocenivaniya na primere zadach informacionnoy bezopasnosti // Vestn. Astrahan. gos. tekhn. un-ta. Ser.: Upravlenie, vychislitel'naya tekhnika i informatika, 1, 48–61.
  57. Gucykova, S. V. (2011). Metod ekspertnyh ocenok. Teoriya i praktika. Moscow: In-t psihologii RAN, 144.
  58. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
  59. Zadeh, L. A. (1992). Knowledge Representation in Fuzzy Logic. An Introduction to Fuzzy Logic Applications in Intelligent Systems, 1–25. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3640-6_1
  60. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. N.-Y.: McGraw Hill, 288.
  61. Saaty, T. L. (2008). Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors the analytic hierarchy/network process. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Fisicas y Naturales. Serie A. Matematicas, 102 (2), 251–318. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03191825
  62. Podinovskiy, V. V., Podinovskaya O. V. (2011). O nekorrektnosti metoda analiza ierarhiy. Problemy upravleniya, 1, 8–13.
  63. Podinovskiy, V. V., Podinovskaya, O. V. (2012). Eshche raz o nekorrektnosti metoda analiza ierarhiy. Problemy upravleniya, 4, 75–78.
  64. Korobov, V. B., Tutygin, A. G. (2010). Preimushchestva i nedostatki metoda analiza ierarhiy. Izvestiya Rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A. I. Gercena, 122, 108–115.
  65. Kendall, M. G., Smith, B. B. (1939). The problem of m rankings. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 10, 275–287. doі: https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177732186
  66. Kendell, M. Dzh. (1975). Rangovye korrelyacii. Zarubezhnye statisticheskie issledovaniya. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo «Statistika», 216.
  67. Kobzar', A. I. (2006). Prikladnaya matematicheskaya statistika. Dlya inzhenerov i nauchnyh rabotnikov. Moscow: FIZMATLIT, 816.
  68. Orlov, A. I. (2015). Analiz ekspertnyh uporyadocheniy. Nauchniy zhurnal KubGAU, 112 (08). Available at: http://ej.kubagro.ru/2015/08/pdf/02.pdf
  69. Orlov, A. I. (2014). Noviy podhod k izucheniyu ustoychivosti vyvodov v matematicheskih modelyah. Politematicheskiy setevoy elektronnyy nauchniy zhurnal Kubanskogo gosudarstvennogo agrarnogo universiteta, 100, 146–176.
  70. Kemeni, Dzh., Snell, Dzh. (1972). Kiberneticheskoe modelirovanie: Nekotorye prilozheniya. Moscow: Sovetskoe radio, 192.
  71. Buharin, S. N., Divueva, N. A., Maryshev, E. A. (2014). Vybor rezul'tiruyushchego ranzhirovaniya v processe nauchno-tekhnicheskoy ekspertizy innovacionnyh proektov. Innovatika i ekspertiza, 1 (12), 114–120.
  72. Zhukov, M. S., Orlov, A. I. (2016). Zadacha issledovaniya itogovogo ranzhirovaniya mneniy gruppy ekspertov s pomoshch'yu mediany Kemeni. Nauchniy zhurnal KubGAU, 122 (08).
  73. Dvoenko S. D., Pshenichniy D. O., Popov A. V. (2017). Gruppovoe ranzhirovanie na osnove mediany Kemeni s metricheskimi svoystvami. Izvestiya Tul'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Tekhnicheskie nauki, 10, 11–24.
  74. Karatanov, A. V., Druzhinin, E. A. (2014). Informacionnye tekhnologii ekspertnogo ocenivaniya proektnyh resheniy pri formirovanii edinogo informacionnogo prostranstva. Zbirnyk naukovykh prats Kharkivskoho universytetu Povitrianykh Syl, 3, 155–160.
  75. Lazko, I. Shaping managerial system by quality in project with use the flexible modules. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 5 (2 (71)), 56–61. doi: https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2014.28336
  76. Lazko, I. (2018). Formation of quality management system rational model in projects. Proceedings XIV International Conference “Strategy of Quality in Industri and Education”. Varna, Bulgaria, 355–361.
  77. Schucany, W. R., Frawley, W. H. (1973). A rank test for two group concordance. Psychometrika, 38 (2), 249–258. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291117

Downloads

Published

2018-08-21

How to Cite

Lazko, I. (2018). Development of a method for ranking factors that influence the maturity of project quality management processes. Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 4(3 (94), 14–28. https://doi.org/10.15587/1729-4061.2018.140796

Issue

Vol. 4 No. 3 (94) (2018): Control processes

Section

Control processes

License

Copyright (c) 2018 Iryna Lazko

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The consolidation and conditions for the transfer of copyright (identification of authorship) is carried out in the License Agreement. In particular, the authors reserve the right to the authorship of their manuscript and transfer the first publication of this work to the journal under the terms of the Creative Commons CC BY license. At the same time, they have the right to conclude on their own additional agreements concerning the non-exclusive distribution of the work in the form in which it was published by this journal, but provided that the link to the first publication of the article in this journal is preserved.

A license agreement is a document in which the author warrants that he/she owns all copyright for the work (manuscript, article, etc.).
The authors, signing the License Agreement with TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC, have all rights to the further use of their work, provided that they link to our edition in which the work was published.
According to the terms of the License Agreement, the Publisher TECHNOLOGY CENTER PC does not take away your copyrights and receives permission from the authors to use and dissemination of the publication through the world's scientific resources (own electronic resources, scientometric databases, repositories, libraries, etc.).
In the absence of a signed License Agreement or in the absence of this agreement of identifiers allowing to identify the identity of the author, the editors have no right to work with the manuscript.
It is important to remember that there is another type of agreement between authors and publishers – when copyright is transferred from the authors to the publisher. In this case, the authors lose ownership of their work and may not use it in any way.