Maturity Model for Sustainability Assessment of Chemical Analyses Laboratories in Public Higher Education Institutions
<p>Research methodology [<a href="#B11-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">11</a>,<a href="#B12-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">12</a>,<a href="#B40-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">40</a>,<a href="#B41-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">41</a>,<a href="#B42-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">42</a>].</p> "> Figure 2
<p>Number of laboratory employees.</p> "> Figure 3
<p>Maturity models that are known by laboratory managers. (<b>a</b>) Private laboratories; (<b>b</b>) Public laboratories [<a href="#B11-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">11</a>,<a href="#B20-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">20</a>,<a href="#B40-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">40</a>,<a href="#B41-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">41</a>,<a href="#B60-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">60</a>].</p> "> Figure 4
<p>Perception of the relevance of adopting a maturity model.</p> "> Figure 5
<p>Classification of requirements according to relevance for the adoption of management systems (<b>a</b>) Public laboratories; (<b>b</b>) Private laboratories.</p> "> Figure 6
<p>Adoption of the ISO/IEC 17025 standard [<a href="#B40-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">40</a>] by laboratories.</p> "> Figure 7
<p>Reasons that make it difficult to implement one or more management systems.</p> "> Figure 8
<p>Practices, tools, and methods used in laboratory management classified from a strategic, tactical, and operational perspective. (<b>a</b>) Public laboratories; (<b>b</b>) Private laboratories.</p> "> Figure 9
<p>Importance vs Difficulty matrix of implementing the “Strategy” dimension. (<b>a</b>) Management team; (<b>b</b>) Technical team.</p> "> Figure 10
<p>Concept diagram of the maturity model.</p> "> Figure 11
<p>Evolution stages of the maturity model [<a href="#B11-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">11</a>,<a href="#B12-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">12</a>,<a href="#B40-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">40</a>,<a href="#B41-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">41</a>,<a href="#B42-sustainability-16-02137" class="html-bibr">42</a>].</p> ">
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
- Level of importance: 1-LOW IMPORTANCE, 2-IMPORTANT, 3-VERY IMPORTANT.
- Implementation difficulty level: 1-VERY EASY, 2-EASY, 3-MODERATE, 4-DIFFICULT, 5-VERY DIFFICULT.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Bibliographic Research
3.2. Field Research
3.3. Case Study (Focus Group)
- Fellows’ length of stay in projects: the short length of stay and high turnover affect service performance as there is a need for recurrent training of new members;
- Multipurpose laboratories (teaching, research, and services): in multipurpose laboratories, there is difficulty in implementing access controls necessary to comply with the ISO 17025 standard;
- Infrastructure adequacy: Some laboratories within universities need structural adjustments that make it challenging to establish material transport flows, another requirement of standard ISO 17025.
3.4. Maturity Model
4. Conclusions
4.1. Conclusions
4.2. Countermeasure
4.3. Limitations
4.4. Suggestions for Future Researchs
- Develop a measurement scale for the maturity model based on methods such as multi-criteria decision;
- Validate the proposed maturity model based on the evaluation of educational institutions’ laboratories (Benchmarking);
- Test and expand the model for laboratories with different characteristics from the research scope;
- Assessing the resilience of systems implemented for the maintenance of the laboratory sustainability;
- Evaluate the contribution of the proposed maturity model to the success of project submission (scientific production);
- Evaluate the costs of implementing one or more management systems based on the return on investment (ROI).
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Questionnaire Sent to Laboratory Managers
A maturity model can be understood as a tool that helps companies understand the quality of their processes and establishes gradual transition stages until a level considered to be excellent is reached. |
□ KMM | □ PM2 | □ MEG (PNQ) |
□ None | □ MMGP | □ CMM |
□ Others: | □ PMM | □ CMMI |
__________ | □ BPMM | □ QMMG |
□ OPM-3 | □ ISO 9004 |
- □
- Yes, which one? ______________
- □
- No
- □
- can’t say
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
2.3.1 | A Maturity Model applicable to the laboratory setting helps guide the gradual adoption of management practices to improve internal and external processes. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.3.2 | A Maturity Model applicable to the laboratory setting helps define differentiation strategies between competing laboratories, enabling market gains. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
2.4.1 | Identify all stakeholders in the laboratory’s activities and define their requirements for quality of services. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.2 | The laboratory recognizes the external and internal factors that may offer risks and opportunities for its work to continue. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.3 | Acknowledging the Value Chain and its respective processes linked to strategic indicators. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.4 | Definition of strategic information, processes, and stakeholders, selecting the most important ones for decision-making. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.5 | Establishment of relationship channels with stakeholders to handle requests, complaints, and suggestions. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.6 | Market analysis and segmentation. Definition of target customers and assessment of satisfaction, loyalty, and dissatisfaction. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.7 | Identification, selection, qualification, and performance evaluation of suppliers. Performance communication. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.8 | Selection and qualification of workers. Performance evaluation. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.9 | Treatment of health and safety hazards and risks. Promotion of improved quality of life, well-being, and satisfaction. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.10 | Identification of existing strengths and gaps in management. Definition of current and future competencies. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.11 | Identification, development, retention, and protection of knowledge. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.12 | Induction, development, and implementation of innovation. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.13 | Identification of capacity for change, including assessment of need and capacity for implementation. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.14 | Assessment of flexibility for changes, including review of strategies, goals, processes, and products at an appropriate time. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.15 | Definition of values, principles, guidelines, and standards of conduct. Ethical relationship with stakeholders. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.16 | Risk management, compliance with legal requirements, and transparency with stakeholders. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.17 | Mapping of organizational culture to implement strategies and practice values. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.18 | Performance analysis of indicators and monitoring of action plans and their resources | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.19 | Definition of leadership competencies and leader development. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.20 | Defining and monitoring economic-financial indicators, cost management, budget, and fiscal control. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.21 | Prevention, treatment, and monitoring of environmental impacts. Quick response to emergencies. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.22 | Prevention, mitigation, and monitoring of social impacts. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.23 | Implementation of information systems with the establishment of security requirements. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.24 | Mapping, analysis, and improvement of laboratory processes. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
2.4.25 | Identification of new product development opportunities | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
Management Systems can be understood as interrelated and interdependent management practices and methods with pre-defined objectives and goals that help companies continuously improve in managing specific areas, such as Quality, Environment, and others. |
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
3.1.1 | Adopting a certifiable Management System optimizes the laboratory’s internal processes. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
3.1.2 | Adopting a certifiable Management System enhances the contracting of new services by the laboratory. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
3.1.3 | Adopting a certifiable Management System leads to rigid laboratory internal processes. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
3.1.4 | Adopting a certifiable Management System increases laboratory operating costs. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
3.1.5 | Adopting a certifiable Management System increases the complexity of laboratory management. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
3.1.6 | Adopting a certifiable Management System requires hiring more professionals to deal with the documents generated by the system. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
3.1.7 | Adopting the ABNT NBR ISO 17025:2017 standard to improve the quality of operations, compared to what we currently have, is relevant to the laboratory. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
3.1.8 | Adopting the ABNT NBR ISO 9001:2015 standard for implementing a quality management system for internal processes, compared to what we currently have, is relevant to the laboratory. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
3.1.9 | Adopting the ABNT NBR ISO 14001:2015 standard for implementing an environmental management system for internal processes, compared to what we currently have, is relevant to the laboratory. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
3.1.10 | The adoption of the ABNT NBR ISO 45001:2017 standard for implementing an occupational health and safety management system for internal processes, compared to what we currently have, is relevant to the laboratory. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
3.1.11 | Compared to what we currently have, adopting the ABNT NBR ISO 31000:2018 standard for implementing a risk management system for internal processes is relevant to the laboratory. | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
- □
- Statement of Impartiality (Document)
- □
- Statement of Reliability (Document)
- □
- Documentation of laboratory activities
- □
- Skills requirements for roles (Document)
- □
- Equipment Calibration Program
- □
- Equipment Operation and Maintenance Procedures
- □
- Monitoring and control of environmental conditions and facilities
- □
- Metrological Traceability
- □
- Documented, updated, and validated methods and procedures
- □
- Laboratory management software
- □
- Analysis of risks and opportunities
- □
- Critical orders analysis
- □
- Critical analysis of the results
- □
- Critical analysis of non-conformities
- □
- Others: ____________
Quality | Environment | Occupational Health and Safety | Risks and Opportunities | Does Not Adopt | |
Management manual | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
Policy | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
Goals and objectives | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
Written instructions and procedures | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
Performance indicators | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
Scheduled inspections | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
Audits | δ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
Certified | Certification in Progress | With the Implementation in Progress | Does Not Have | |
ABNT NBR ISO 17025:2017 | δ | δ | δ | δ |
ABNT NBR ISO 9001:2015 | δ | δ | δ | δ |
ABNT NBR ISO 14001:2015 | δ | δ | δ | δ |
ABNT NBR ISO 45001:2018 | δ | δ | δ | δ |
ABNT NBR ISO 31000:2018 | δ | δ | δ | δ |
Others: _______________ | δ | δ | δ | δ |
- □
- Lack of Human Resources
- □
- Lack of Financial Resources
- □
- Lack of infrastructure
- □
- Institution regulations
- □
- Uncertainty regarding return on investment
- □
- Low interest from management
- □
- Employee resistance to change
- □
- Others: ____________
□ Determining customer requirements | □ 5S Program |
□ Measuring customer satisfaction | □ FMEA |
□ Others: ____________ | □ Process Mapping |
□ Process Quality Control |
□ 3R/5R Program | □ Effluent treatment |
□ Assessment of Environmental Aspects and Impacts | □ Conscious consumption (water/energy) |
□ Others: ____________ | □ Waste sorting |
□ Proper waste disposal |
- □
- Good Laboratory Practices—GLP
- □
- Chemical Compatibility Chart
- □
- Labeling System
- □
- PPE training
- □
- Risk Management Program—RMP
- □
- Environmental Risk Prevention Program—PPRA
- □
- Occupational Health Medical Control Program—PCMSO
- □
- Fire prevention and fire fighting measures
- □
- Hazard and Risk Assessment
- □
- Others: ____________
- □
- Brainstorming
- □
- Checklists
- □
- Preliminary Risk Analysis—PRA
- □
- Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points—HACCP
- □
- Failure Modes and Effects Analysis—FMEA
- □
- Reliability Centered Maintenance—RCM
- □
- Cause and Effect Analysis
- □
- Probability and Consequences Matrix
- □
- Others: ____________
|
References
- Domingues, J.P.T.; Sampaio, P.; Arezes, P.M. Latest developments aiming an integrated management systems tool focusing maturity assessment. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Hong Kong, China, 12 December 2012; pp. 2063–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karapetrovic, S. Strategies for the integration of management systems and standards. TQM Mag. 2002, 14, 61–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, S.X.; Xie, X.M.; Tam, C.M.; Shen, L.Y. An empirical examination of benefits from implementing integrated management systems (IMS). Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 2011, 22, 173–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jørgensen, T.H.; Remmen, A.; Mellado, M.D. Integrated management systems—Three different levels of integration. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 713–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, S.X.; Shi, J.J.; Lou, G.X. A synergetic model for implementing an integrated management system: An empirical study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1760–1767. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernardo, M.; Casadesus, M.; Karapetrovic, S.; Heras, I. Do integration difficulties influence management system integration levels? J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 21, 23–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernardo, M.; Casadesus, M. Management Systems: Integration degrees—Empirical study. In Proceedings of the 11th QMOD Conference, Helsingborg, Suécia, 22 August 2008; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266879882 (accessed on 2 August 2023).
- Karapetrovic, S.; Casadesús, M. Implementing environmental with other standardized management systems: Scope, sequence, time and integration. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 533–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karapetrovic, S.; Asif, M.; Bruijn, E.J.; Fisscher, O.A.M.; Searcy, C. Meta-management of integration of management systems. TQM J. 2010, 22, 570–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampaio, P.; Saraiva, P.; Domingues, J.P.T. Management systems: Integration or addition? Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2012, 29, 402–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ABNT NBR ISO 9001; Sistemas de Gestão da Qualidade—Requisitos. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, ABNT: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 2015. Available online: https://portal.fiocruz.br/sites/portal.fiocruz.br/files/documentos_2/nbriso9001.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2023).
- ABNT NBR ISO 31000; Gestão de Riscos—Diretrizes. 2rd ed, Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, ABNT: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 2018. Available online: https://dintegcgcin.saude.gov.br/attachments/download/23/2018%20-%20Diretrizes%20-%20Gest%C3%A3o%20de%20Riscos_ABNT%20NBR%20ISO%2031000.pdf (accessed on 22 November 2023).
- Domingues, J.P.T. Sistemas de Gestão Integrados: Desenvolvimento de um Modelo Para Avaliação do Nível de Maturidade. Tese de Doutorado, Universidade de Minho, Minho, Portugal, 2013. Available online: https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/28830 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Nunhes, T.V.; Bernardo, M.; Oliveira, O.J. Guiding principles of integrated management systems: Towards unifying a starting point for researchers and practitioners. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 210, 977–993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Poltronieri, C.F.; Ganga, G.M.D.; Gerolamo, M.C. Maturity in management system integration and its relationship with sustainable performance. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 207, 236–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wendler, R. The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Inf. Software Tech. 2012, 54, 13171339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pöppelbuß, J.; Röglinger, M. What makes a useful maturity model? A framework of general design principles for maturity models and its demonstration in business process management. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Helsinque, Finlândia, 11 June 2011; Volume 19, p. 28. Available online: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2011/28/ (accessed on 2 November 2023).
- The EFQM Model. Available online: https://efqm.org/the-efqm-model/ (accessed on 23 May 2023).
- Fundação Nacional da Qualidade (FNQ). Modelo de Excelência em Gestão—MEG; Fundação Nacional da Qualidade—FNQ: São Paulo, Brazil, 2016; Available online: https://adm.fnq.org.br/aprenda/metodologia-meg/modelo-de-excelencia-da-gestao (accessed on 10 March 2023).
- ABNT NBR ISO 9004; Qualidade de uma Organização—Orientação para Alcançar o Sucesso Sustentado. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, ABNT: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2019.
- Domingues, P.; Sampaio, P.; Arezes, P.M. Integrated management systems assessment: A maturity model proposal. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 124, 164–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Santos, Â.R.S.; de Melo, R.M.; Clemente, T.R.N.; Machado Santos, S. Integrated management system: Methodology for maturity assessment in food industries. Benchmarking 2022, 29, 1757–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Machado, C.G.; Pinheiro De Lima, E.; Gouvea Da Costa, S.E.; Angelis, J.J.; Mattioda, R.A. A Maturity Framework for Sustainable Operations Management. 2015. Available online: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84949655302&partnerID=40&md5=c62930647315461447acde17d1395c7f (accessed on 2 January 2024).
- Filho, A.P.G.; Andrade, J.C.S.; de Marinho, M.M.O. A safety culture maturity model for petrochemical companies in Brazil. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 615–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goncalves Filho, A.P.; Waterson, P. Maturity models and safety culture: A critical review. Saf. Sci. 2018, 105, 192–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Isaksson, R. A proposed preliminary maturity grid for assessing sustainability reporting based on quality management principles. TQM J. 2019, 31, 451–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schröder, I.; Huang, D.Y.Q.; Ellis, O.; Gibson, J.H.; Wayne, N.L. Laboratory safety attitudes and practices: A comparison of academic, government, and industry researchers. J. Chem. Health Saf. 2023, 23, 12–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tauchen, J.; Brandli, L.L. Environmental management in higher-education institutions: A model for implementation at a university campi. Gestão E Produção 2006, 13, 503–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Serafini, P.G.; de Moura, J.M.; de Almeida, M.R.; de Rezende JF, D. Sustainable Development Goals in Higher Education Institutions: A systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 370, 133473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brasil, Presidência da República, 2016. Lei nº. 13.243, 11 de Janeiro de 2016. Available online: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2015-2018/2016/Lei/L13243.htm (accessed on 23 November 2023).
- Rauen, C.V. The new legal framework of innovation in Brazil: What changes in the STI-enterprise relation? Radar Tec. Prod. E Comér. Ext. 2016, 43, 21–35. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, C.; Jin, S. What drives sustainable development of enterprises? focusing on ESG management and green technology innovation. Sustainbility 2022, 14, 11695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deng, J.; Su, C.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, X.; Jia-yi, M.A.; Wang, C. Evolutionary game analysis of chemical enterprises’ emergency management investment decision under dynamic reward and punishment mechanism. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2024, 87, 2–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belezia, L.C. Modelo de Autoavaliação para Laboratórios de Ensaio e Calibração Baseado na Norma ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025:2017. Dissertação de Mestrado, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Gerônimo, B.M. Modelo de Maturidade de Sistema de Gestão Integrado para Laboratórios de Ensaio e Calibração. Tese de Doutorado, Universidade Tecnológica Federal do Paraná, Ponta Grossa, Brasil, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- González, M.O.A.; Toledo, J.C. A integração do cliente no processo de desenvolvimento de produto: Revisão bibliográfica sistemática e temas para pesquisa. Produção 2012, 22, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barbour, R. Grupos Focais; Artmed: Porto Alegre, RS, Brasil, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Gil, A.C. Métodos e Técnicas de Pesquisa Social, 6th ed.; Atlas: São Paulo, SP, Brasil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Lakatos, E.M.; Marconi, M.A. Fundamentos de Metodologia Científica, 7th ed.; Atlas: São Paulo, SP, Brasil, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- ABNT NBR ISO 17025; Requisitos Gerais para a Competência de Laboratórios de Ensaio e Calibração. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, ABNT: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 2017.
- ABNT NBR ISO 14001; Sistemas da Gestão Ambiental Requisitos com Orientações para uso. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, ABNT: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 2015.
- ABNT NBR ISO 45001; Sistemas de gestão de saúde e segurança ocupacional—Requisitos com orientação para uso. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, ABNT: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 2018.
- ABNT NBR OHSAS 18001; Saúde e Segurança Ocupacional. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, ABNT: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 1999.
- Resolução no 378, de 09 de maio de 2016; Disponivel: Ministério da Educação, Brasil; 2016. Available online: http://portal.mec.gov.br/secretaria-de-regulacao-e-supervisao-da-educacao-superior-seres/30000-uncategorised/67781-portarias-2016-legislacao-e-atos-normativos-setec (accessed on 24 November 2023).
- Maier, A.; Moultrie, J.; Clarkson, P. Assessing organizational capabilities: Reviewing and guiding the development of maturity grids. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2012, 59, 138–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pedro, E.; Leitão, J.; Alves, H. The intellectual capital of higher education institutions. J. Intellect. Cap. 2019, 20, 355–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alonso-Almeida, M.; Marimon, F.; Casani, F. Diffusion of sustainability reporting in universities: Current situation and future perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 106, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Nadae, J.; Carvalho, M.M.; Vieira, D.R. Integrated management systems as a driver of sustainability performance: Exploring evidence from multiple-case studies. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2020, 38, 800–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Honsa, J.D.; McIntyre, D.A. ISO 17025: Benefícios práticos da implementação de um sistema de qualidade. J. AOAC Int. 2003, 86, 1038–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kodydková, J.; Vávrová, L.; Zeman, M.; Jirák, R.; Macášek, J.; Staňková, B.; Tvrzická, E. Quality management systems in radiochemistry and radiopharmacy—Applications in academy and industry. Rev. Bioquí. Clin. 2009, 42, 1368–1374. [Google Scholar]
- Gimeno, C. Systems of quality management in clinical laboratories: Certification and accreditation. Enferm. Infec. E Microb. Clínica. 2003, 21, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Barradas, J.; Sampaio, P. ISO 9001 and ISO/IEC 17025. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2017, 34, 406–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guzel, O.; Guner, E.I. Acreditação ISO 15189: Requisitos de qualidade e competência de laboratórios médicos, experiência de um laboratório I. Rev. Clín. Bioquí. 2009, 42, 274–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peric, V.; Jaric, D.; Ketin, S.; Konicanin, A.; Biocanin, R. Quality of control of clinical-biochemical laboratories—Serbian case. Open Access Maced. J. Med. Sci. 2014, 2, 219–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biasini, V. Implementation of a quality management system in a public research centre. Accred. Qual. Assur. 2012, 17, 621–626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ABNT NBR ISO 26000; Diretrizes Sobre Responsabilidade Social. Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas, ABNT: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 2010.
- Valcárcel, M.; Lucena, R. Synergistic relationships between analytical chemistry and written standards. A Chim. Acta 2013, 788, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bernardo, M. Integration of management systems as an innovation: A proposal for a new model. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 82, 132–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gerônimo, B.M.; Lenzi, G.G. Maturity models for testing and calibration laboratories: A systematic literature review. Sustainbility 2023, 15, 3480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ISO 17034; General Requirements for the Competence of Reference Material Producers. International Organization for Standardization, ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
- Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte (UFRN). Plano de Desenvolvimento Institucional 2019–2023; UFRN: Natal, RN, Brasil, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Xavier, A.F. Proposta de um Modelo de Maturidade para Avaliação das Práticas de Eco-Inovação nas Organizações: Eco-mi; UFRJ: Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil, 2017. [Google Scholar]
Step 1 | |
Maturity Model AND Chemical | (“Maturity Model” AND “Chemical”) OR (“Maturity Model” AND “Chemistry”) |
Maturity Model AND Chemistry | |
Step 2 | |
ISO 17025 AND ISO 9001 | (“ISO 17025” AND “ISO 9001”) OR (“ISO 17025” AND “ISO 31000”) OR (“ISO 17025” AND “ISO 45001”) OR (“ISO 17025” AND “ISO 14001”) OR (“ISO 17025” AND “OHSAS 18001”) |
ISO 17025 AND ISO 31000 | |
ISO 17025 AND ISO 45001 | |
ISO 17025 AND ISO 14001 | |
ISO 17025 AND OHSAS 18001 | |
Step 3 | |
Maturity Model AND ISO 9001 | (“Maturity Model” AND “ISO 9001”) OR (“Maturity Model” AND “ISO 17025” OR (“Maturity Model” AND “ISO 31000”) OR (“Maturity Model” AND “ISO 45001”) OR (“Maturity Model” AND “ISO 14001”) OR (“Maturity Model” AND “OHSAS 18001”) |
Maturity Model AND ISO 17025 | |
Maturity Model AND ISO 31000 | |
Maturity Model AND ISO 45001 | |
Maturity Model AND ISO 14001 | |
Maturity Model AND OHSAS 18001 | |
Step 4 | |
Maturity Model AND OHS | (“Maturity Model” AND “OHS”) OR (“Maturity Model” AND “QMS”) OR (“Maturity Model” AND “Sustainable Development”) |
Maturity Model AND QMS | |
Maturity Model e Sustainable Development | |
Step 5 | |
Maturity Model AND Integrated Management Systems | (“Maturity Model” AND “Integrated Management Systems”) |
Dimensions | Subdimension | Management Practices | First Version Level | Validated Practice | Validated Level | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MM Level | Preparation Level | MM Level | Preparation Level | ||||||
1. Strategy | Initial diagnosis | PE | 1.5 | The laboratory has identified stakeholders’ quality, safety, and environmental requirements. | N5 | N2 | ok | ok | N1 |
PE | 1.8 | The laboratory recognizes the Hazards and Safety Risks of its operations. | N5 | N2 | ok | ok | N1 |
Assumptions | Justifications |
---|---|
Use the ISO standards structure to build the maturity model. | Field research revealed that the ISO 9004 standard is the best-known model for participants. Affinity with the terms of the normative requirements and the ISO standards structure facilitates understanding and model acceptance. “All requirements in this Standard are generic and intended to apply to all organizations, regardless of their type, size, and the product and service they provide” [11] (p. 3). |
Start implementation using the ISO 17025 standard, followed by ISO 9001. | Field research revealed that they are the most relevant standards for laboratories on a scale of priorities. “The implementation of an IMS is less bureaucratic when companies already have at least one QMS implemented […]” [13] (p. 34). |
Deployments must occur in a sequenced manner (Step-by-Step). | Field research revealed that the laboratories’ main complaints refer to resource constraints. |
Implementing the requirements in the ISO 31000 standard must be carried out in conjunction with the ISO 9001 standard. | “[…] a risk management approach must accompany the implementation of an IMS, this being the integrating factor and the OHSMS being the pivot management subsystem, removing the focus from the QMS. Implicitly or explicitly, risk analysis is present in all subsystem references.” [13] (p. 23). |
There is no certification requirement to change levels. | The standards are not compulsory but operate by adhesion. Certification requires periodic maintenance of certificates. The decision for certification should consider a cost-benefit analysis. |
Management systems with fully integrated documents. | “[…] when systems are implemented in an integrated way and within a strategic and systemic vision, benefits are increased because processes are optimized […])”. [13] (p. 34). Improving system integration contributes to Sustainability and points to building ways to bring system maturity to higher levels. [15]. Investment in management systems improved the performance of companies’ economic, social, and environmental aspects (TBL) [48]. |
Preferred focus on internal and external processes. | Field research revealed that using management systems in university laboratories has a more excellent perception of relevance for improving internal and external processes. “Internal or predominantly internal motivations are the “driving force” that leads companies to integrate their management subsystems” [13] (p. 24). |
The model has 6 (six) maturity levels. | Creating Level 0 resulted from adjustments to the levels of preparation of management practices arising from the experience of the laboratory’s management and operation team. |
Dimensions | Subdimension | Management Practices | MM Level | Preparation Level | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. Strategy | Initial diagnosis | PE | 1.1 | The laboratory recognizes the external and internal factors that may offer risks and opportunities for its work to continue. | N3 | N2 |
PE | 1.2 | The laboratory has its macro processes mapped and linked to the value chain. | N3 | N2 | ||
PE | 1.3 | The laboratory has identified all stakeholders. | N3 | N2 | ||
PE | 1.4 | The laboratory has an established organizational identity with a vision, mission, and values. | N2 | N1 | ||
PE | 1.5 | The laboratory has identified the quality, safety, and environmental requirements of stakeholders. | N5 | N1 | ||
PE | 1.6 | The laboratory recognizes the critical success factors for the quality of its operations. | N2 | N1 | ||
PE | 1.7 | The laboratory recognizes its operations’ environmental aspects and impacts based on the life cycle of its services. | N4 | N3 | ||
PE | 1.8 | The laboratory recognizes the hazards and safety risks of its operations. | N5 | N1 | ||
Strategy Formulation | PE | 1.9 | The laboratory’s strategic planning considers the institution’s PDI guidelines. | N3 | N2 | |
PE | 1.10 | The laboratory considers the requirements of impartiality and confidentiality when formulating its strategy. | N2 | N1 | ||
PE | 1.11 | The laboratory considers stakeholder requirements in formulating the strategy. | N2 | N1 |
Dimensions | STARTED | SUITABLE | DIFFERENTIATED | MANAGED | INTEGRATED | MAINTAINED |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 | Level 5 | |
1. Strategy | At this level, the laboratory is at the beginning of its operations. It has no defined strategic actions, just routine operations. | At this level, the laboratory has not yet defined strategic actions, but it is starting to develop its mission, vision, and values. It also initiates the recognition and involvement of interested parties in the implementation and (subsequent) integration processes, the analysis of the critical success factors, and acknowledges OHS risks and hazards in its operations. | The laboratory’s operational activities are based on the ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025 standard. It also has a mission, vision, values, critical success factors, requirements for reliability and impartiality, and stakeholders linked to its strategy. At this level, the laboratory starts (among other activities) to recognize external and internal factors that affect it, links the macro processes mapped to its value chain, and integrates systems beginning at the highest level. | At Level 3, the laboratory is certified (or operates) according to the ABNT NBR ISO 9001 standard, is accredited according to the ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025 standard, and operates according to the requirements of the ABNT NBR ISO 31000 standard. At this level, the laboratory considers aspects of quality and risk when formulating its strategy and has strategic indicators linked to microprocessors. At this level, the laboratory also begins to survey the environmental aspects and impacts of its operations based on the life cycle of its services. It begins to develop its environmental management system. | At Level 4, the laboratory is accredited (or operates) according to the ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025 standard. It is certified or operates according to standards ABNT NBR ISO 9001, ABNT NBR ISO 31000, and ABNT NBR ISO 14001. The laboratory recognizes its operations’ environmental aspects and impacts and considers environmental aspects when formulating the strategy. At this level, the laboratory uses the recognition of hazards and risks to begin implementing the OHS management system. | At Level 5, the laboratory is accredited according to the ABNT NBR ISO/IEC 17025 standard. It is certified or operates according to standards ABNT NBR ISO 9001, ABNT NBR ISO 31000, ABNT NBR ISO 45001, and ABNT NBR ISO 14001. The laboratory recognizes the hazards and risks of its operations and considers OHS aspects when formulating its strategy. |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Souza, M.A.; González, M.O.A.; Pinho, A.L.S.d. Maturity Model for Sustainability Assessment of Chemical Analyses Laboratories in Public Higher Education Institutions. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052137
Souza MA, González MOA, Pinho ALSd. Maturity Model for Sustainability Assessment of Chemical Analyses Laboratories in Public Higher Education Institutions. Sustainability. 2024; 16(5):2137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052137
Chicago/Turabian StyleSouza, Marco Antonio, Mario Orestes Aguirre González, and André Luís Santos de Pinho. 2024. "Maturity Model for Sustainability Assessment of Chemical Analyses Laboratories in Public Higher Education Institutions" Sustainability 16, no. 5: 2137. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16052137