Issues surrounding the implementation of Quality Management Systems

Issues surrounding the implementation of Quality Management Systems
M20AAE Assessment Question One – Case Study – Issues surrounding the implementation of Quality Management Systems
NOTE! This item of work must be your own creation. Any instances of plagiarism will be dealt with very severely.


For the first part of assignment you are required to work in groups of maximum 5 people in order to prepare a poster/ppt and present your findings to the class during the session on Monday 22nd February 2016.

Poster/ppt (electronic version in word or power point) and your presentation must be submitted via Moodle (including turnitin report) before 11.50pm on Sunday 21nd February 2016 (one copy per group).
The slides/poster must include comments in the notes section and a reference slide which must follow the Coventry University Harvard Reference system.
You must use a MINIMUM of NINE references which must consist of at least 3 websites; 3 journal articles and 3 books.

The presentation will last for 10 minutes +/- 30seconds and it is expected that all members of the group will present. (At Masters Level it is considered reading from slides or notes is not acceptable).

Second part of assessment is an individual piece of work and thus must be unique. This assessment requires you to revisit material, covered in quality part of this module as well as own research, and critically analyse and evaluate the case study provided.

This is a post graduate level assessment and as such should contain relevant academic references to support your discussion/arguments.

It is estimated that you should spend approximately 60-70 hours on this assignment.

Marking scheme

100-70% – Outstanding: An exceptional level of ability. No weaknesses.
69-60% – Very Good: A high level of ability, no major weaknesses. Clear understanding of the project brief.
59-50% – Good: Overall good level of ability. Weakness in some areas offset by strengths in others.
49-40% – Fair: Overall minimum standard achieved. There may be competence in some aspects, but performance may be below standard on other aspects.
<40% – Unsatisfactory: Most aspects below the required standard. There are serious shortcomings in coverage, content and approach.

Short Case Study
‘Cooke and Lewis Laboratory’

Cooke and Lewis Laboratory provide analytical testing and calibration for the pharmaceutical and manufacturing industry. The laboratory has a reputation for the excellence of its equipment and services, and has become a market leader in this rapidly growing testing sector.

In recent years, Cooke and Lewis have opened new high specification laboratories in the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain and Norway. This has enabled Cooke and Lewis laboratory to extend its geographic coverage from its original United Kingdom base to cover large sections of Western Europe.

As the business has become larger and more complex, the demands placed on the organisation systems have also become greater, reinforcing the need for functional specialisation of equipment and staff, yet requiring more inter location understanding and cooperation.

When it became clear that the Cooke and Lewis amenity package could be copied by competitors eager to attract the premium customer base, the company decided to reinforce quality at every stage in their processes. This was, they believed, the main criterion that already differentiated Cooke and Lewis laboratory, and this was also potentially the most difficult strategy for lower priced competitors to follow.

A consultant was brought in to recommend a bespoke quality management system and facilitate a major quality improvement program. This was considered as a ‘top-down’ approach, whereby important projects were identified and tackled by trained teams.

Soon it became apparent that these early projects were not achieving the anticipated sustainable improvements. It also became clear that the failure was largely the result of only involving senior managers, who could not devote the time required to projects and did not fully understand the whole process. Those employees who did have a very detailed understanding of the process had been excluded from problem definition, evaluation and implementation of changes.

Reconsideration was made at this stage and the company re-launched their quality management system (QMS) initiative. Each department established a quality steering committee which comprised at least one director, a trained facilitator and volunteers from every grade of employee.

The emphasis at this stage was on the identification and improvement of internal processes with further emphasis on satisfying the internal customer. Early success demonstrated the validity of this approach and generated a high level of enthusiasm throughout the company.


1. Evaluate the differences between the first and the second attempt at establishing a quality initiative and clearly state the main advantages and problems with both approaches.

2. Select a quality management system (QMS) that you are familiar with which you feel is best suited for the Cooke and Lewis organisation. Clearly justify why you have selected the specific QMS.

3. Using the QMS you selected in Question 2 clearly define the key steps required to implement and gain approval to that QMS. Critically analyse the issues involved with the implementation process.

4. Discuss different quality improvement tools (for example Benchmarking, DMAIC, Problem solving tools Process Model etc.) that can be used and implemented in this organisation. Critically analyse and evaluate each of the chosen tools.
(60% mark)

5. With the help of a comparison table and appropriate justification decide which other tools/ systems you could have used and which will be most suitable for the organization and its supply partners.

6. Discuss the benefits (direct and indirect) the organisation mentioned in case study, could gain when using the chosen quality tools/ model. (You can use SWOT, GAP or other here.)
(40% mark)

Please be advised that 10% of the assessment marks can be deducted for incorrect format, not referencing via CU Harvard system and the use of appropriate irrelevant business language for both presentation and individual report.
Individual part of assessment to be submitted to Moodle on Monday 29th February 2016 by 23.50pm (including Turn-it-in review) – use the link provided on your module page.

Please note any late assignments will receive a mark of zero