ISO 9001: 2000/2008 AND LEAN-SIX SIGMA INTEGRATION TOWARD TO CMMI-DEV FOR PERFORMANCE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

8 th International Conference of Modeling and Simulation - MOSIM 10 - May 10-12, 2010 - Hammamet - Tunisia Evaluation and optimization of innovative production systems of goods and services ISO 9001: 2000/2008 AND LEAN-SIX SIGMA INTEGRATION TOWARD TO CMMI-DEV FOR PERFORMANCE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT CH. CHINVIGAI, E. DAFAOUI, A. EL MHAMEDI MGSI - Université Paris 8 93100 Montreuil - France ccg.chatchawan@gmail.com, e.dafaoui@iut.univ-paris8.fr, a.elmhamedi@iut.univ-paris8.fr ABSTRACT: The aim of this paper is to propose an approach that integrates ISO 9001 and Lean-Si Sigma (LSS) into CMMI-DEV for performance improvement. Both ISO 9001 and CMMI-DEV are framework guidance that allows enterprise to meet customer requirements and satisfactions. Si Sigma emphasizes on variation reduction in es by problem solving and statistical tools while Lean focuses on eliminating source of wastes and non-value added. However, there is a lack of providing pattern how to implement ISO 9001 and statistical analysis tools for collecting data in CMMI-DEV. Furthermore, it is necessary to integrate them for enhancing performance of. The proposed approach assists ISO certified enterprise who desires to also use CMMI-DEV to get a better understanding of the principles and correlation between ISO9001and CMMI-DEV. In the proposed framework, LSS tool is used to carry out into DMAIC as well as DMAIC-Kaizen approach. An application case study is presented to demonstrate the capability of this approach. KEYWORDS: ISO9001: 2000 and 2008, CMMI-DEV, DMAIC-Kaizen, Lean-Si Sigma (LSS) 1 INTRODUCTION The goal of enterprises emphasize on improving product and service quality including cost reduction and faster delivery to meet customer requirements and gain their satisfaction. It is necessary to adopt appropriately methods such as Lean, ISO 9001:2000/2008, Si Sigma, CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration), etc. the reason of the successful stories worldwide. These methods are focused on performance improvement. The similarities and differences principles among ISO 9001:2000, Lean, Si Sigma and CMMI-DEV are presented by Chinvigai et al., (2007 & 2009). Comprehension of these principles through limitation can help us to develop an approach for enhancing improvement. ISO 9001 is the most popular approach that is implemented widely in many enterprises during the last two decade as well as Lean and Si Sigma. Currently, CMMI-DEV has been increasingly applied to enterprises. As result, they provide benefits on project performance, quality of products and services, particularly customer satisfaction [Marçal, 2008]. The claim that Si Sigma (introduced by Mikel Harry in the late 1980s) and Lean (introduced by Taiichi Ohno in the 1940s) have a complementary relationship is universally accepted [Elhaik & Al-aomar, 2006]. Lean is focused on eliminating or reducing waste (muda) and improving flow by continuous improvement principles while Si Sigma is focused on reducing variation and improving by problem solving and statistical tools [Arnheiter & Maleyeff, 2005]. However, Lean is not realistic in the measure phase, nor analyze phase of DMAIC, while Si Sigma alone cannot dramatically improve speed or reduce invested capital [Chinvigai et al., 2007 & 2009; George, 2002 and McCarty et al., 2006]. ISO 90001 is a standard requirement for quality management systems while CMMI-DEV is a best practice for development and maintenance es. The aim of both approaches focuses on the same way and the main contets of both are slightly similar to describe what to do rather than how to do. Large enterprises i.e. GE, Motorola, Ford, Xero, Sony, Honeywell have successfully implemented these methodologies. SMEs, however are only interested in ISO 9001 in particular because the implementation of these methodologies are high cost and time consuming. In addition, customers requirement on supplier s compulsory qualification on ISO certification. That s the reason why SMEs are only interested to implement ISO9001 rather than other approaches. On factual note, SMEs need to integrate these approaches to improve their product quality like the large enterprises. Numerous literatures have suggested that Si Sigma that is a good choice to integrate with other methods [Wessel & Burcher, 2004]. Comparison between ISO 9001 and CMMI-DEV has shown that enterprises are able to decrease the period of implementation. In addition, we propose the model of intergraded approach: ISO 9001:2000 Lean Si Sigma CMMI-DEV. DMAIC-Kaizen approaches are integrated for driving in the phase of epansion from ISO 9001 to CMMI-DEV. This proposed approach might be able to improve further the performance of es and

interactions. This paper will also help ISO certified enterprise to comprehen how to epand ISO 9001 to CMMI-DEV. The remaining of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 represents a review of related approach. Section 3 focuses on developed approach that is elaborated from integration in pervious section. An application of case study is presented in section 4 and followed by the conclusion is the last section. 2 REVIEW OF RELATED APPROACH 2.1 ISO9001:2000 and ISO9001: 2008 Many enterprises including SMEs have been implementing ISO9001:2000. However, ISO 9001 new version as ISO 9001:2008 is already available which was published on November 2008. In particular also ISO9001:2000 certificates will become invalid on November 15, 2010. Thus, the enterprises must convert to this new version. The principle ISO 9001 between two versions: 2008 and 2000 are not changed. ISO 9001:2008 has little or minor changes from ISO 9001:2000. No new requirement and no significant change rather than the clarification of some points in requirement contets. In addition, the new version has the compatibility ISO 14001: 2004 as the Environmental Management Specification standard. We can identify the similarities and differences between ISO 9001 version 2000 and 2008 that is represented in Table 1. ISO 9001 2000 2008 Publication - Will be invalid on November 15, 2010 - Published on November 15, 2008 - All audits must be performed this version on November 15, 2009 Principle - Process approach and PDCA - Apply QMS to meet objective: customer requirement and satisfaction - Enhance to clarity and consistency with ISO 14001: 2004. Require- - No new requirements is added: clause 4 8 ments Minor Changed - Clarify some of point in requirements - - Emphasize the important of on the desired outputs. - Respect business environment that influence the design and QMS. - Clarify some of point in some requirements i.e. the outsourcing. Table 1: comparison between ISO 9001: 2000 and 2008 Furthermore, this standard still focused on four main types of es: management ; production ; measurement and resources. It stills emphasize on the quality management system to meet customer requirement and satisfaction, to manage es through interaction of es by continuously improving principle in particularly, the eight principles of quality management system: customer focus; leadership; involvement of people; approach; system approach to management; continual improvement; factual approach to decision making and mutually beneficial supplier relationship. To implement ISO 9001:2008, enterprises need to understand and drive to meet ISO requirements; create value-added for performance improvement. 2.2 CMMI-DEV CMMI-DEV is based on approach and constituted with 22 areas. It is a group of related activities performed collectively to achieve a set of goal. Process areas cover four categories: management, project management, engineering and support. CMMI-DEV is available in two representations for improvement: continuous and staged. The continuous representation focuses on area capability as measure by capability levels whereas the staged representation focuses on organizational maturity as measured by maturity levels [Chrissis M. B. et al., 2003; Persse, 2006; SEI, 2006]. A continuous representation gives enterprises the fleibility to select areas that they need to improve (individual or group of area) while a staged representation applies to the enterprise s es improvement cut across multiple area. The advantages of each representation are represented in Table 2. Continuous Representation Staged Representation 5. Optimizing 5. Optimizing 4. Quantitatively managed 4. Quantitatively managed 3. Defined 3. Defined 2. Managed 2. Managed 1. Performed 1. Initial 0. Incomplete 0. N/A - Optimize capability levels - Optimize maturity levels - Unable apply to individual - Unable to apply across areas. multiple areas. - Allow improvements of - Summarizes improvement results in a different es to be performed at different rates simple form a single maturity level number Table 2: Comparison of Continuous and Staged representation Based on continuous representation of CMMI-DEV that consists of si capability levels: incomplete, performed, managed, defined, quantitatively managed and optimizing. The capability dimension directly concerns two components: generic goal (GG) and generic practice (GP). A generic goal (GG) describes the characteristics that must be presented to institutionalize the es that implement a area while a generic practice (GP) is an epected model component. GP provides the description of an activity that is considered important in achieving the associated generic goal. Summary of generic goal (GG) and generic practice (GP) in each capability level are represented in Table 3.

Generic gold Focus on Generic practices GG 1: Achieve specific To accomplishes the work GP 1.1: Develop work product and provide services. goals necessary to produce work. GG 2: Institutionalize a managed GG 3:Institutionalize a defined GG 4: Institutionalize a quantitatively managed GG 5:Institutionalize an optimizing To maintain, monitor and review the resources, people, output that accomplish produce products. To establish organizational standardization and deployment of the es. To control quality and by using statistical and other quantitative techniques. To contribute continuous improvement innovation to meeting quality and performance. GP 2.1: Establish an organizational policy. GP 2.2: Establish and maintain the plan for performing the. GP 2.3: Provide adequate resources for performing the, and providing the services of the. GP 2.4: Assign responsibility and authority for performing the, developing the work products, and providing the services of the. GP 2.5: Train the people performing or supporting the as needed. GP 2.6: Manage configuration GP 2.7: Identify and involve relevant stakeholders GP 2.8: Monitor and control the GP 2.9: Evaluate selected work products performance and GP2.10: Review the activities, status, and result of the with higher level management and resolve issue. GP 3.1: Establish and maintain standard es that cover the es area. GP 3.2: Collect and measure input-output of. GP 4.1: Establish and maintain objective for the in term of product quality, service quality, and performance. GP 4.2: Stabilize sub- performance by using appropriate statistical and other quantitative techniques. GP 5.1: Ensure continuous improvement GP 5.2: Correct root cause of problems Table 3: Summary of generic goals (GG) and generic practices (GP) (continue) and defined ). We epect this framework that can help ISO certified enterprises epand to CMMI- DEV, particularly capability level 4-5. 2.3 Lean versus Si Sigma (LSS) Lean is introduced by Taiichi Ohno in the 1940s and Si Sigma is introduced by Mikel Harry in the late 1980s. In the last two decade, both have been written an incomparable success story. Many enterprises apply either Si Sigma or Lean such as GE, Motorola, Ford, Xero, Sony, Honeywell etc. Lean is a philosophy of continuous improvements while Si Sigma is a way to meet quality by measuring ability of enterprise. Figure 1: Model of correspondences between ISO9001 and CMMI-DEV Correspondence between ISO 9001 (version 2000 and 2008) and CMMI-DEV are represented in Figure 1. This figure directly related to four es of ISO 9001 (management, measurement ) and generic goal of capability levels. This model is adapted from the comparison between ISO 9001: 2000 and CMMI- DEV [Chinvigai et al., 2009]. This framework helps us to understand and know that ISO requirements cover all generic practices of capability in level 2-3 (managed Si Sigma emphasizes on three levels: a metric, a methodology, and management systems [Andersson et al., 2006; Arnheiter&Maleyeff, 2005; Linderman et al., 2002, McCarty et al., 2006]: - Metric: Si Sigma focuses on how to apply statistical methods for eliminating or reducing defects to not more than 3.4 per million opportunities (DPMO). - Methodology: DMAIC is a way of problem solving. DMAIC methodology is most often used to analyze problem solving and improvement. In addition, there are many tools or techniques that are used in the each of DMAIC steps. There are many tools and techniques available for DMAIC. Accord-

ing to Hashmi (2008) and Park et al. (2007) stated Si Sigma provides the quantitative analysis tools that are necessary to identify, analyze, control performance and evaluate effectiveness. - Management systems: As a result of Si Sigma as a best practice that bases on problem solving and improvement. Si Sigma management approaches are developed and implemented for breakthrough improvement in enterprises. This approach is focused on identifying, quantifying and driving out errors in business es and in the design of new products, through leadership, teamwork, customer-focused metric and control of cost. The core of Lean is a philosophy of continuous improvements. This method is focused on eliminating or reducing waste (muda) and improving flow by following the lean principles. Many enterprises, particular Japanese companies apply Lean for reducing unnecessary waste (including the waste of time). However, they do not know how to start the project of Lean. There are many tools for helping to start Lean such as 5S, Kaizen, etc. Frequently, Kaizen is selected to roll out Lean implementation. As a result of Kaizen is an initial popular technique of Lean for reducing wastes or driving continuous improvement. In addition, Kaizen is a way of bottom-up management. Numerous literatures represent Lean Si Sigma (LSS) integration approach [Andersson et al., 2006; Arnheiter & Maleyeff, 2005; Bendell, 2006; Kumar et al., 2006; Furterer & Elshennawy, 2005; Raifsnider & Kurt, 2004]. As a result of Lean and Si Sigma concepts are slightly similar in term of their focus on reducing waste or defects and improving customer satisfaction and financial results [Andersson et al., 2006]. According to Kumar (2006) suggested that the integration of the two approaches can achieve much better results than applying a single approach. In addition, Si Sigma has variety of techniques and tools as well as Lean. Si Sigma techniques-tools emphasize on problem-solving es, while Lean techniques are applied for reducing the waste and increasing and interaction effectiveness through fasting deliveries and shorting lead time [Chinvigai et al., 2007&2009]. However, there is no standard framework for Lean-Si Sigma (LSS) implementation [Kumar et al., 2006]. Traditional Si Sigma tools D M A I C Traditional Lean tools D M A I C Affinity diagram Brainstorming Ishikawa diagram CTQ (critical to quality) DOE Flow diagram FMEA Pareto chart Process capability Statistical Process Control SIPOC diagram Standardization Project Scope Contract Process mapping CT Matri SIPOC diagram Simulation Poka Yoko QFD Visual control Regression analysis Scatter plots Value stream mapping (VSM) Lead time Take time Inventory level Work analyses Flow analysis Scheduling SMED JIT-Kanban Line balance Visual control Standard work Kaizen The 5s system Poka yoke Identification of the 7 wastes Table 4: The popular tools of Lean Si Sigma According to Bendell (2005), some company has applied Lean tools as part of Si Sigma while lean consultants have started Si Sigma to be part of the Lean. Often, DMAIC methodology is applied to follow problem solving as well as tools and techniques of Si Sigma can be used to collect data, identify and analyze root causes. According to Hashmi & Baik (2008) and Park et al., (2007), Si Sigma provides the quantitative analysis tools which are useful to control performance while Lean provides analysis tool. Table 4 compiles the popular tools and techniques of Lean Si Sigma from many sources which are frequently applied in DMAIC phase 2.4 Kaizen Kaizen concept is referred as continuing improvement of work improvement with the gradualist approach, quality, technology, and es throughout interaction, culture, productivity, safety and leadership, throughout everyone in organization. It represents incremental, ongoing progress with small inventions. Kaizen is an important tool in Lean for continuous improvement. Kaizen traditional means small, slow and

incremental minor changes but constant in medium or long-term for improvement es throughout interaction of es. Under umbrella concept of Lean, it is used to drive by Kaizen based on PDCA revolves continuously for pursuing a policy of continuous maintaining and improving standards. 3 PROPOSED APPROACH To contribute on performance improvement of enterprise, we propose an approach that is based on approach. ISO 9000:2000/2008, CMMI-DEV, Si Sigma, Lean and Kaizen are integrated in this approach. The similarities and differences among concepts of these approaches [Chinvigai et al., 2007 & 2009] are brought to help develop this proposed approach. Improvement I C A C A P D D M New standard Kaizen Time Figure 2: Using DMAIC-Kaizen toward to CMMI-DEV We apply minor changes in principle that is known as Kaizen for driving continuous improvement. Kaizen has the ability to speed up that change and more importantly finalize the solution into standardized es epeditiously. Kaizen is used to carry out in each of DMAIC phase that is represented in figure 2. The framework of integrated ISO 9001:2000/2008 Lean Si Sigma CMMI-DEV approach is presented in Figure 3. This framework represent ISO 90001:2000/2008 requirements that cover capability level 2-3 of CMMI-DEV: managed and defined. Lean Si Sigma tools are applied to achieve capability level 4-5: quantitatively and optimizing. Following this approach, many consultants suggested that Kaizen team should compose maimal 5 members of the target members, es upstream or downstream members and completely separate areas, including customers or suppliers. They should select simple tools to collect; identify and analyze data in each step. According to McCarty et al., 2006 suggested that the work. The observation must use a few simple tools to identify and analyze implementation. Nevertheless, management role is an important to determine area and select Kaizen members. Consequently, management s responsibility must support Kaizen team with adequate skills and training in short time period. However, team might not adequately understand how to apply tools and techniques in short time. In fact, the comprehensive of techniques and tools can help to reduce the time of decision making for select appropriate tools and techniques. Synergy Lean-Si Sigma tools ISO 9001:2000 requirements DMAIC-KAIZEN Incomplete Performed Managed Defined Quantitatively Optimizing Process improvement Figure 3: Model of intergraded approach: ISO 9001:2000/2008 Lean Si Sigma CMMI-DEV

The Kaizen team can utilize numerous Si Sigma tools to apply this phase such as control charts, visual control, standardization or Poka Yoko etc. The following of this phase aligns with GP 4.2, GP 5.1and GP 5.2. 4 CASE STUDY Figure 4: The model of the integrating of DMAIC into capability level 4-5 For capability level 4-5 achievement, we propose, in figure 4, the DMAIC steps to follow by the Kaizen team: - Define phase: In this phase, the Kaizen team must define scope, objective and select a candidate for implementation. We may use modeling as - is to select or sub- (correspondence to GG 3). Possibly CTQ can be applied together with modeling in this phase. This phase aligns with GP 4.1 and GP 5.1. - Measure phase: Data of selected is collected and analyzed on quality problems, defects (6σ), impacts, performances and cost. Xiaosong (2008) suggested if the enterprise did not have orderly to record relative data before data collection, it is necessary to control relative that is introducing the control stage at this moment. This phase follows aligns with GP 4.1, GP 5.1, and GP 5.2. - Analyze phase: the Kaizen team analyze the collected data from previous phase to identify causes. Based on the historical data, the influence factors which are found by Si Sigma analysis tools such as Affinity diagram, Brainstorming, Ishikawa diagram, DOE, control chart, simulation etc. Analyze phase has correspondence to GP 5.2. - Improve phase: this phase emphasizes on identify improvement alternatives that aligns with GP 5.1. The Kaizen team should discuss concerned problems and select possible solutions. Si Sigma tools can be apply in this phase such as Brainstorming, Ishikawa diagram, Process mapping, capability, DOE, FMEA, etc. However, if possible solutions cannot meet team objective, this team should roll back to measure phase again as well as analyze phase [Chinvigai et al., 2007]. - Control phase: the phase emphasizes on monitor and control that is improved. TFKK is a SME company in Thailand that produces OEM auto parts to automotive industry, particular torque rod bush. TFKK has approimately 250 employees; sales amounted to million dollars in annual sales. Some of TFKK s primary customers are ISUZU, NISSAN, GM and HONDA. ISO14000, ISO 9001: 2000 and ISO/TS 16949:2002 have been implemented in this company. As a small company, TFKK had always relied upon day-today, on-the-job solutions to its problems. However, TFKK need to focus towards to ever-changing, increasingly demanding business environment, and the company has to provide continuity, responsibility and consistency in managing day-to-day operations. TFKK had to establish and maintain a set of standard operating procedures. Currently, a policy focuses on continuous improvement program. Therefore, a pilot Kaizen team is set up for driving this project. Five members of team are appointed that consist of two senior foreman and three technicians that concern selected as assembly of torque rod bush. This team was conducted under the guidance of two consultants as production manager and senior engineer. Initially, training and education are the best way to provide understanding and utilizing techniques and tools. 4.1 Define The objective of this program is to improve productivity in assembly of torque rod bush for responding customer requirement that is deployed from the management and the board. Increasing 36% (15,300 pcs./month) is the ultimate target that is represented in figure 5. Brainstorming session of team members were conducted to identify the goal. The mission was to identify the root cause of problem and reduce operation time in this. Figure 5: Annual sale of torque rod bush products For diagnosis to find out non-value added, we know that sub- is a bottle-neck. The net step was to

determine CTQ as a new cycle time of this based on sale requirement. A new cycle time is calculated as target production per day = 15,300/25 = 612 pcs./day or 44 sec/pcs. 4.2 Measure Fig 6 is shown operation time of sub-es: A, B and C (53, 47 and 44 sec/pcs. respectively). To consider we compare cycle time and CTQ, and we need to focus on reducing operation time of sub- A and B because both eceeded by 44 sec/pcs. Therefore, the team must find out a way to improve them. How can the team resolve the bottle-neck in reducing operation time? Initially, the current state of (as-is) is illustrated that can assist the team to understand better that as shown in figure 7. Figure 6: Classification of operation time in each of sub-es 4.4 Improve Figure 8: Shown cause and effect diagram 4.3 Analyze Figure 7: Current state of bush Cause and effect diagram was constructed that is shown in figure 8. Brainstorming is applied to establish this diagram in order to identify potential causes that have been affected.

Figure 9: Redesign new jig stamp lot/duct cover pressing The principles of ECRS (eliminate, combine, rearrange and simplify) are used for improving. The sub A and B are selected. Jig can be redesigned in sub- A. Because of dust cover and stamp lot number can be assembled simultaneous that is shown in figure 9. After redesigning the jig, we can combine activities that can show the time difference between before and after improvement in figure 10. B, we can reduce time from 47 to 44 sec that is shown in figure 11(b). Thus, the torque rod bush products can be produced to meet target as 612 pcs./day. 4.5 Control This phase is focused on how to maintain the solution and promote sustainable improvement over time. Therefore, this team must establish new standard by updated documents (i.e. procedure, work inspection), including training people. 5 CONCLUSION Initially, this paper describes advantages and limitation of popular methods: ISO 9001, Lean-Si Sigma (LS) and CMMI-DEV in order to toward to performance improvement. This paper applies LS tools into DMAIC methodology in order to eliminate and/or reduce non-value added (activities and variation). This implies to help ISO certified enterprise, particular SMEs that desire to setting up CMMI-DEV program. We compare the similarities and differences between ISO 9001 version 2000 and 2008 that help enterprises to understand them. In addition, the model of correspondences between ISO9001 and CMMI-DEV is represented. It compares between ISO9001:2000/2008 requirements and the generic practices of capability levels. As well as this paper represent the integrated approach framework and the model. ISO 9001:2000/2008 requirements correspond cover all CL 2-3 (managed and defined ). They help enterprises to better understand them before epanding to all capability level of CMMI-DEV. Finally, demonstration the capability of this approach, an application case study is presented. REFERENCES Figure 10: Sub- B improvement Decreasing 12 sec Decreasing 3 sec Andersson, R. et al., 2006. Similarities and differences between TQM si sigma and lean. The TQM Magazine, 18(3), p. 282-296. Arnheiter, D. E. and J. Maleyeff, 2005.The integration of lean management and Si Sigma. The TQM magazine, 17, p. 5 18. (a) (b) Bendell, T., 2006. A review and comparison of si sigma and the lean organizations. The TQM magazine, 18(3), p. 255 262. Berger, A., 1997. Continuous improvement and kaizen: standardization and organizational designs. Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 8, p. 110 117. Figure 11: Results of improvement phase (a). redesign new jig stamp (b). sub- B improvement. For results of evaluation, if we redesign new jig stamp, operation time is decreased from 53 to 41 sec as 12 sec (Figure 11(a)). After combine activities of sub- Boucher, F. and Croguennec, B. 2009. Comprendre ISO 9001 : 2008. AFNOR éditions. Chinvigai, Ch. et al., 2007. An approach for enhancing and interaction capability. Inter-

national Conference on Production Research (ICPR 2007), Valparaiso, Chile. Chinvigai, Ch. et al., 2009. Integrated Si Sigma-CMMI approach in ISO organizations for enhancing improvement, 7ème Congrès International de Génie Industriel (CIGI 2009), Bigorre, France. Chrissis, M. B. et al., 2008. CMMI 2 e édition : Guide des bonnes pratiques pour l amélioration des us. Traduction française approuvée par le SEI, Pearson Education. Dahlgaard J. J., 2006. Lean production, Si Sigma quality, TQM and company culture. The TQM magazine, 18, p. 263 281. El-Haik, B. and R. Al-Aomar, 2006. Simulation-based Lean Si-Sigma and Design for Si-Sigma. Wileyinterscience. George, L. M., 2002. Lean Si Sigma: Combining Si Sigma Quality with Lean Speed. McGraw-Hill. Hashmi, S. I. and J. Baik, 2008. Quantitative Process Improvement in XP using Si Sigma Tools. 7 th IEEE/ACIS International Conference on Computer and Information Science. IEEE Computer Society. International Standards Organization, 2000. ISO 9000: 2000. 3 rd edition, Quality Management Systems. Kumar, M., et al., 2006. Implementing the Lean Sigma framework in an Indian SME: a case study. Production Planning & Control, 17(4), p. 407 423. Linderman, K. et al., 2003. Si Sigma: a goal theoretic perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 21, p. 193 203. Marçal, S., 2008. Blending Scrum practices and CMMI project management areas. Innovations Systems Software Engineering, 4, p. 17 29. Chrissis M. B. et al., 2003. CMMI guidelines for integration and product improvement. Pearson Education. Furterer, S. and A. K. Elshennawy, 2005. Implementation of TQM and Lean Si Sigma Tools in Local Government: a Framework and a Case Study. Total Quality Management, 16(10), p. 1179 1191. McCarty, T. et al., 2006. The Si Sigma Black Belt Handbook. McGraw-Hill. Mhamedi, A. El., et al., 2005. Coordination et coopération des us d entreprise : étude de cas industriels. Conception et Production Intégrées, Morocco, p. 1 15. Park, Y. et al., 2007. A Framework for the Use of Si Sigma Tools in PSP/TSP. 5 th International Conference on Software Engineering Research - Management and Applications, IEEE Computer Society. Persse, J. R., 2006. Process Improvement Essentials. O reilly. Pinet, C., 2009. 10 clés pour réussir sa certification ISO 9001 : 2008. AFNOR éditions. Raifsnider, R. and Kurt, D., 2004. Lean Si Sigma in higher education: Applying proven methodologies to improve quality, remove waste, and quantify opportunities in colleges and universities, White paper, Xero. SEI Software Engineering Institute, 2006. CMMI- DEV: CMMI for development v1.2. CMU/SEI-2006- TR-008. Sinthavalai, R., 2006. An Eploratory Study of Introducing Si Sigma in SMEs. Proceedings of the 7th Asia Pacific Industrial Engineering and Management Systems Conference (IEMS 2006), Bangkok, Thailand, p. 531 538. Xiaosong, Z., 2008. Process Integration of Si Sigma and CMMI. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Informatics, Korea. Wessel, G. and P. Burcher, 2004. Si Sigma for small and medium-sized enterprises. The TQM Magazine, 16(4), p. 264-272. http://www.quality-control-plan.com/changes-to-iso- 9001-2000.htm