Accreditation and Quality Assurance

, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 257–267 | Cite as

Evaluation of implementation of good quality management practices related to the support processes in the laboratories of Moroccan faculties of sciences and techniques

  • Meriem OutakiEmail author
  • Ebrahim Kerak
General Paper


The evaluation practices in the higher education in Morocco constitute a constitutional and legal requirement and also respond to the requirements of the national and international environment in perpetual evolution. To identify the level of application of good quality management practices related to the scientific research in Morocco, a questionnaire was administered to the research laboratories managers of the faculties of sciences and techniques on a national scale with a percentage of answer of 33 %. This paper concerns the evaluation of the implementation of theses good practices related to the support processes such as the management of material, human and informational resources. The results of this study showed the dissatisfaction of the majority of laboratories managers with regard to their availability. Besides, a minority of the laboratories respect practices related to the control of the function metrology and to the storage and the traceability of reagents. More than two-thirds managers asserted that their research teams are established on the basis of the affinities of the thematic of research of the researchers and are convinced of the homogeneity of the composition of the laboratory teams. This study emphasizes the necessity of increasing investment in the domain of scientific research to improve the availability of the resources. It is also necessary to sensitize the laboratory staff to the importance of the implementation and control of the metrology function to assure reliability of the research results.


Quality management in scientific research Equipment Metrology Consumables Premises Human resources Informational resources 


  1. 1.
    Vining G, Kulahci M, Pedersen S (2015) Recent advances and future directions for quality engineering. Qual Reliab Eng Int. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ISO 9000 (2015) Quality management systems—fundamentals and vocabulary. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    FD X50–176 (2017) Management tools—process management—implementation guide. AFNOR, La Plaine Saint DenisGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gouvernement marocain (2014) Loi N° 80-12 relative à l’Agence nationale d’évaluation et de garantie de la qualité de l’enseignement supérieur et de la recherche scientifique. Bulletin officiel, royaume du Maroc, édition de traduction officielle 6284:3888–3890Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Groupe de Travail Français “Qualité en Recherche” (1997) Guide expérimental de la qualité en recherche. Accessed 11 Jan 2014
  6. 6.
    FD X50–550 (2001) Research quality approach—general principles and recommendations. AFNOR, La Plaine Saint DenisGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    FD X50–551 (2003) Research-sector quality—recommendations for organizing and conducting a research activity in project mode, particularly with the framework of a network. AFNOR, La Plaine Saint DenisGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    GA X50–552 (2004) Quality management systems—implementation guide for ISO 9001 within research units—specificities of the research activity and implementation examples from ISO 9001. AFNOR, La Plaine Saint DenisGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nf X 50–553 (2014) Management of research activities. AFNOR, La Plaine Saint DenisGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    ISO 9001 (2008) Quality management systems—requirements. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    ISO 17025 (2005) General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Digilio F, Lanati A, Bongiovanni A et al (2016) Quality-based model for life sciences research guidelines. Accred Qual Assur. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grochau I, Ferreira C, Ferreira J, ten Caten C (2010) Implementation of a quality management system in university test laboratories: a brief review and new proposals. Accred Qual Assur. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bongiovanni A, Colotti G, Liguori GL et al (2015) Applying quality and project management methodologies in biomedical research laboratories: a public research network’s case study. Accred Qual Assur. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Outaki M, Mardhy A, Kerak E (2014) Proposition of a tool for measure and evaluation of quality in scientific research. Int J Sci Res 3:1013–1016Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wei T, Ying C, Oksana B (2014) Internal consistency: Do we really know what it is and how to assess it? J Psychol Behav Sci 2:205–220Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for windows step by step. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    ISO 9001 (2015) Quality management systems—requirements. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO 17025 (2017) General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de l’enseignement supérieur, de la formation des cadres et de la recherche scientifique, Direction des sciences (2009) Structuration de la recherche scientifique dans les universités Résultats à fin avril 2008. Accessed 06 Oct 2013
  21. 21.
    ISO 10018 (2012) Quality management—guidelines on people involvement and competence. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    ISO 21500 (2012) Guidance on project management. ISO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Comité sectoriel de main d’œuvre de l’économie sociale et de l’action communautaire (CSMOESAC) Boite à outils—Gestion des ressources humaines. ISBN 2-922510-31-x. Accessed 05 Jan 2016
  24. 24.
    Fondation nationale entreprise et performance (2009) 6 clés pour l’innovation la recherche et la compétitivité. AFNOR, La Plaine Saint DenisGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Laperche B (2001) Potentiel d’innovation des grandes entreprises et État, argumentation évolutionniste sur l’appropriation des informations scientifiques et techniques. Innovations. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Croxatto A, Greub G (2017) Project management: importance for diagnostic laboratories. Clin Microbiol Infect. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang N, Yao S, Wu G, Chen X (2017) The role of project management in organisational sustainable growth of technology-based firms. Technol Soc. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ramazani J, Jergeas G (2015) Project managers and the journey from good to great: the benefits of investment in project management training and education. Int J Project Manag. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mir F, Pinnington A (2014) Exploring the value of project management: linking project management performance and project success. Int J Project Manag. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bryde D (2003) Modeling project management performance. Int J Qual Reliab Manag. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kwak YH, Ibbs CW (2000) Calculating project management’s return on investment. Project Manag J 31(2):38–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Thomas J, Mullaly M (2008) Researching the value of project management. Project Management Institute, Newtown SquareGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Phillips JJ (1998) Measuring the return on investment in organization development. Organ Dev J 16(4):29–41Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Radujković M, Sjekavica M (2017) Project management success factors. Proc Eng. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Moroccan Institute for Scientific and Technical Information. Accessed 05 Feb 2016
  36. 36.
    Maul A, Mari L, Torres Irribarra D, Wilson M (2018) The quality of measurement results in terms of the structural features of the measurement process. Measurement. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nenes G, Panagiotidou S (2011) A bayesian model for the joint optimization of quality and maintenance decisions. Qual Reliab Eng Int. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bourgaul T, Vinner E, Darchis J et al (2006) Problématique de la mise en place d’une unité de métrologie dans le futur centre de biologie du CHRU de Lille. ITBM-RBM. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Naudin C (2012) A propos d’une métrologie « raisonnable ». Revue francophone des laboratoires. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nations Unies, Commission économique pour l’Afrique (2015) Profil de pays—Maroc. Nations Unies, Addis-Abeba. Accessed 15 Mar 2018
  41. 41.
    Reifenberg J, Riout E, Leroy A (2014) Métrologie dans un laboratoire de biologie médicale : enjeux et difficultés. Revue Francophone des Laboratoires. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Marion S (2010) Une expérience pratique d’accréditation en hématologie. Revue Francophone des Laboratories. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hullihen K, Fitzsimmons V, Fisch MR (2008) Establishing an ISO 17025 compliant laboratory at a university. In: Proceedings of The 2008 IAJC-IJME international conference, Nashville, 2008. Accessed 13 Mar 2018
  44. 44.
    Zapata-García D, Llauradó M, Rauret G (2007) Experience of implementing ISO 17025 for the accreditation of a university testing laboratory. Accred Qual Assur. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rodima A, Vilbaste M, Saks O et al (2005) ISO 17025 quality system in a university environment. Accred Qual Assur. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nara Y (2003) Research laboratories conforming to ISO/IEC 17025. Int J PIXE. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Plastics Color Corporation (2016) Discovering ISO/IEC 17025: the challenges and benefits. Accessed 26 Mar 2018
  48. 48.
    Wood L, McCamey D (1993) Implementing total quality in R&D. Res Technol Manag. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Virology, Microbiology and Quality/Ecotoxicology and Biodiversity, Faculty of Sciences and Techniques MohammediaHassan II Casablanca UniversityYasmina, MohammediaMorocco

Personalised recommendations