Is ISO 9004 a path to business excellence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISO 9001 and ISO 9004 were created as a “consistent pair” of standards so that businesses that wanted to exceed the requirements of 9001 could use the principles of 9004 to move towards business excellence. In this paper, opinions from Canadian quality standardization experts were used to explore the needs of business against what is offered by ISO 9004 and to assist in the comparison of ISO 9004 with common business excellence models. The ISO 9004 (2000) document was perceived as needed, and as holding great potential. Suggestions for realizing that potential ranged from the inclusion of more guidance on specific business processes (for example complaints handling) to the incorporation of material that links ISO 9004 with industry‐specific standards, awards and/or general business programs. With modification, the document was seen as being able to make a valuable contribution to an organization's business excellence strategy. Without some form of recognition and/or award as offered by other business excellence models, however, the amount of usage ISO 9004 will receive is questionable.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".