ISO 9000: integration rationales and organizational impacts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present the results of an empirical study of the impact of motivational factors underlying ISO 9000 certification on several aspects of organizational performance. Design/methodology/approach An extension of a typology based on motivational factors is proposed and four integration rationales (quality enthusiasts, ISO integrators, ritual integrators, and dissidents) are exposed. The paper then evaluates how each of these four rationales related to potential organizational problems and benefits. Various statistical analyses were conducted on data obtained from a sample of 872 certified Canadian firms. A factor analysis was completed to develop an instrument allowing to develop a typology distinguishing between the four integration rationales. Findings The results demonstrate that the nature and intensity of motivations behind a decision to adopt the ISO 9000 standard play a key role in the success of the implementation process and the emergence of organizational problems arising from certification. Research limitations/implications The main contribution of the study was to develop a typology of certified organizations based on a theoretical framework explaining some paradoxes and pervasive effects of ISO 9000 adoption. Practical implications The typology helps characterize certified firms and anticipate potential consequences ancillary to the certification process; it can assist firms in evaluating whether they should go forward with the certification process. Originality/value Contrary to many studies focusing on traditional performance criteria only, this study sheds light on organizational problems and the possible ineffectiveness of ISO 9000 certification depending on their integration rationale. This approach led to a more comprehensive and tempered vision of ISO 9000 impacts.
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 | 0.008 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".