Managing cost of quality: insight into industry practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The objective of this paper is to present results of the study of the quality costing practices at four large successful multinational companies. Design/methodology/approach The method of benchmarking was used for the purpose of this study. Company representatives, who were invited for a benchmarking session, described the quality management programs running at their companies. Direct observation and archival records data collection were also used to extract more precise information for the following analysis and discussion. Findings The findings of the study show that all four companies use systematic quality initiatives; however, a formal cost of quality (CoQ) methodology was only employed at one of them. This is in agreement with the literature findings arguing that a CoQ approach is not utilized in most quality management programs. Originality/value This paper discusses and compares the quality programs of four companies and explains the benefits of the eventual adoption of a CoQ approach in each case. The analysis provides a new insight into company practice, useful both for academic research and industry.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it