The erosion of ISO 9000 benefits: a temporal study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To analyze the changes in the perceived benefits of ISO 9000 with the passage of time. Design/methodology/approach An empirical survey of 399 companies conducted in 2002 in Catalonia (region of Spain). Findings ISO 9001: 2000 registered organizations report benefits to a lesser extent than their ISO 9001/2/3: 1994 registered counterparts across all studied benefit categories. Considering that the new standard is supposed to be a much improved version of the old one, these findings are then contrasted with the results of an almost identical survey performed in 1998. The discussion demonstrates that the perceived benefits of the ISO 9001/2/3: 1994 implementation have also decreased over time. Research limitations/implications These findings may indicate that ISO 9000 will eventually fade away due to the lack of short‐term reasons to implement yet another version in the future, unless substantial long‐term benefits are proven. In July 2002, when this survey was conducted, the number of ISO 9001: 2000 registered companies was still small, constraining more in‐depth research in this field. Originality/value This is one of the first papers trying to analyze the benefits and the implications of ISO 9001: 2000. On the other hand, it is probably the first paper that evaluates the evolution of such benefits over time.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".