Has ISO 9000 lost some of its lustre? A longitudinal impact study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Seeks to analyze changes in the perceived benefits and costs of ISO 9000 implementation over time. Design/methodology/approach Results of two surveys, performed in 1998 and 2002, with 283 and 399 Catalonian companies participating, respectively, are presented, compared and analyzed. Findings There has been a significant decrease in the perception of ISO 9000 implementation benefits from 1998 to 2002. However, most companies still believe that ISO 9000 is beneficial overall. ISO 9000 implementation and maintenance costs have substantially decreased in the same four‐year period. Research limitations/implications In July 2002, when the second survey was conducted, the majority of the participating companies were still registered to one of the old versions of the standard, namely ISO 9001/2/3:1994. The findings support the notion that ISO 9000 standards are limited in providing a set of concrete benefits over time. Practical implications The outcome of the study contributes to a better understanding of the temporal nature of the impact ISO 9000 requirement standards have had on companies. Originality/value This is one of the first papers that analyses the benefits and costs of ISO 9000 implementation 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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".