Use of ISO 9004:2000 and other business excellence tools in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the use of business excellence tools, particularly the extent of adoption of the ISO 9004:2000 guideline and respondents' perceptions of its usefulness. Design/methodology/approach In this paper a large empirical study was undertaken to identify the use of business excellence frameworks in Canada. The survey was based on a series of in‐depth interviews with 15 standardization experts who are all members of the Canadian Advisory Committee on Quality Management CAC/ISO/TC176. It was mailed to a sample of small, medium, and large businesses that spanned a wide range of manufacturing and service sectors, resulting in 187 responses. Findings This paper finds that the application of business excellence tools by Canadian organizations seems to be a function of both the size and location of the organization. There may be differences in use between organizations within different industry sectors, and those with different organizational structures. ISO 9004:2000 is not widely used, and probably needs a complete overhaul. Research limitations/implications The survey in this paper had a relatively low response rate. The small number of respondents who were familiar with ISO 9004:2000 precluded any statistical analysis of the data. The results are of interest to a variety of quality management researchers, as there is a paucity of literature on ISO 9004, particularly with experimental data. Practical implications Contributions in the paper extend to practitioners, as the survey included manufacturing and service sectors, both publicly and privately owned, as well as executives, since the study was aimed at top management of the organizations surveyed. Originality/value The paper shows that, while the concept of business excellence has rarely been researched from a Canadian perspective, the focus on ISO 9004:2000 makes this study totally unique.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".