Quality management: a fixture or a vital process?
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
Abstract We address the current status of quality management (QM) in companies in this paper. Interviews with senior executives of 19 companies spanning multiple industries and company sizes indicate that there are now at least five recurring themes related to QM's current role in companies: — Realized gains from QM keep it a fixture at most companies. — The aim of well‐serving customers is appropriately integrated into quality efforts. — The realization that pursuit of QM solely for the sake of winning awards can have harmful consequences. — QM's emphasis on self‐assessment and quality models is seen as valuable for providing focus and direction. — Gaps in integrating QM beyond operations exist in most companies. Our findings suggest that most businesses continue to have substantial opportunities for improvement in terms of more fully engaging QM throughout the firm. This makes it imperative that strategists engage and ultimately evolve companies so as to achieve their full potential. QM is not a fad of the century just past. Instead, it is a powerful means for companies to continue on a path to superior performance. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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