MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605609561 · doi:10.1504/ijpqm.2017.10004636

Investigating the impact of quality management systems on business performance

2017· article· en· W2605609561 on OpenAlexaff
Manjot Singh Bhatia, Anjali Awasthi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Productivity and Quality Management · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicQuality and Supply Management
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Process managementQuality management systemProduct (mathematics)Computer scienceBusiness processService (business)BusinessQuality managementMarketingMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we study the problem of assessing the impact of quality management systems (QMS) on business performance of organisations. Several mediatory variables linking QMS and business performance namely information quality, design performance, operating and environmental performance, supplier relationships, customer relationships, product quality, service quality, and competitive priorities are investigated. Twelve hypotheses linking the impact of these factors on each other, QMS and business performance are proposed. Based on these hypotheses, a questionnaire instrument is developed. A survey study is conducted with industry professionals involved in quality management and engineering and the results analysed using factor analysis and regression analysis. The results of our study show that organisations often implement QMS as a catalyst for change and use them in daily practice. All the proposed hypotheses are found to be true indicating positive relationship between implementation of QMS and business performance and mediatory variables under study.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.851
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Productivity and Quality ManagementSame topicQuality and Supply ManagementFrench-language works237,207