Balancing risk and revenue: cost of quality within the banking industry
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
Purpose By developing a better understanding of costs associated with improving organizational quality and costs incurred by neglecting it, banks could devise more optimal operational policies. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach This paper proposes a generic banking cost of quality (COQ) model developed from Colombian banking data. The model has been developed using the product performance approach, which is consistent with strategizing from a long-term and organization-wide perspective. The proposed COQ function is composed of prevention and appraisal categories, costs caused by events of operational risks and opportunity costs caused by events of credit risks measured though non-performing loans. Findings The model was validated using data obtained from three major Colombian banks. The significant theoretical contribution of this research stems from the development of a banking COQ model which represents a pioneer effort at quantifying quality costs in financial institutions. Originality/value This is a unique attempt at using a product performance approach in service industry and also a rare effort toward incorporating opportunity costs in COQ. Managerially, the proposed COQ model can be established as a holistic business strategy and can serve as a tool helping managers to evaluate the impact of quality management initiatives and to decide on trade-offs between quality level and quality costs.
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 | 0.015 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it