Paradoxes of ISO 9000 Performance: A Configurational Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores different performance configurations resulting from the implementation of an ISO 9000 system in 872 certified organizations. The configurations drawn up here are based on the crossing of traditional performance criteria related to the implementation of ISO 9000 and organizational problems stemming from the implementation of the standard. This crossing leads to the definition of four effectiveness configurations that reflect the paradoxes and degrees of success of ISO 9000 implementation. The logistic regression model developed here sheds light on variables that explain the occurrence of these four effectiveness configurations. The results of the quantitative study show that internal and managerial motivation to adopt ISO 9000 often positively affects the likelihood of a certified organization to achieve a better-performing effectiveness configuration. These results also suggest that the implementation of ISO 9000 frequently remains fairly superficial and often corresponds to a kind of “rational myth” (Meyer and Rowan 1977) or “system of structures somewhat distinct from internal practices and designed instead to project a rational and legitimate image of the organization in question.”
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 | 0.017 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".