QUALITY MANAGEMENT

IS O 9 00 1 Q u al i t y M a na g e me n t S y s t e ms t h ro u g h t h e Le n s
o f Or g an i z at i on a l C ult ur e

Luis Miguel FONSECA*

Abstract
Both managers and scholars have convictions about the organizational approaches that best support organizational
performance of the respective organizations and its Quality Management Systems. After a literature review of ISO 9001
Quality Management Systems (including the changes introduced by the 2015 edition), Organizational Culture theories
are addressed and input from a CEO´s focus group was gathered. The importance of organizational culture for the
success of Quality Management Systems and the achievement of the organizational desired results is highlighted. The
article advances a proposal to analyze ISO 9001 International Standard through the lens of organizational culture
theories identifying a stronger open systems approach (influence of the environment, dynamic perspective, need for
survival) of the 2015 ISO 9001 edition when compared with the 2008 one. This provides additional knowledge both to
scholars and practitioners for a better understanding of the culture issues that can maximize ISO 9001 Quality
Management Systems 2015 edition contributions to organizational enduring success.

Keywords: quality management systems, ISO 9001, organizational culture..

1. Introduction wing internationalization of business and the need for common

quality management system standards. ISO 9001:2008 is based
The more than 1 Million organizations with ISO 9001 certi- on a PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) approach and on the eight
fied Quality Management Systems (QMS) worldwide are a clear quality management principles that should lead the organization
evidence of the relevance of this International Standard. With the to improved performance (ISO 9000:2005 International Stan-
release of the 2015 version of ISO 9001 both the organizations dard).
already certified and those that are planning to implement) (and There has been a consistent growth in the number of organi-
possible certifying) their QMS accordingly to ISO 9001, will have zations that have implemented ISO 9001:2008 International
to take into consideration the new requirements and change, Standards has shown by the chart presented in Figure 1 of the
adapt or implement them. trend of organizations with ISO 9001 certified Management Sys-
Although there is considerable research on the motivations, tems worldwide (ISO, 2014).
methodologies, benefits and difficulties in implementing ISO
9001 QMS, not all reported cases are successful. The importance
of organizational culture for the success or failure of Quality
Management Systems has been addressed by researchers.
The paper starts with the literature review of ISO 9001 Quality
Management Systems followed by organizational culture and
organizational theories. Based on literature review and the inputs
of a CEO´s focus group, a proposal is made to analyze ISO 9001
International Standard 2015 edition through the lens of organi-
zational theories, identifying which theories can support specific
quality management principles and requirements. With this exer-
cise, several organizational theories were identified as supporting
ISO 9001 International Standard edition 2015 changes.
The article concludes that this knowledge can contribute to
the understanding of the success factor for ISO 9001 QMS im-
plementation although acknowledging that the proposal is a sim-
plification of a complex issue and, therefore, is subject to criticism
and future empirical research should be made.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Quality Management Systems Figure 1. ISO 9001 Certified Organizations Survey Trends

To respond to the increase on global competition, a conside- Karapetrovic, Casadesus and Heras (2008) identified 115
rable number of organizations have implemented ISO 9001 empirical studies that investigate the impact of ISO 9000 stan-
Quality Management Systems, aiming to respond to external dards worldwide. Tari et al. (2012) also suggest that ISO 9001
stakeholder pressures or to internal motivations and achieve in- has clear benefits on organizational, operational, people and
creased performance. customer results. Boiral (2012) summarized the results stating
ISO (ISO, 2015) published the first version of the ISO 9000 that the success in the implementation of ISO 9001 Quality Ma-
series of International Standards in 1987 in response to the gro- nagement Systems (QMS) is linked to the organization and to the
———————
* ISEP-IPP, School of Engineering Polytechnic of Porto and CIDEM, E-mail: lmf@is ep.ipp.pt.

54 Vol. 16, N o. 148/ Oc tober 2015 QUALITY

access to success
 QUALITY MANAGEMENT
way the standard is interpreted and implemented. When the
main motivations to implement the standard are internal (organi-
zational improvement) more benefits are achieved than when
they are external (e.g., respond to customer requirements or ex-
pectations, achieving marketing differentiation). Also accordingly
to Yin and Schmeidler (2009) standardized management systems
may be implemented in very different ways depending on organi-
zations, which might explain the heterogeneous performance of
these standardized systems. Fonseca (2015a), on a study of Por-
tuguese certified organizations that also implemented the EFQM
Business Excellence Model (BEM), reported there is indeed a mo-
derate positive correlation between ISO 9001 certification ma-
turity and EFQM BEM results, the higher the number of years of
ISO 9001 certification, the higher the results of the organization
EFQM model evaluation and recognition.
In summary, certification is indeed a measure of QMS imple-
mentation intensity and it brings but we need to take into consi-
deration how variations in QMS implementation may affect per-
formance results and certification to ISO 9001 should be a result
of a well implemented Quality Management System, not just
“certification”.
The release of the 2015 version of ISO 9001 is under way
and the new standard version should be closer and more in line
with the Business Models (Fonseca, 2015b):

Concepts like change control, strategic direction and
knowledge management will be reinforced on the ISO
9001:2015 International Standard approaching and
embedding ISO 9001 and business management;

Organizational context and relevant interested parties
(those that have some actual or potential impact on the
quality of products and services) were introduced;

There will be more emphasis on process approach and
less on documentation and Risk-based thinking was intro-
duced adding a systematic evaluation of potential and ac-
tual issues with the aim of making processes more robust
and capable.
ISO 9001:2015 also will bring some change to the Quality
Management Principles (QMP) as presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Quality Management Principles
ISO 9000:2005/ISO 9001:2008 Proposed ISO 9001:2015
1. Customer Focus 1. Customer Focus
2. Leadership 2. Leadership
3. Involvement of People 3. Engagement of People
4. Process Approach 4. Process Approach
5. System Approach
to Management
...............................
6. Continual Improvement 5. Improvement
7. Factual Approach 6. Evidence-based
to Decision Making Decision Making
8. Mutually Beneficial 7. Relationship
Supplier Relationships Management
The QMP will be reduced from 8 to 7; the one which was
omitted is “Systems Approach”, with “systems” and “process”
both considered under the new principle “Process Approach”
which refers to “managing inter-related processes”. A system is
the management of inter-related processes so, although “Systems
Approach” is not a principle, the new principle is more powerful
as it redefines Process Approach as the processes and their inter-
relationships. “Engagement of People” and “Relationship Ma-
nagement” will have a reinforced intensity while “Improvement”
clearly states that there are several sorts of improvement with
continuous improvement being one of them. “Evidence-based
Decision Making” is more adjusted to the real management si-
tuations.
QUALITY
access to success Vo l. 16, No . 14 8/O cto be r 20 15
2.2. Organizational Culture
According to Scott (2003), an organization is a group whose
members coordinate their behaviors to achieve shared goals or
produce a product, whether businesses, schools, families or
voluntary associations.
The qualities that distinguish these organizations between
themselves are the roles, rules, purposes, recurring behaviors
and clearly defined borders. Isolated individuals or random
groups are not considered as organizations, although there are
some groups and social movements that can be classified as
ambiguous cases of organizations.
Organizations are necessary to achieve most of society
shared goals, are everywhere and have evolved in a remarkable
way. But there are still a considerable number of open questions:

How to set goals that sometimes are in competition or
even antagonist?

How to get the best people to perform the necessary
tasks?

How to coordinate the different people needed to achieve
the various goals and the several tasks that contribute to
achieving these goals?

How to obtain the resources/inputs (human, material, and
financial resources) to fulfill the organization’s mission
and objectives?

How to achieve the results/outputs intended (whether
goods or services) and make them reach the end con-
sumer?

How to identify the needs and expectations of the various
stakeholders that influence or are influenced by the orga-
nization and how to adapt this to the external context and
the surrounding environment?
To help answer these and other questions, academics and
managers have developed a set of theories which will be briefly
outlined.
Although there is a certain degree of ambiguity concerning
the organizational culture construct (Verbeke, Volgering and
Hessels, 1998) with several definitions of organizational culture
and different dimensions to describe it, most scholars (Hofstede,
2001; Schein, 2004; Cameron and Quinn, 1999) suggest that
organizational culture is a pattern of shared values and assump-
tions within an organization which enables this to operate:

O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell (1991) identified seven
dimensions to develop its organizational culture profile:
innovation, stability, respect for people, focus on results,
attention to detail, orientation to the team and aggressi-
veness;

Other researchers (Handy, 1999) suggest that there are
key factors that determine the choice of culture and struc-
ture: history, technology, ownership, size, objectives, envi-
ronment and people;

Hofstede’s theoretical model has received considerable
attention within Organizational Theory field (Hofstede,
2001; Hofstede and Minkov, 2010). It consists of six di-
mensions with quantitative indices that can be used to
describe different national cultures: power distance (the
way a society way manages inequalities between indivi-
duals); individualism (“I”) versus collectivism (“We”); mas-
culinity versus femininity (focus on success and material
reward versus a preference for cooperation quality of life
and caring for the vulnerable); uncertainty avoidance
(how a society deals with uncertainty and ambiguity);
pragmatic orientation (people accept the adversities of
life and adapt accordingly) versus normative orientation
(follow social conventions and tradition, need to know
the absolute truth); and indulgence (fun and joy are basic
human needs) versus restraint (need social norms to
regulate “acceptable” fun and joy). A possible synthe-
sis approach is presented in Table 2, after the works of
Mcfarland and Gomes (2013), Scott (2003) and Leavitt
(1965).
55
 QUALITY MANAGEMENT
way the standard is interpreted and implemented. When the
main motivations to implement the standard are internal (organi-
zational improvement) more benefits are achieved than when
they are external (e.g., respond to customer requirements or ex-
pectations, achieving marketing differentiation). Also accordingly
to Yin and Schmeidler (2009) standardized management systems
may be implemented in very different ways depending on organi-
zations, which might explain the heterogeneous performance of
these standardized systems. Fonseca (2015a), on a study of Por-
tuguese certified organizations that also implemented the EFQM
Business Excellence Model (BEM), reported there is indeed a mo-
derate positive correlation between ISO 9001 certification ma-
turity and EFQM BEM results, the higher the number of years of
ISO 9001 certification, the higher the results of the organization
EFQM model evaluation and recognition.
In summary, certification is indeed a measure of QMS imple-
mentation intensity and it brings but we need to take into consi-
deration how variations in QMS implementation may affect per-
formance results and certification to ISO 9001 should be a result
of a well implemented Quality Management System, not just
“certification”.
The release of the 2015 version of ISO 9001 is under way
and the new standard version should be closer and more in line
with the Business Models (Fonseca, 2015b):

Concepts like change control, strategic direction and
knowledge management will be reinforced on the ISO
9001:2015 International Standard approaching and
embedding ISO 9001 and business management;

Organizational context and relevant interested parties
(those that have some actual or potential impact on the
quality of products and services) were introduced;

There will be more emphasis on process approach and
less on documentation and Risk-based thinking was intro-
duced adding a systematic evaluation of potential and ac-
tual issues with the aim of making processes more robust
and capable.
ISO 9001:2015 also will bring some change to the Quality
Management Principles (QMP) as presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Quality Management Principles
ISO 9000:2005/ISO 9001:2008 Proposed ISO 9001:2015
1. Customer Focus 1. Customer Focus
2. Leadership 2. Leadership
3. Involvement of People 3. Engagement of People
4. Process Approach 4. Process Approach
5. System Approach
to Management
...............................
6. Continual Improvement 5. Improvement
7. Factual Approach 6. Evidence-based
to Decision Making Decision Making
8. Mutually Beneficial 7. Relationship
Supplier Relationships Management
The QMP will be reduced from 8 to 7; the one which was
omitted is “Systems Approach”, with “systems” and “process”
both considered under the new principle “Process Approach”
which refers to “managing inter-related processes”. A system is
the management of inter-related processes so, although “Systems
Approach” is not a principle, the new principle is more powerful
as it redefines Process Approach as the processes and their inter-
relationships. “Engagement of People” and “Relationship Ma-
nagement” will have a reinforced intensity while “Improvement”
clearly states that there are several sorts of improvement with
continuous improvement being one of them. “Evidence-based
Decision Making” is more adjusted to the real management si-
tuations.
QUALITY
access to success Vo l. 16, No . 14 8/O cto be r 20 15
2.2. Organizational Culture
According to Scott (2003), an organization is a group whose
members coordinate their behaviors to achieve shared goals or
produce a product, whether businesses, schools, families or
voluntary associations.
The qualities that distinguish these organizations between
themselves are the roles, rules, purposes, recurring behaviors
and clearly defined borders. Isolated individuals or random
groups are not considered as organizations, although there are
some groups and social movements that can be classified as
ambiguous cases of organizations.
Organizations are necessary to achieve most of society
shared goals, are everywhere and have evolved in a remarkable
way. But there are still a considerable number of open questions:

How to set goals that sometimes are in competition or
even antagonist?

How to get the best people to perform the necessary
tasks?

How to coordinate the different people needed to achieve
the various goals and the several tasks that contribute to
achieving these goals?

How to obtain the resources/inputs (human, material, and
financial resources) to fulfill the organization’s mission
and objectives?

How to achieve the results/outputs intended (whether
goods or services) and make them reach the end con-
sumer?

How to identify the needs and expectations of the various
stakeholders that influence or are influenced by the orga-
nization and how to adapt this to the external context and
the surrounding environment?
To help answer these and other questions, academics and
managers have developed a set of theories which will be briefly
outlined.
Although there is a certain degree of ambiguity concerning
the organizational culture construct (Verbeke, Volgering and
Hessels, 1998) with several definitions of organizational culture
and different dimensions to describe it, most scholars (Hofstede,
2001; Schein, 2004; Cameron and Quinn, 1999) suggest that
organizational culture is a pattern of shared values and assump-
tions within an organization which enables this to operate:

O’Reilly, Chatman and Caldwell (1991) identified seven
dimensions to develop its organizational culture profile:
innovation, stability, respect for people, focus on results,
attention to detail, orientation to the team and aggressi-
veness;

Other researchers (Handy, 1999) suggest that there are
key factors that determine the choice of culture and struc-
ture: history, technology, ownership, size, objectives, envi-
ronment and people;

Hofstede’s theoretical model has received considerable
attention within Organizational Theory field (Hofstede,
2001; Hofstede and Minkov, 2010). It consists of six di-
mensions with quantitative indices that can be used to
describe different national cultures: power distance (the
way a society way manages inequalities between indivi-
duals); individualism (“I”) versus collectivism (“We”); mas-
culinity versus femininity (focus on success and material
reward versus a preference for cooperation quality of life
and caring for the vulnerable); uncertainty avoidance
(how a society deals with uncertainty and ambiguity);
pragmatic orientation (people accept the adversities of
life and adapt accordingly) versus normative orientation
(follow social conventions and tradition, need to know
the absolute truth); and indulgence (fun and joy are basic
human needs) versus restraint (need social norms to
regulate “acceptable” fun and joy). A possible synthe-
sis approach is presented in Table 2, after the works of
Mcfarland and Gomes (2013), Scott (2003) and Leavitt
(1965).
55
 QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Table 2. Organizational dimensions
Organizational
elements
Description
Participants that contribute and benefit from the
Actors/participants
organization
There are persistent social relations among the
Social structure
organization’s members
Goals that participants aim to ensure the
Objectives
performance of tasks and activities
Technologies/Tasks
Means by which organizations carry out their
work or transform inputs into outputs
The physical, technological, cultural and social
Environment
context in which organizations are inserted
Following literature review from Mcfarland and Gomes,
(2013), Scott (2003), Allison (1969) and Leavitt (1965), a consi-
derable stream of Organizational Theories has been identified,
as briefly presented in Table 3.
Both scholars and practitioners have focused on the million
dollar question: “What is the Best Organizational Culture to
maximize performance”?
Based on the empirical studies considered for this research,
the four following approaches can be outlined:

Perhaps the most solid and frequent argument is the thesis
of the strong organizational culture. Some experts in
Organizational Management (Denison, 1984) believe
that in order for organizational culture to be able to affect
organizational performance, it must be strong. A strong
organizational culture contributes to shared goals and
increases the commitment to the organization and aligns
individual and organizational goals, which positively
contributes to increased productivity and organizational
performance (Brown, 1995);

However, there are researchers that suggest an inverse
relationship between organizational culture and perfor-
mance. According to these authors, it is a high perfor-
mance that leads to a strong and homogeneous organi-
zational culture and not the other way;

There are also researchers that consider that the two
previous approaches can be problematic in volatile envi-
ronments and that such organizations may not be able to
change as quickly as would be required, losing com-
petitive edge to more agile and innovative competitors
(Brown, 1995);

According to the theory based on the concept of con-
tingent thinking (Wilkins and Ouchi, 1993), certain types
of organizational cultures are more suited to specific
situations.
Although it is difficult to empirically test these various theories
(Brown, 1995; Calori and Sarnin, 1991; Siehl and Martin, 1990)
this does not necessarily means that these relations are not
present. There is a general agreement that what we call organi-
zational culture has a significant impact on many actions and
subsequent outcomes of organizations, including the respective
operating and financial performance (Kotter and Hesett, 2004).
Moreover, evidence more recent research supports that there is
indeed an association between certain features of organizational
culture and organizational performance outcomes (e.g., Hartnell,
Ou and Kinicki, 2011; Sackmann, 2011).
With the purpose of collecting the “C suite” view on these re-
levant issues, a focus group of six CEO´s of Portuguese compa-
nies with annual sales greater than 1 Million Euros and more
than 25% export ratio was set up. The participative discussion
yielded several common perspectives:

Each organization has its own organizational culture that
evolves over time;

Within a culture there may be different subcultures or cul-
tural differences between the subgroups of the organi-
zation;

It is easier to change observable actions and behavior
than beliefs and assumptions and the change in a cultural
element can affect another and vice versa;

We can apply and combine multiple theories in an orga-
nization.
Taking into consideration the literature review and the feed-
back from the CEO´s Focus Group, the following summary is
proposed in Table 4.
3. Quality Management Systems
and Organizational Culture
The study of the reasons for success or failure of Quality Ma-
nagement Systems has highlighted the importance of organiza-
tional culture for the achievement of the expected results (Prajogo

Table 3. Main Organizational Theories

Organizational Theory Summary Applicable to

Rational model (satisfactory rationality Decisions based on the results, follow the rules and procedures Finance (theories based on the
as a variant) or rule-based (however, what are the rules to follow?) consequences), Politics and bureaucracy
Multiple actors with inconsistent preferences and none alone
Decision by the ruling coalition can decide. Direct management of relations through Politics
negotiation
Anarchic process (with no agenda and predefined rules )
during and between meetings; its effectiveness depends on the Industry Knowledge (e.g., Universities,
Organizational Anarchy
flow issue, actors and present solutions, also known as industry and high-tech services)
“Garbage Can Theory” (Coehn et al., 1972)
Learning and organizational Industry Knowledge (e.g., Universities,
Ability to learn and adapt
intelligence industry and services)
Focused on the structure and on the ingrained culture of the Industry Knowledge (e.g., Universities,
Organizational Culture
organization industry and services)
Open systems, extensible environment and how it influences
Management of Resources dependency behavior and survival of the organization. Focused on the Finance, Politics, Industry and Services
dependency relationships of resources between organizations
Network Organizations Patterns and relationship agreements Politics
Institutional Theory and Organizational Industry Knowledge (e.g., Universities,
Adoption of models of successful organizations
Legitimacy Industry and Services)
Environmental determinism and natural selection due to
Organizational Ecology Finance, Industry and Services
competition between organizations

56 Vol. 16, N o. 148/ Oc tober 2015 QUALITY

access to success
 QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Table 4. Considerations concerning Organizational Theories

Dimension Influence on Organizational Theories

Some theories are more theoretical than other (perhaps more suited for the planning stage), while others are more
Theoretical versus Practical
limited in extent and therefore more suitable for specific situations
There are theories that assume an internal capacity to change and adapt (e.g., Organizational Theory, Institutional
Capacity to Change
Theory, Learning Theory or Resource Dependent Theory), while others are more deterministic (Ecological Population)
Some theories are more focused on the structures and culture (Institutional, Organizational Culture) than others
Focus
(Resource Dependency, Ecological Population, Rational Actor)

Financial Sector: theories based on the consequences, such as rational actor, dependence on resources, ecological
population;
Activity Sector
Knowledge Industry: organizational anarchy, organizational learning, organizational culture, Institutional;

Politics: bureaucratic, coalition theory, networks;

Bureaucracy: organizational processes and compliance with the rules

and McDermott, 2005). In order for the organizations achieving
enduring improvements, changes to the way they carry their
business have to happen (Reger et al., 1994; Rajamanoharan
and Collier, 2006;). The existence of an organizational culture
favorable to the implementation for those changes and of the
corresponding attitudes and behaviors of the employees are of
great importance for success (Van de Wieleetal, 1993; Lewis,
1996; Buch and Rivers, 2001; Sousa-Poza et al., 2001; La-
grosen, 2003; Prajogo and McDermott, 2005; Skerlavaj et al.,
2007).
As an example, several studies (Zu et al. 2010) have used the
CVF model developed by Quinn at al. (Quinn, 1988; Quinn and
Rohrbaugh, 1981, 1983) to access organizational culture. The
CVF model has two axes (Internal Focus & Integration versus Ex-
ternal Focus and Competitiveness; Control and Stability versus
Flexibility and Spontaneity) resulting into four types of Organiza-
tional Culture: Hierarchical, Group, Rational and Development
cultures.
However, most researchers only consider a limited range of
Organizational Theories and do not focus on ISO 9001 Interna-
tional Standard Management Systems. Considering the relevance
of ISO 9001 and the edition of ISO 9001:2015 version, it is
appropriate to evaluate how the new 2015 ISO 9001 edition re-
lates to relevant Organizational Theories. Table 5 below attempts
to analyze ISO 9001:2015 edition with the lens of Organiza-
tional Culture Theories.

Table 5. ISO 9001:2015 QMS through the lens of Organizational Culture Theories

ISO 9001:2015 Organizational Theories relationship

ISO 9001:2015 adds to a natural systems view where organizations

The Quality Management Principles and the requirements of the future
standard ISO 9001: 2015 reflect changes in increasingly complex,
demanding and dynamic environment in which organizations operate
and aim to facilitate the effective implementation by organizations and
an assessment of effective compliance (1st, 2nd or 3rd party, as
applicable).
A major objective of ISO 9001:2015 is to increase customer confidence
in quality management systems based on ISO 9001.
There is a greater emphasis on process approach and less on
documentation.
The introduction of “Risk-based thinking concept”.
Strategic Direction requirement was added to the review by
Management to try to integrate Quality Management Systems into
business.
The requirement for an active knowledge management was added. The
economic crisis has led to situations where senior employee’s retirement
could lead to a knowledge management crisis.
Quality management principle Factual Approach to Decision Making”
was changed to “Evidence-based Decision Making “.
Quality management principle “Continual Improvement” was changed
to “Improvement”.
Quality management principle “Mutually Beneficial Supplier
Relationships” was changed to “Relationship Management”.
The more organizations apply ISO 9001 requirements “because it
makes sense for their business” rather than “because ISO 9001
requires” the stronger the ISO 9001.
follow processes and rules within an organizational culture, a more
open systems perspectives.
The organizations now extend their focus to the environment that has a
major influence on behavior and survival.
With resource dependence theory the dependency between firms is
highlighted; Networking focus on the larger arrangements and patterns
of coordinated actions between several organizations; Neo-
Institutionalism emphasizes adapting the most successful structures and
cultures; Population ecology stresses the importance of natural selection
due to inter-firm competition.
Consequence based theories of rational actor and bounded rationality.
The organizations also extend their focus to the environment that has a
major influence on behavior and survival (resource dependence theory,
networking, neo-institutionalism and population ecology can apply).
Organizational Management experts believe a strong organizational
culture increases the commitment to the organization and aligns
individual and organizational goals, which positively contributes to
increased productivity and organizational performance. All models are
potentially applicable.
Capacity to change and adapt (organizational learning) and knowledge
as key strategic resources (resource dependence theory).
Bounded rationality, sometimes we should recognize imperfect
information, ambiguity, and select at satisfactory option (good enough).
Organizational learning focuses on action to produce results from
inspection of practice and assessment of its returns to the organization,
all through local collaboration and external network searches.
Emphasis on network forms of organization. In rapidly changing
environments, organizations must be able to respond flexibly and
dynamically, making collaboration relevant for success (Lawrence and
Lorsch, 1967). Need to identify complementary strengths, form
alliances, create open-ended mutual benefits where possible and
outsource secondary tasks (to focus on core).
Consequence based theories of rational actor, resource dependence
and population ecology.

QUALITY
access to success Vo l. 16, No . 14 8/O cto be r 20 15 57
 QUALITY MANAGEMENT
4. Conclusions
This paper attempted to address Quality Management System
through the lens of Organizational Theories, focusing on ISO
9001 International Standard and the changes introduced on the
2015 version.
Following a literature review of Quality Management Systems
and Organizational Theories, a proposal to support Quality
Management System within the several Organizational Theories
is made.
No attempt has been made by the author to suggest whether
an organizational model is better than the other. It might be advi-
sable to look within the scope of all the organizational models
presented to understand the underlying culture issues that can
maximize (or jeopardize) Quality Management Systems imple-
mentation strategies, difficulties and benefits. Depending on the
organization strategy and value proposition, sector of activity, life
cycle phase, resources and external environment, different theo-
ries should apply. However, as general statement, the 2015
edition of ISO 9001 adds a stronger open systems perspective
(influence of the environment, dynamic environment, need for
survival) to the 2008 edition more natural systems views (follow
rules and processes).
As stated by Zbaracki (1988) the difference between the do-
minant culture and the culture required by Quality Management
is a key consideration in whether a Quality Management initiative
will be successful or not.
The main aim of this article is to shed some light into the
connections between the Quality Management and Organiza-
tional Theory fields of knowledge. More than 1 Million organi-
zations with ISO 9001:2008 certified Quality Management Sys-
tems will have to adapt and make the transition to the 2015
version within the 3 years after the 2015 version release date. So
it is of upmost importance to try to maximize the potential benefits
of ISO 9001:2015 and to minimize the difficulties of the tran-
sition process (for the organizations already certified) or of the
implementation process (for those that have still to start or to
finish this process). By analyzing the changes to ISO 9001 Inter-
national Standard 2015 edition, several supporting organi-
zational theories were identified. Practitioners should be aware of
these theories and when and how to apply them for maximizing
the Quality Management Systems benefits to the relevant Stake-
holders.
It should be acknowledged that this paper is a simplification
of a very complex issue and the analysis proposed by the author
is open to criticism. Research should be carried out to access the
validity of these proposals and to compare, in the future, or-
ganizational cultures of companies that have been successful
at implementing ISO 9001:2015 with those that have been un-
successful. Q-as

References
[1] Allison, G., T. (1969), Conceptual Models and the Cuban missile crisis, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 680-718.
[2] Boiral, O. (2012), ISO 9000 and Organizational Effectiveness: A Systematic Review, Quality Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 16-37.
[3] Brown, A. (1995, 1998), Organizational Culture, (2nd ed), Pitman Publishing. pp. 9, 33, 176.
[4] Buch, K., Rivers, D. (2001), TQM: the role of leadership and culture, Leadership & Organizational Development Journal, Vol. 22, No. 8, pp. 365-
371.
[5] Calori, R., Sarnin, P. (1999), Corporate Culture and Economic Performance: A French Study, Organization Studies, Vol. 12, pp. 49, 74.
[6] Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (1999), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
[7] Cohen, M., D., March, J., G. and Olsen, J., P. (1972), A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol.
17, No. 1, pp 1-25.
[8] Denison, D. (1990), Corporate Culture and Organizational Effectiveness, John Wiley & Sons: New York.
[9] Fonseca, L. (2015a), Relationship between ISO 9001 certification maturity and EFQM Business Excellence Model results, Quality Innovation and
Prosperity, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 85-102.
[10] Fonseca, L. (2015b), From Quality Gurus and TQM to ISO 9001:2015: a review of several quality paths, International Journal for Quality
Research, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.167-180.
[11] Handy, C. (1999), Understanding organizations, Penguin Books, London.
[12] Hartnell, C. A., Ou, A. Y., & Kinicki, A. (2011), Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the
competing values framework’s theoretical suppositions, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96, pp. 677–694.
[13] Hofstede, G. (2001), Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations, Sage Publications,
Thousand Oaks, CA.
[14] Hofstede, G. & Minkov, M. (2010), Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation: New Perspectives, Asia Pacific Business Review, Vol. 16, pp. 493-504.
[15] ISO (2005), ISO 9000:2005, International Standard, Quality management systems — Fundamentals and vocabulary, Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization.
[16] ISO (2015), ISO TC/176, 2015, [online] available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/is o_technical_committee?commid=53882, accessed 2015.01.01.
[17] ISO, 2014. ISO Survey 2013. [online] Available at: http://www.iso.org [Accessed 2014.10.01].
[18] Karapetrovic, S., Casadesus, M. and Heras, I. (2008), What happened to the ISO 9000 lustre? An eight-year study. Working Paper, Departament
d’Organitzacio´,Gestio´ empresarial I Desenvolupament de producte, Universitat de Girona, Spain.
[19] Kotter, J., Hesett J. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd edition, Jossey-Bass by John Wiley and Sons, San Francisco, California.
[20] Lagrosen, S. (2003), Exploring the impact of culture on quality management, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 20,
No. 4, pp. 473-487.
[21] Lawrence, P. R., Lorsch. J. W. (1967), Differentiation and integration in complex organizations, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol 12, No. 1,
pp 1-47.
[22] Lewis, D. (1996), The organizational culture saga – from OD to TQM: a critical review of the literature. Part 2 – applications, Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 9-16.
[23] McFarland D., A., Gomez, C., J. (2013), Organizational Analysis (textbook based on lecture notes at Stanford University).
[24] O´Reilly III, C., A., Chatman, J. and Caldwell, D., F. (1991), People and Organizational Culture: a profile comparison approach to assessing
person-organization fit, Academy Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 487-516.
[25] Prajogo, D. and McDermott, C. (2005), The relationship between total quality management practices and organizational culture, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, Vol. 25, No. 11, pp. 1101-1122.
[26] Quinn, R., E. (1988), Beyond Rational Management: Mastering the Para-doxes and Competing Demands of High Performance, Jossey-Bass, San
Francisco, CA.
[27] Quinn, R.E., Rohrbaugh, J. (1981), A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness, Public Productivity Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.
122-140.

58 Vol. 16, N o. 148/ Oc tober 2015 QUALITY

access to success
 QUALITY MANAGEMENT
[28] Quinn, R.E., Rohrbaugh, J. (1983), A spatial model of effectiveness criteria: towards a competing values approach to organizational analysis,
Management Science, Vol. 29, pp. 363-377.
[29] Rajamanoharan, I.D., Collier, P. (2006), Six Sigma implementation, organizational change and the impact on performance measurement systems,
International Journal of Six Sigma and Competitive Advantage, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 48-68.
[30] Reger, R.K., Gustafson, L.T., Demarie, S.M., Mullane, J.V. (1994), Reframing the organization: why implementing total quality is easier said than
done, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 19, pp. 565-584.
[31] Sackmann, S., A., Eggenhofer-Rehart, P., M., & Fries l, M. (2009), Sustainable change: Long-term efforts toward developing a learning
organization, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 45, pp. 521-549.
[32] Scott, R. (2003), Organizations: Rational, Natural and Open Systems, 5th Edition, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Prentice Hall.
[33] Shein, E.H. (2004), Organizational Culture and Leadership, Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA.
[34] Skerlavaj, M., Stemberger, M., I., Skrinjar, R., Dimovski, V. (2007), Organizational learning culture – the missing link between business process
change and organizational performance, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 106, pp. 346-367.
[35] Sousa-Poza, A., Nystrom, H., Wiebe, H. (2001), A cross-cultural study of the differing effects of corporate culture on TQM in three countries,
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 744-761.
[36] Tarí, J.,J., Molina-Azorín, J.,F. and Heras, I. (2012), Benefits of the ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 standards: A literature review, Journal of Industrial
Engineering and Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 297-322.
[37] Van De Wiele, T., Dale, B.G., Timmers, J., Bertsch, B., Williams, R.T. (1993), Total quality management: a state-of-the-art survey of European
industry, Total Quality Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 23-38.
[38] Verbeke, W, Volgering, M., & Hessels, M. (1998), Exploring the conceptual expansion within the field of organizational behaviour: Organizational
climate and organizational culture, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 35, pp. 303-329.
[39] Wilkins, A., L. and Ouchi, W., G. (1983), Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship between Culture and Organizational Performance,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 28, No. 3, pp. 468-481.
[40] Yin, H and Schmeidler, P.J. (2009), Why do standardized ISO 14001 environmental management systems lead to heterogeneous environmental
outcomes?, Business Strategy and the Environment, Vol. 18, pp. 469-486.
[41] Zbaracki, M. (1998), The rhetoric and reality of total quality management, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 43, pp. 602-636.

QUALITY
access to success Vo l. 16, No . 14 8/O cto be r 20 15 59