Quality system auditors

attitudes and methods: a

survey
A. Williamson, J.H. Rogerson
Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK, and

Quality system
auditors
attitudes
39
Received May 1995
Revised September 1995

A.D. Vella
University of Luton, Luton, UK
Introduction
Quality assurance and quality management have become fashionable items for
the business and popular press[1-3]. One of the main topics of this interest,
especially in the UK, has been the ISO 9000 series standards for quality
assurance (the standards used for auditing are [4-6]), and the value and
significance of registration by third parties to these standards. This registration
is managed by a process of quality system auditing.
A quality system audit can be defined as:
A systematic and independent examination to determine whether quality activities and
related results comply with planned arrangements and whether these arrangements are
implemented effectively and are suitable to achieve objectives[7].

This examination should be undertaken by a qualified and independent expert,

reviewing the objective evidence of compliance maintained by the company[8].
However, the realization that the Japanese had used quality as a strategic
weapon took quality from the specialists and introduced it to mainstream
management thought, especially in the work of authors such as Crosby[9] and
Deming[10]. There was also the recognition that business needed to guarantee
more than product conformance and should be concerned with gaining
customer satisfaction. This needs, among other things, speedy delivery and
prompt and polite attention.
If quality is meeting the customers requirements, it has implications beyond
product design and manufacturing, traditionally the main concerns of the
quality system. Other functions not previously touched, such as marketing and
finance, have an important role to play in ensuring customer satisfaction. So
quality has needed to become:
The authors would like to thank the auditors who gave their time to answer the questionnaire and
the staff at the certification bodies who greatly assisted in organizing the survey. In addition, the
authors would like to thank Dr Rachel Asch for her advice in the preparation and analysis of the
questionnaire.

International Journal of Quality

& Reliability Management,
Vol. 13 No. 8, 1996, pp. 39-52,
MCB University Press,
0265-671X

IJQRM
13,8

A set of principles and methods organised as a comprehensive strategy with the goal of
mobilising the entire company in order to achieve the greatest client satisfaction at the lowest
cost[11].

Achieving this requires:

40

The willingness and ability that emerges when a company instils a sense of responsibility in
all the actors and secures their consent, especially at the highest level[11].

Not all these attributes of quality are easily determined from objective evidence,
and as quality assurance standards have evolved to take account of some of
these concerns (as a perusal of earlier quality assurance standards and early
versions of BS 5750 demonstrate), auditors are having to examine a wider range
of evidence in order to decide compliance.
Another issue is that the role of quality system auditing is changing.
Traditionally, audits were demanded by customers of their suppliers and
carried out by the customer or by an independent representative acting on their
behalf. However, as certification has become more popular, the benefits of
operating a compliant quality system have increasingly been sold to the
suppliers themselves. Their objectives for the quality system will be somewhat
different from those of their customers (although, of course, there will be
considerable overlap in aims). As a consequence, more stakeholders are
concerned with the results of an audit and the audit process must accommodate
the goals of these stakeholders. Because of all these questions, it was decided to
survey auditor attitudes and methods, to see how auditors currently address
these issues.
Design and execution of survey
Surveys are based generally on either interviews or questionnaires[12,13]. It
was decided to use questionnaires because there are over a thousand auditors
working for certification bodies and it would be time-consuming and expensive
to interview a significant fraction of them. The main difficulties with this
approach are that the range of questions that can be asked is limited and
clarification or follow-up of answers is extremely difficult (especially as the
questionnaire was anonymous). In the questionnaire, most of the questions were
closed (a closed question is where the auditor answers from a list of options,
rather than prepare an answer themselves), as this quickens the analysis and
presentation of the results.
In 1993 there were over 30 accredited certification bodies[14], but most of
these register companies in specific industries (such as the reinforcing steel and
ceramic industries). It was decided that, because of their size and specialization,
it would not prove useful to sample these companies. The certification field has
several large companies which offer a wide range of expertise: BSI QA, Lloyds
Register QA, SGS Yarsley, Bureau Veritas QI and NQA. Many of the auditors
working for certification bodies are employed by these companies so it was
decided to limit the survey to these companies. All these certification bodies
were contacted and agreed to participate in the survey.

A preliminary questionnaire was designed and tested on a sample of

auditors working for one of the certification bodies. After this questionnaire
was analysed, a revised pilot questionnaire was sent to all the participating
certification bodies for their approval, and they then kindly distributed this
second pilot questionnaire to a 10 per cent sample of their auditors. Their replies
were used in the design of the final questionnaire. The main changes to the final
questionnaire were the closing of many of the questions (using the replies from
the pilot questionnaire), several questions on the perceived benefits of compliant
quality systems were removed as the answers suggested that the auditors were
not replying from personal observation and the meaning of several other
questions was clarified. This questionnaire was again distributed by the
certification bodies. Approximately 750 auditors were contacted (all the
auditors who worked for the five certification bodies mentioned above) and 274
replies had been received by the time the survey finished, a response rate of
about 36 per cent. During the questionnaire, auditors with whom Cranfield
University was working on a separate research project were asked to clarify the
meaning of several of the replies received.
Results of the survey
Question one asked What do you believe is the main function of a quality
management system? This was designed as a general question to understand
auditors views of the function and role of a quality system. The options
presented to the auditors were:
(1) Improve internal efficiency and reduce waste.
(2) Provide effective control over the companys activities.
(3) Continuously improve the companys activities.
(4) Fulfil the customers needs.
(5) Ensure quality products are produced.
(6) Other (space was provided for the auditors to explain).
The replies to question one tried to offer the auditor all the significant
viewpoints on quality. Improving internal efficiency stresses the role of the
quality system in reducing non-conformity and waste. The continuous
improvement in activities differs from this in that it is concerned with how the
quality system drives improvement. Much discussion of quality has
concentrated on its role in improving management control, by using
documented procedures and manuals, and providing effective control was
designed to observe this. Quality has been equated with customer satisfaction
and fulfilling the customers needs addressed this. The role of quality in
controlling product conformance was another possible reply.
No particular reply dominated, the most popular replies being providing
effective control, improving the companys activities and fulfilling
customers needs(see Figure 1). The perception that quality systems are to

Quality system
auditors
attitudes
41

IJQRM
13,8

Other
Produce quality products
Fulfil customer's needs

42

Improve company activities

Provide effective control

Figure 1.
Question 1, What do
you believe is the main
function of a quality
management system?

Improve internal efficiency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 100

Number of replies

guarantee quality products represents few auditors opinions, only 3 per cent of
replies agreeing with this viewpoint (although it may be argued that product
conformance is the result of a controlled or improving quality system). These
answers reflect how auditors perceive that management (in particular) can
improve the operation of the company, and take a view of quality in keeping
with the interpretation of a quality system as a management tool.
Question 2a asked What do you personally consider are the most important
three characteristics that must be present in order that a company may have an
effective quality management system? A list of answers was presented (see
Figure 2) and the auditors asked to choose three.
Auditors believed that senior management commitment was the most
important attribute of a quality system, with most of the other replies receiving
between 25 per cent to 40 per cent support. Two attributes which few auditors
considered important were low levels of product non-conformance and status of
quality personnel. In view of the replies to question one, it is not surprising that

Figure 2.
Question 2a, What do
you consider are the
three most important
characteristics that
must be present in an
effective quality
management system?

Other
Status of quality staff
High product quality
Communication
Company environment
Management commitment
Audits/corrective actions
Understand customers
Committed to improvement
Trained staff
Documented procedures
0

50

Number of replies

100

150

200

250

auditors do not consider good product conformance a leading characteristic of

a quality system. Although the status of quality personnel is not usually
considered an attribute of the quality system, the authors suspected that it
would prove to be an important characteristic of management commitment to
quality. However, there is little support for this view.
Question 2b asked Which clauses of ISO 9001 would encompass these
characteristics (described in question 2a)? The auditors were presented with a
list of the 20 clauses of ISO 9001, and asked to tick five clauses. Although there
is not a one-to-one correspondence between the answers in question 2a and
specific clauses, many activities can be encompassed by a few clauses.
One activity where there is a close correspondence between a specific
activity and clause is management commitment and clause 4.1 (management
responsibility). It is not surprising that nearly 90 per cent believed that clause
4.1 encompassed the characteristics they mentioned in question 2a, and 94 per
cent of the respondents who answered management commitment in question 2a
ticked clause 4.1 in question 2b. The activities of management commitment,
internal audits and corrective actions (clauses 4.1, 4.14 and 4.17), often referred
to as quality loop activities by auditors, were identified by 43 per cent of all
respondents (see Figure 3). The other most popular clauses were 4.2 (quality
system), 4.3 (contract review) and 4.18 (training).
4.20
4.18
4.17
4.16
4.14
4.13
4.12
4.11
4.10
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1

0
50
Number of replies

100

150

200

250

The absence of answers supporting many other quality activities traditionally

associated with a quality system was interesting. Clauses concerned with
purchasing, purchaser supplied product, handling and servicing received no
replies at all, and the clauses covering product identification and traceability,
inspection and test status and statistical techniques received less than five replies.
Many companies still invest many resources in these activities, and their absence
among the most important characteristics of an effective quality system may
prove surprising to them. The scarcity of replies for servicing is especially

Quality system
auditors
attitudes
43

Figure 3.
Question 2b, Which
clauses of ISO 9001
would encompass these
characteristics
mentioned in question
2a?

IJQRM
13,8

44

Figure 4.
Question 3, Compliance
to which three clauses
of ISO 9001 are the most
important in proving
the company operates
an effective quality
management system?

interesting as it would appear to be a major component of customer

satisfaction.
Question 3 asked While auditing a company, compliance to which three
clauses of ISO 9001 are the most important in proving to yourself, as an auditor,
that a company operates an effective quality management system? The aim of
this question was to identify the most important clauses for demonstrating the
quality system is compliant, as opposed to effective which was the purpose of
question two (see Figure 4).
4.20
4.18
4.17
4.16
4.14
4.13
4.12
4.11
4.10
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1

0
20
40
60
Number of replies

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

The answers to this question showed the importance auditors place in the
quality loop, with 71 per cent of the auditors identifying internal audits, 67 per
cent mentioning corrective action and 53 per cent of the auditors identifying
both activities. Twenty-nine per cent of the respondents answered with all three
clauses of the quality loop. However, management commitment was a
significantly less popular answer (from question 2), changing from 243 to 125.
Other characteristics highlighted in question 2b were also less popular; indeed
the number of replies for training dropped from 133 to 10. The popularity of the
quality loop activities for providing proof of compliance suggests that auditors
consider it to be a fundamental activity of the quality system and that it more
readily furnishes evidence of compliance than many other important activities
(although the auditor requires evidence of compliance of all activities). These
points are addressed in later questions.
Question 4a asked What do you believe are the three most important types
of evidence you can use in establishing compliance to ISO 9001? A list of 13
options was presented (see Figure 5). The purpose of this question was to
establish what evidence auditors look for while auditing, in particular whether
they rely solely on documented evidence or used more subjective evidence, such
as their perceptions of attitudes and opinions.

A wide variety of replies was chosen, suggesting that auditors use a wide
range of information in making a judgement. The most popular was evidence of
corrective actions, with 60 per cent of auditors replying. As this supplies direct
evidence of the quality loop and was identified in question 3 as an important
element in proving compliance, its popularity is to be expected. Thirty-seven per
cent of auditors considered an internal audit programme to be important
evidence. Quality procedures and records was the second most popular reply,
chosen by 44 per cent and documented evidence of reviews by 34 per cent, which
suggests that auditors prefer to rely on objective, verifiable evidence. However,
some auditors admitted to using more subjective evidence during an audit, such
as the 70 auditors who looked for staff understanding of their responsibilities and
the 66 who look for understanding of customer requirements.
Other
Understand customers
Processes monitored
Trained staff
Reaction to complaints
Staff understanding
Formal quality system
Audit programme
Quality records
Evidence of C A
Documented instructions
Staff committed
Job descriptions
Documented reviews
0
20
40
60
Number of replies

80

100

120

140

160

180

The use of objective evidence was supported by the answers to question 4b,
which asked Why do these types of evidence provide you with the information
necessary to judge whether a company complies with ISO 9001? This was an
open question, and about 60 per cent of the auditors mentioned the need for
objective evidence or proof in their answer.
Question 5a asked Who do you believe is the most important customer of
the registration process? This question attempted to find out who auditors
believed were supposed to benefit from registration. Four options were offered:
the audited company, the customers of the audited company, society at large
and others (see Figure 6). No one view predominated, with 48 per cent favouring
the audited company and 38 per cent preferring the customers of the audited
company (see Figure 6).
Question 5b asked the auditors to provide the reasons for their replies. This
was an open question so several categories were established and the replies
placed in the category that seemed closest to the auditors intent. The categories
were that the customer would receive assurance of the suppliers quality

Quality system
auditors
attitudes
45

Figure 5.
Question 4a, What do
you believe are the three
most important types of
evidence you can use in
establishing compliance
to ISO 9001?

IJQRM
13,8

Other

Society at large

46
Figure 6.
Question 5a, What do
you believe is the most
important customer of
the registration
process?

Customer of
audited company
Audited company
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number of replies

system, the customer would benefit from improvements in the suppliers quality
system, the supplier itself would benefit from the improvements, the supplier is
the customer of the certification body to which they were obligated or that
society would benefit. The first four answers received almost equal numbers of
replies (see Figure 7). This shows that auditors do not have a consensus view of
who are the customers of certification, and possibly the discussion about the
role of certification is mirrored in the auditors replies.
Other
Society benefits

Figure 7.
Question 5b, Why do
you believe they are the
most important
customer?

Direct customer of
certification body
Improved internal
operations
Improved supplier
benefits customer
Confidence in
supplier
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of replies

The next two questions were concerned with problems that the auditors face
during an audit. Both questions were closed. Question 6a asked which two
factors proved to be the most common problems you have experienced during
the process of auditing a company? By far the most common replies were
companies possessing immature quality systems, with 74 per cent of auditors
mentioning this and companies not possessing fully documented procedures
with 46 per cent replying (see Figure 8). None of the other categories received
more than 30 replies.

In discussions with about a dozen auditors during the questionnaire, the

authors noted that immature quality systems are usually considered to be those
that have recently been implemented or changed to meet the needs of
registration and have not yet become second nature to the company. For
example, the staff may be enthusiastic about quality and try to carry out all the
procedures without fully understanding what is necessary and how the quality
system can be applied to benefit the company. With the recent popularity of
registration and the large number of companies seeking certification many
quality systems will have been introduced recently and it is not surprising that
this is a common problem. The large number of replies, however, was a surprise
to the authors.
Other
Never had a problem
Consultants
Process span
Staff unavailable
Over-enthusiastic staff
Evidence not on site
Procedures not documented
Unco-operative staff
Immature quality systems
0

50

100

150

200

250

Number of replies

Nearly half the auditors stated they had problems with companies not fully
documenting their procedures. Auditing a task requires a criterion against
which the task can be compared and the procedure usually provides the basis of
this criterion. If it is absent, the audit may be more difficult. Equally, the auditor
may decide that the company fails to comply and raise a non-conformance but
it is the authors observations from other research that auditors are unwilling to
raise a non-conformance without giving the company the opportunity to show
its compliance (which involves the auditor in more work).
Question 6a also listed several other difficulties auditors may have in
collecting evidence, such as unco-operative or unavailable staff. Very few
auditors have these problems.
Question 6b asked how often audits faced these problems. The pilot survey
suggested that auditors did not, in general, have many problems, so it was not
considered worthwhile asking how often each particular problem was
experienced. The full survey confirmed this result, with 78 per cent replying
never, once or twice or occasionally.
Question 7a asked While you have been personally auditing a company,
what two problems have you had in deciding whether a particular company

Quality system
auditors
attitudes
47

Figure 8.
Question 6a, Which
two factors have proved
to be the most common
problems you have
experienced during an
audit?

IJQRM
13,8

48

Figure 9.
Question 7a, What two
problems have you had
in deciding if a
company complies with
ISO 9001?

complies with the requirements of ISO 9001? A range of replies was received
(see Figure 9). The most common problem auditors faced was with companies
possessing overly complicated quality systems, with 45 per cent of the auditors
mentioning this. Auditors also suggested that companies often lack
understanding of quality and the certification process and that documented
procedures were not always followed. Several auditors mentioned that they
never had a difficulty in deciding compliance, as they believed that ISO 9000
demanded that the company maintains the evidence to ensure compliance, and
if there is a difficulty that is likely to mean that the company does not comply.
Question 7b asked how often these problems were faced, and again auditors
replied that they did not have many problems in deciding compliance, with 82
per cent replying never, once or twice or occasionally.
Other
No difficulty
Documented procedures not used
Complicated QMS
Low awareness of registration
Low awareness of quality
Other requirements
Auditing complex tasks
Auditing creative tasks
Identifying management commitment
Irrelevant clauses
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number of replies

Many replies in the other section in question 6a were replies in question 7a,
which suggested that the difference between questions 6 and 7 may not have
been sufficiently clear. The pilot survey suggested this problem and it was
hoped that fuller instructions might combat it, but unfortunately it was not
entirely effective. It is unlikely that the conclusions drawn have been
invalidated, as only a small proportion (6 per cent) of the answers were affected,
but the replies should be treated with some caution.
The survey concluded with several questions about the auditors
background and experience. Question 8 asked how long the auditor had been
with a certification body: 14 per cent had joined within the last year, 46 per cent
between one and three years ago, 26 per cent had joined between three and five
years ago and 14 per cent had joined more than five years ago. As ISO 9001
registration has increased rapidly in popularity in the last five years and
certification bodies have been recruiting to meet this demand it is not
surprising that many of them have only recently joined their certification body.
Question 9 asked whether they had any auditing experience before joining a
certification body. Experience was not clearly defined, but the purpose was to

discriminate between auditors who were familiar with the ideas of quality
system auditing before joining the certification body and those who were not.
The replies showed that 15 per cent had no previous experience, 34 per cent had
less than three years and 51 per cent had more than three years experience. It
appears that certification bodies try to recruit suitably experienced staff!
This is borne out by the answers to question 10, which asked what was the
auditors occupation before joining the certification body. Seventy-four per cent
had previous positions concerned with quality. Question 11 asked which sort of
company the auditors worked for before joining the certification body. The
categories were obtained from the Standard Industry Classification (SIC) codes.
The replies showed that auditors came from a wide background of companies
(see Figure 10). Most auditors come from manufacturing companies, possibly
because, at present, most certified companies are manufacturing companies
and are likely to have the most experience in operating a compliant quality
system (and so have experienced staff). Studies have shown that other
industries, such as software, are less experienced in applying quality
techniques[15].
Other
Consultancies
Construction
Utilities
Government/public
Retail/distributive
Food/drink
Consumer goods
Chemicals/process
Electrical/electronics
General manufacturing
Military/aerospace
Information technology
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Number of replies

Additional results
The questionnaire also gave an opportunity to explore several other
hypotheses. One question was whether auditors are a homogeneous population
or whether the certification body they have joined influences the auditors
opinion, via training or experience. Initial examination of the results did not
highlight any major differences between the certification bodies in the replies to
the first seven questions. To test this, the results were examined using a Chisquare test (to the level of 0.005, all tests mentioned were to this level). This
showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the
auditors for the different certification bodies.
Although the certification bodies recruit auditors from a variety of
backgrounds, most of them have considerable previous experience in quality

Quality system
auditors
attitudes
49

Figure 10.
Question 11, What sort
of company were you
working for prior to
joining the certification
body?

IJQRM
13,8

50

management. Some do not, and whether their attitudes to quality management

differed from their more experienced colleagues may show if their attitudes
were formed by this previous experience in quality. However, analysis of the
results showed that the auditors without a significant quality background gave
the same answers to all the questions concerned with auditing.
Another possible influence on the auditor might be how much auditing
experience they possessed. The results were examined to see if those auditors
who had less than a years experience with a certification body differed from
those who had been employed for longer. Statistical analysis showed that the
auditors with less than a years experience differed from their colleagues only in
their answers to questions 6b and 7b. Specifically, they reported having fewer
problems with audits than their more experienced colleagues. However, there
was no difference in the problems they faced compared with their colleagues
and their answers to the other questions were similar.
Because of the diverse backgrounds of the auditors, it was decided to
investigate whether the previous field of employment affected the auditors
replies. Auditors from the military/aerospace field were selected for study
because they formed the largest cohesive group of auditors and because the
military/aerospace field has a strong tradition of certification. If any tradition is
likely to influence the auditors, the authors believed that it would be this one.
The only difference was in the answers to question 6b, where the auditors
admitted to having more problems than their colleagues, 34 per cent admitted to
having problems frequently or in the majority of cases as opposed to 17 per
cent of their colleagues. Statistical tests showed that the result was statistically
significant. The answers to question 6a were similar to the remainder of the
auditors, so these auditors do not suffer from different problems. However, the
questionnaire was unable to furnish any further information to explain this
result. None of the other questions showed any differences, with several
questions being tested using Chi-square tests. Thus it seems that the elements
studied in the auditors background are not a decisive factor in their subsequent
views.
Conclusions
This study showed, quite clearly, that auditors have, in general, a common
understanding of the ISO 9000 standards (at least ISO 9001, 2 and 3) and how to
carry out audits against the criteria of the standards. If we take the view that the
auditors task is to judge compliance of a documented management system
against the criteria of ISO 9001 (or 2 or 3), then the results, allowing for
understandable variations in emphasis, give some comfort. However, a concern
that this study exposes is whether the auditors are performing the correct task
anyway?
To understand this concern we need to define the purpose of auditing a
quality system to grant system certification. Auditing is not an end in itself
(customers buy products and services, not management systems). It should
improve the organizations performance in features such as:

 improved product quality;

reduction of waste;
improved service quality;
better and more consistent delivery to customers;
cost reduction.
Why should an organization pay to have an external body (i.e. a certification
body) to validate its quality management system? The reason is, surely, that an
external body can take a professional, objective view of a system and add value
to it. If we examine the answers to the questions in the light of what the authors
believe is the purpose of certification, then some of the answers are surprising.
For example:
Only 3 per cent of auditors thought the role of a quality system was
primarily concerned with product quality and few thought that low
levels of product non-conformance were an important measure of an
effective quality system.
The lesser importance attached to issues such as purchasing, handling,
servicing and statistical techniques.
The major problems being seen as poor documentation of systems.
The view that assessing compliance with ISO 9001 (or 2 or 3) was
straightforward you just look for evidence of a documented system.
Taken together, these views indicate that auditors concentrate primarily on the
task of deciding whether or not an organizations quality system is effectively
documented and implemented and place less emphasis on the outcomes of the
system.
The question is, does this constitute a truly value-added service? For
industry (both public and private sector) to get the maximum benefit from thirdparty auditing and certification, surely there must be a change of approach to at
least acknowledge the relevance of the product and service being produced.
This, it would seem to us, is the challenge for certification/accreditation over the
next few years.
References
1. Brennan, S., Death or honour, Commerce Business Magazine, April 1994.
2. ISO 9000. The new strategic consideration, Business Horizons, May 1994, p. 52.
3. Doubts grow over BS 5750 standard, Daily Telegraph, 31 August 1993, p. 23.
4. BS EN ISO 9001: Quality Systems Model for Quality Assurance in Design/Development,
Production, Installation and Servicing, International Standards Organisation, 1994.
5. BS EN ISO 9002: Quality Systems Model for Quality Assurance in Production and
Installation, International Standards Organisation, 1994.
6. BS EN ISO 9003: Quality Systems Model for Quality Assurance in Final Inspection and
Test, International Standards Organisation, 1994.
7. ISO 8402 1986 Quality Vocabulary, International Standards Organisation, 1986.

Quality system
auditors
attitudes
51

IJQRM
13,8

52

8. Sayle, A., Management Audits: The Assessment of Quality Management Systems, 2nd ed.
McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1988.
9. Crosby, P., Quality Is Free, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1979.
10. Deming, W. Edwards, Out of the Crisis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.
11. Perigord, M., Achieving Total Quality Management, Productivity Press, Cambridge, MA,
1987.
12. Oppenheim, A., Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement, 2nd ed.,
Pinter, London, 1992.
13. Weisberg, H. and Bowen, B., An Introduction to Survey Research and Data Analysis,
W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, CA, 1977.
14. DTI QA Register: The United Kingdom Register of Quality Assessed Companies, Vols 1
and 2, HMSO, London, 1994.
15. Davis, C.J., Gillies, A.C. ,Thompson, J.B. and Smith, P., Current practice in software quality
and the impact of certification schemes, Software Quality Journal, Vol. 2 No. 2, 1993,
pp. 145-61.

This article has been cited by:

1. Alexandra Simon, Luc Honore Petnji Yaya, Stanislav Karapetrovic, Mart Casadess. 2014. An empirical analysis of the
integration of internal and external management system audits. Journal of Cleaner Production 66, 499-506. [CrossRef]
2. Iaki Heras-Saizarbitoria, Olivier Boiral. 2013. ISO 9001 and ISO 14001: Towards a Research Agenda on Management System
Standards*. International Journal of Management Reviews 15:1, 47-65. [CrossRef]
3. Beatriz Fernndez-Muiz, Jos Manuel Montes-Pen, Camilo Jos Vzquez-Ords. 2012. Occupational risk management
under the OHSAS 18001 standard: analysis of perceptions and attitudes of certified firms. Journal of Cleaner Production 24,
36-47. [CrossRef]
4. Damien Power, Mil Terziovski. 2007. Quality audit roles and skills: Perceptions of non-financial auditors and their clients.
Journal of Operations Management 25:1, 126-147. [CrossRef]
5. M. Rajendran, S.R. Devadasan. 2005. Quality audits: their status, prowess and future focus. Managerial Auditing Journal
20:4, 364-382. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Godfrey Yeung, Vincent Mok. 2005. What are the impacts of implementing ISOs on the competitiveness of manufacturing
industry in China?. Journal of World Business 40:2, 139-157. [CrossRef]
7. Mil Terziovski, Damien Power, Amrik S Sohal. 2003. The longitudinal effects of the ISO 9000 certification process on
business performance. European Journal of Operational Research 146:3, 580-595. [CrossRef]
8. Andrew J. Czuchry, Carroll Hyder, Mahmoud Yasin, David Mixon. 1997. A systematic approach to improving quality: a
framework and a field study. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 14:9, 876-898. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
9. Alfred Vella, Lynne Dunckley, Andrew Smith, Andrew Williamson. 1997. Some developments in software quality systems.
Logistics Information Management 10:5, 214-217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]