Omega 34 (2006) 231 – 235

www.elsevier.com/locate/omega

An ISO 9001:2000-based framework for realizing quality

in small businesses
Tariq A. Aldowaisan∗ , Ashraf S. Youssef
Department of Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, College of Engineering and Petroleum, Kuwait University,
P. O. Box 5969 Safat 13060, Kuwait

Received 22 April 2002; accepted 4 October 2004

Available online 2 December 2004

Abstract
The purpose of ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management System (QMS) is to provide businesses with a model to grow
systematically while assuring the quality of their products. The validity of ISO 9001:2000 QMS stems, largely, from the fact
that the best minds worldwide have contributed to its development and maintenance, and the fact that many companies have
reported real business gains because of its implementation. Unfortunately, many small businesses fail to survive due to the
absence or lack of adequate system for managing quality. An obvious recommendation would be to implement ISO 9001:2000
QMS. Nevertheless, small businesses often cite lack of resources and time as the main reasons for not implementing ISO
9001:2000 QMS.
This article proposes a framework for an effective and economical implementation of the ISO 9001:2000 QMS in small
businesses. Unlike the traditional one-shot approach to ISO 9001:2000 implementation, the proposed framework is built on
four premises, utilizing an incremental approach that considers the specific characteristics of small businesses.
䉷 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: ISO 9001:2000 QMS; Small businesses; Framework; Incremental approach

1. ISO 9001 and small businesses

Historically, ISO 9001 Quality Management System
(QMS) has enjoyed more acceptances from larger orga-
nizations that belong mainly to the manufacturing sector.
Over time and with the release of the more generic ISO
9001 version late in the year 2000, the number of non-
manufacturing organizations seeking ISO 9001 certification
gradually but slowly grew.
It is a fact that the majority of organizations worldwide
are non-manufacturing and belong to the category of small
businesses (small businesses, in this paper, is defined as
∗ Corresponding author. Fax: +965 481 6137.
E-mail addresses: tariq@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw,
gomma@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw (T.A. Aldowaisan).
those that employ less than 100 people). These businesses
have generally resisted voluntary adoption of ISO 9001 for
intrinsic and interdependent reasons, such as lack of suf-
ficient personnel and capital resources, lack of time and
skills.
Simply, many small businesses cannot afford to dedicate
or qualify a good number of their employees during and af-
ter the ISO 9001 realization project, nor can they finance
the cost of preparation, development and registration. Ef-
forts to convince these businesses to buy into ISO 9001 have
focused on underlining the benefits of registration and find-
ing ways to reduce the cost of consultation/registration [1].
The focus on reducing the consultation/registration cost has
ironically jeopardized the quality of many of the developed
ISO 9001 systems. To reduce cost, some consultants would
cut on development time, force the use of pre-prepared

0305-0483/$ - see front matter 䉷 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.omega.2004.10.007
232 T.A. Aldowaisan, A.S. Youssef / Omega 34 (2006) 231 – 235
documentation templates, minimize employees’ involvement
and training, and suggest registrars who are document audi-
tors rather than quality auditors. The outcome is an afford-
able ISO 9001 certification at the expense of quality.
2. Premises for the proposed framework
Small businesses are different from large businesses in
many fundamental ways [2]:
1. Top management of small businesses typically enjoy
greater control, are more involved in daily operations,
know all employees and their capabilities, know the
whole company operations end-to-end, have high con-
tact and knowledge of customer requirements, and have
good knowledge of the firm’s working environment of
customers, competitors and suppliers.
2. The scope of small businesses is usually limited in
terms of products/services, geographic location, mar-
ket/customer base, and technology.
3. Every employee, especially at the supervisory/managerial
level, counts. Their departure often causes a great deal
of disruption.
4. There are typically no employees or departments
with the exclusive responsibility for quality activities.
Therefore, quality responsibilities are included among
other responsibilities in the job description of selected
employees.
Watson and Gryna [3] and Rhey and Gryna [4] point
out that small businesses typically lack the resources,
time, and skills to assess quality culture and conduct ex-
tensive market research. The same shortcomings impede
small businesses from developing, implementing, and
maintaining QMS.
In this paper, a framework for realizing quality in small
businesses through ISO 9001:2000 QMS is proposed. The
success of the framework depends largely on four comple-
mentary premises:
1. Do-it-yourself in order to reduce the total cost (prepara-
tion, development, implementation, maintenance, improve-
ment), to assure the attainment of quality, and to assure the
continual improvement of the QMS. The apparent savings
in doing-it-yourself come from eliminating the consultancy
costs incurred during preparation, development, and imple-
mentation. However, the hidden and more significant sav-
ings come at later stages where the business relies on its own
people to fine-tune and improve the system. A major short-
coming of the many ISO 9001 quality systems is that they
are developed by consultants without real involvement from
the people in the organization. Often, lack of understand-
ing of the system components and the involved development
and improvement tools turns these systems into meaning-
less documentation and records keeping practices that stand
as barriers to business improvement.
2. Assign the top operational manager to be also the qual-
ity representative in order to secure and maintain manage-
ment commitment, to assure complete alignment of quality
performance with business performance, to avoid making
new appointments or creating departments, and to assure to-
tal integration of the QMS with the business management
system. The choice of the top operational managers is due
to the sweeping span of control and authority they usually
enjoy in many small businesses, and to their extensive busi-
ness knowledge and experience. To handle the additional
responsibilities, however, they may very well need to rely
on the support of their office staff especially in perform-
ing the activities of document development, implementation
follow-up, and records keeping.
3. Take your time in order to acquire the necessary knowl-
edge and skills in quality and ISO 9001:2000 QMS. The top
operational manager needs experience and in-depth training
in quality concepts and tools, ISO 9001:2000 requirements,
and auditing techniques. The office staff needs to have a gen-
eral training in ISO 9001:2000 QMS and in-depth training
in documentation and documents and records control. Un-
doubtedly, there will be more sweat, longer learning curve,
more errors and frequent updates to the system. It is impor-
tant, however, that the top management stays the course and
maintains persistence to make it work.
4. Do not certify unless it is economically justifi-
able; this often results from customer and/or competitor
pressures. Systems developed under the pressures for
certification sometimes lead to registrar satisfaction rather
than customer satisfaction. Some consultants develop ISO
9001 systems with the registrar, and some times specific
registrar, in mind. The objective of achieving quality rather
than certification helps to minimize the risk of bias that
characterizes self-assessment.
3. Proposed framework
Unlike the traditional one-shot approach to ISO 9001
realization which is typically used by organizations seek-
ing certification, a framework that is based on an incre-
mental approach is recommended for small businesses.
It is believed that the incremental approach, born from
the above premises, simplifies implementation and sup-
ports the learning process. Figs. 1 and 2 show the one-
shot and incremental approaches to ISO 9001 realization,
respectively.
Identify
Design Implement Maintain &
QMS
QMS QMS Improve
Processes
Fig. 1. One-shot approach to ISO 9001 realization.
 T.A. Aldowaisan, A.S. Youssef / Omega 34 (2006) 231 – 235
Single-Process Basic
QMS QMS
Identify
Learn Design Required
Key Product
Time System Processes
Realization Process
Improve &
Design
Automate
Implement
Maintain &
Improve
Fig. 2. Incremental approach to ISO 9001 realization.
As seen from Fig. 2, the proposed framework consists
of three phases. The following paragraphs describe these
phases in detail.
3.1. Single-process QMS
The objective of this phase is to develop a QMS around
a single product realization process. The whole idea here
is to focus all efforts on the most business rewarding pro-
cess and to simplify the task to the extent possible. Since
the goal is not to certify, the business does not have to
quarrel with the system processes at this point (e.g. docu-
ment/records control, auditing, control of nonconformities,
preventive/corrective actions). Moreover, since the system
realization’s time is not of primary concern, effort and time
can focus on exploring improvement and automation pos-
sibilities. Consultants eager to cut on cost and get the job
done with minimal time and effort often overlook opportu-
nities for improvement.
The most business rewarding process is one that:
1. generates the highest revenue/profit,
2. has the highest transaction rate, and/or
3. consumes the majority of resources.
Dealing with a small business often does not require a
documented policy manual at this stage. A simple busi-
ness/quality policy statement distributed to all employees
and posted in the offices could be sufficient.
A single documented procedure for the selected business
process needs to be prepared; however, we recommend that
documentation take the form of a graphical process map.
Process mapping or flowcharting “helps you visualize and
233
Multiple-Process
QMS
Identify More
Learn
Mgt. & Product
Time
Realization Processes
Improve &
Design
Responsibility Activity Quality Assurance
Doer (D) or Description Form/Record/
Supervisor (S) Instruction
Fig. 3. Graphical process map.
present your process in a way that written descriptions can-
not begin to approach [5].” A complementary textual de-
scription may not be needed as processes in small businesses
are usually straightforward and the graphical process map
could alone capture the critical information of activity/logic,
responsibility, and quality assurance as shown in Fig. 3.
Wright gives additional reasons to restrict procedure docu-
mentation to flowcharting even for larger businesses [6]: a
“flowchart is simple to audit, contains no padding or unnec-
essary information and is short and to the point. It is also
easy to change, particularly if the system is electronic or
web-based,” as it is also important for the design of mean-
ingful forms/records and instructions to assure and help im-
prove quality [7]. This graphical process mapping tool was
applied to the training process (mostly a money generating
process) when developing the ISO 9001 QMS for the Of-
fice of Consultation and Career Development (OCCD) in the
College of Engineering and Petroleum at Kuwait University
(Fig. 4).
The process map could be used as the subject for pro-
cess improvement. We have found it to be very useful when
utilized in the context of brainstorming workshops. Another
use of the process map is to communicate requirements for
automation. We highly recommend using automation at this
234 T.A. Aldowaisan, A.S. Youssef / Omega 34 (2006) 231 – 235

Responsibilities Activities Quality Assurances

S/D: Training Officer Training Manual Self Assessment

Setup
Course ProposalForm
D: Training Coordinator

S: Training Coordinator Deliver Training Course Opening

Statement
D: Trainer

S: Training Coordinator Evaluate Course Evaluation Form

D: Trainee

S: Training Coordinator Feedback & Course Evaluation Report

D: Training Secretary Update Training Training Performance Annual
Database Report

Fig. 4. OCCD training process map.

stage in records keeping and performance measurement. For
example, in the OCCD case study, a database application
with a front-end template was developed as per the “Course
Evaluation Form” to automate the generation of course eval-
uation reports and general training performance evaluation
as per the “Training Performance Annual Report” (Fig. 4).
Salot [8] outlines the benefits of automation as follows:
1. Reduce resources required for documentation and records
maintenance.
2. Increase the amount and quality of information available
for decision-making.
3. Shorten the process cycle.
4. Increase access to current product and process informa-
tion and metric data.
5. Reduce audit time and the expenditure of company
resources.
From our experience, we believe that small businesses could
get a lot of mileage from capitalizing on the capabilities of
the already available common software applications of MS
Office, especially the MS Access database.
It is recommended that the next phase is not extended
unless there is a potential benefit from doing so. Other con-
siderations include attaining an acceptable level of stability
with the current system and a leveling-off of the learning
curve.
cesses could partially be developed in the previous phase;
e.g. records keeping, document control, and control of non-
conforming products.
The reasons for expanding the single-process QMS into
the basic QMS may include:
1. providing more rigor and order to the process of main-
taining and improving the system (document control,
records keeping, preventive and corrective actions, and
internal audit);
2. ensuring that non-conforming products are properly dis-
posed of (control of non-conforming products); or
3. paving the way to a possible certification as the documen-
tation of these processes is required by ISO 9001:2000
QMS model.
The experience and learning gained by the top operational
manager and office staff from the previous step will prove
to be valuable in carrying out the tasks of this phase more
effectively and efficiently.
We see no real value in developing an elaborate pol-
icy manual unless certification is in mind. It is possible to
overlay policy requirements on the graphical map under the
“quality assurance” headline. For example, we may state the
audit frequency on the internal audit process map. No need
to detail the audit scope as it is likely to cover the whole
system in small businesses.

3.2. Basic QMS 3.3. Multiple-process QMS

The objective of this phase is to develop the ISO 9001 We may directly arrive to this phase from the single-
system processes completely (document control, records process QMS or indirectly after going through the basic
keeping, corrective and preventive actions, control of non- QMS phase. In either case, the objective of this phase is to
conforming products, and internal audit). Some of these pro- include more product realization processes and managerial
 T.A. Aldowaisan, A.S. Youssef / Omega 34 (2006) 231 – 235
processes. The motivation for this phase is to increase the
QMS scope in order to improve quality or possibly seek
certification. Again, we suggest taking the certification route
only if the economics call for it.
In our OCCD example, we first added the product real-
ization process of consulting and later added the testing and
calibration processes. The experience gained from the pre-
vious phases greatly reduces the development time. Another
expansion would include managerial processes such as those
related to business planning and resources provisions (both
physical and human).
We recommend exploring the potential of workflow au-
tomation at this phase to capitalize on the potential integra-
tion of the different product realization processes and their
logical link with the management/planning and measure-
ment processes as per the ISO 9001:2000 QMS model.
4. Conclusion
In this paper, we proposed a framework for quality real-
ization through implementing ISO 9001:2000 QMS based
on an incremental approach that is suitable for small busi-
nesses. The framework is motivated by four complemen-
tary premises to maximize the likelihood of success. These
premises are do-it-yourself, take your time, assign the top
operational manager to also be the quality representative,
and do not seek certification. The main advantage of these
premises is to maximize the likelihood of realizing quality
rather than certificates in small businesses.
The framework consists of three phases:
1. Single-process QMS. In this phase, all efforts including
process improvement and automation are focused on
235
designing and implementing ISO 9001 for the most re-
warding product realization process.
2. Basic QMS. In this phase, the single-process QMS is ex-
panded to include the minimum number of system pro-
cesses as per ISO 9001:2000 QMS requirements.
3. Multiple-process QMS. In this phase, the system is fur-
ther expanded to include more product realization and
management processes.
The incremental approach of the proposed framework al-
lows small businesses to reap the benefits of ISO 9001:2000
QMS without having to commit many resources or incur
high expenses. Moreover, taking time to implement the re-
quirements of ISO 9001:2000 QMS supports the learning
and appreciation process and, thus, maximizes the system
utility.
References
[1] Callaghan N. ISO 9000 for small companies. Quality Digest,
August 1997; 24–9.
[2] Berg DL, Harral WM. The small company route to ISO 9000.
Quality Digest, July 1998; 26–30.
[3] Watson MA, Gryna FM. Quality culture in small business: four
case studies. Quality Progress, January 2001; 41–6.
[4] Rhey WL, Gryna FM. Market research for quality in small
business. Quality Progress, January 2001; 31–8.
[5] Sellers G. Using flowcharts for performance improvement.
Quality Digest, March 1997; 49–51.
[6] Wright T. ISO 9001 without tear. Quality Progress, August
2001; 57–61.
[7] Myers DJ. Improve forms, improve quality. Quality Digest,
August 2000; 43–4.
[8] Salot Jr SH. A documentation system for the future. Quality
Digest, February 2000; 40–3.