See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/216044348

ISO 9001:2000 based quality management system via ABET based accreditation

Article  in  International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management · February 2011

DOI: 10.1504/IJPQM.2011.038681

CITATIONS READS
3 1,351

5 authors, including:

D. Thandapani C.G Sreenivasa

Arunai College of Engineering University B.D.T College of Engineering
7 PUBLICATIONS   29 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   189 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by D. Thandapani on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2011 125

ISO 9001:2000 based quality management system

via ABET-based accreditation

D. Thandapani*
Department of Mechanical Engineering,
C. Abdul Hakeem College of Engineering and Technology,
Melvisharam, Vellore 632509, Tamil Nadu, India
E-mail: tandapani@yahoo.com
*Corresponding author

K. Gopalakrishnan
Foundation for Educational Excellence,
Deccan Institute of Advanced Studies (DIAS),
Bangalore 560071, Karnataka, India
E-mail: profgoki@yahoo.com

S.R. Devadasan
Department of Production Engineering,
PSG College of Technology,
Coimbatore 641004, Tamil Nadu, India
E-mail: devadasan_srd@yahoo.com

C.G. Sreenivasa
Department of Industrial and Production Engineering,
University B.D.T. College of Engineering,
Davangere 577004, Karnataka, India
E-mail: sreenivasacg@gmail.com

R. Murugesh
Darshan Institute of Engineering and Technology,
Rajkot 363650, Gujarat, India
E-mail: drmurugesh_m@yahoo.com

Abstract: International Organization for Standardization (ISO) brought out the

ISO 9000 series Quality Management System (QMS) standards in 1987.
Thereafter, ISO also revised the ISO 9000 series standards in 1994 and 2000.
Today, it is very difficult to see an industrial organisation which has not
obtained ISO 9001:2000 certification. However, the Engineering Educational
Institutions (EEIs) which provide human resources under the name ‘engineers’
to the industrial organisations are sluggish in implementing ISO 9001:2000
based QMS. Meanwhile, engineering educational leaders are envisaging the
modern EEIs to get accredited to the stipulations of various national and

Copyright © 2011 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

126 D. Thandapani et al.

international agencies. This situation warrants an EEI to accredit its

programmes with Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology
(ABET) and then implement ISO 9001:2000 standard. However, this task will
consume unaffordably high amount of time and money. To overcome this
hurdle, in this paper, a methodology for implementing ISO 9001:2000 standard
via ABET-based accreditation in EEIs has been described by presenting an
implementation study.

Keywords: ISO 9000 certification; accreditation; EEIs; ABET; engineers and

industrial organisations.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Thandapani, D.,

Gopalakrishnan, K., Devadasan, S.R., Sreenivasa, C.G. and Murugesh, R.
(2011) ‘ISO 9001:2000 based quality management system via ABET-based
accreditation’, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 7, No. 2,
pp.125–147.

Biographical notes: D. Thandapani is Professor in the Department of

Mechanical Engineering, C. Abdul Hakeem College of Engineering and
Technology, Melvisharam, Vellore, India. He obtained his Bachelor’s degree in
Mechanical Engineering from The Institution of Engineers (India), Kolkatta,
in 1988. He obtained his Master’s degree in Industrial Engineering
specialisation from PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, in 1997. His
research work is in the area of Quality in Engineering Education at Anna
University Coimbatore, India. He has an industrial experience of 15 years and
13 years of teaching experience.

K. Gopalakrishnan is a Dean and Professor, Foundation for Educational

Excellence, Co-ordinating Research Programmes. He is the Member of the
Board of Governors, National Design and Research Forum (NDRF), Board of
Research and Academic Council, Anna University Coimbatore and Dr. MGR
University, Chennai. He is having 25 years of experience in industry,
consultancy, teaching, training and research. He is also the Secretary and
Director General of Indian Institute of Safety and Environment. He is the
Editor-in-Chief of various national journals of professional bodies.

S.R. Devadasan is a Professor in the Department of Production Engineering at

PSG College of Technology, Coimbatore, India. He holds a Bachelor’s degree
in Mechanical Engineering, a Master’s degree in Industrial Engineering, a PhD
in Mechanical Engineering and a DSc in Mechanical Engineering. He has
19 years of teaching and research experience. He has published over 53 papers
in international journals. He is an editorial advisory board member of the
European Journal of Innovation Management, UK and a review board member
of the Journal of Management Development. His areas of research interest
include Six-Sigma, total productive maintenance and lean manufacturing.

C.G. Sreenivasa is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Industrial and

Production Engineering at the University B.D.T College of Engineering,
Davangere, Karnataka, India. Currently, he is pursuing his PhD in the
Department of Production Engineering at the PSG College of Technology,
Coimbatore, India, under the Indian Government’s Quality Improvement
Programme. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical Engineering and a
Master’s degree in Production Engineering System Technology. He has seven
years of teaching experience. His research interests include agile
manufacturing, total quality management, lean manufacturing and Six-Sigma.
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 127

R. Murugesh is working as the Principal of Darshan Institute of Engineering

and Technology, Gujarat, India. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Mechanical
Engineering, a Master’s degree in Industrial Engineering and a PhD in
Mechanical Engineering. He has more than 20 years of experience in teaching
and research. He has published 18 papers in various international journals,
10 papers in international conferences, 3 papers in national conferences and
7 papers are under review in international journals. His area of research interest
includes strategic productivity management, total productive maintenance,
MIS, web engineering and executive support system.

1 Introduction

The world witnessed the emergence of Total Quality Management (TQM) principles
during the middle of 20th century (Ehigie and McAndrew, 2005; Hokoma et al., 2010).
This was marked by the emanation of numerous models contributed by quality gurus
such as Juran, Deming, Ishikawa and Crosby (Teh et al., 2008; Thandapani et al., 2010).
Yet, the world did not imbibe TQM principles till 1960s. The world began to adopt TQM
principles only during 1980s when the Japanese products began to invade the global
markets. During this time, the world community realised that the TQM principles had
helped the Japanese organisations to continuously improve the quality of products,
processes and services. As a result, Japanese products were sold in global markets for low
prices but with a high degree of quality (Winfield and Kerrin, 1994). Thereafter, the quest
for implementing TQM principles was witnessed in almost all parts of the world
(Kaluarachchi, 2010). This kind of TQM movement resulted in the evolution of
numerous tools, techniques, models and approaches (Sakthivel et al., 2007). Some
of them were newly developed, while many of them had been already available in generic
forms which were made applicable in TQM environment. One of the newly developed
models of TQM is quality system. This was contributed first by the quality guru
Feigenbaum during 1950s (Ehigie and McAndrew, 2005).
When TQM movement gained momentum, the need for quality system was realised
in the UK. Hence, UK brought out the standard BS 5750 for the purpose of triggering its
organisations to implement quality systems (Macdonald, 1998). During 1980s, most of
the UK organisations, which implemented BS 5750 based quality systems reported the
reaping of benefits that led to continuous quality improvement. Presumably on seeing this
success, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) brought out ISO 9000
series Quality Management System (QMS) standards in 1987 (Beatty, 2006; Doherty,
2008; Franceschini et al., 2006). Thereafter, many organisations began to obtain ISO
9000 certification with several motives (Sampaio et al., 2009). Furthermore, ISO also
revised the ISO 9000 series standards in 1994 and 2000 (Bae, 2007; Gotzamani, 2005;
Kemenade and Hardjono, 2009; Shalij et al., 2009). The ISO 9000 series standards
released in 2000 are lauded by the researchers for their foundation rests on the cycle of
continual quality improvement using process-based quality management model (Castka
and Balzarova, 2008a; Zaramdini, 2007). Presumably due to this reason, the pace of
implementing ISO 9001:2000 standard unabatedly continues in the world (Singh et al.,
2006).
128 D. Thandapani et al.

Today, it is very difficult to see a company situated in either a developed or

developing country without obtaining ISO 9001:2000 certification (Sampaio et al., 2009;
Singh and Manson-Nehra, 2006). This is especially true in the case of industrial
organisations which are forerunners in implementing ISO 9001:2000 based quality
systems (Fotopoulos et al., 2010; Sakthivel et al., 2005). When this trend proceeds in a
progressive way, the Engineering Educational Institutions (EEIs) which provide human
resources under the name ‘engineers’ to the industrial organisations are sluggish in
implementing ISO 9001:2000 based quality systems. This is a highly concerning
disparity as the products of EEIs, namely ‘engineers’, are largely entering into the
industrial organisations to offer their expertise and knowledge. Hence, the quality of
these engineers has an important bearing on the quality of products and services offered
by the industrial organisations to the societies (Thandapani et al., 2010; Uhomoibhi,
2009). Therefore, it can be inferred that the quality of the systems implemented in EEIs
plays an important role in the prosperity of not only the industrial organisations but also
the societies which receive the products and services from these organisations. Hence,
EEIs need to be incorporated with ISO 9001:2000 based QMS.
During the past one decade, the engineering educational leaders have been envisaging
the modern EEIs to get accredited with various national and international agencies
(Uhomoibhi, 2009). Though the accreditation leads to the implementation of systems
similar to those based on ISO 9001:2000 standard, it cannot be said that the QMS which
prevails in industrial organisations could be superimposed on the one that is implemented
in EEIs. This observation leads to an inference that EEIs need to concentrate on
implementing ISO 9001:2000 based QMS rather than accrediting their programmes with
an appropriate agency. However, this is not a prudent proposition. This is due to the
reason that EEIs cannot dispense with Accreditation Board for Engineering and
Technology (ABET) based accreditation, as it is fast becoming the mandatory
requirement of various governments in the world (Patil and Codner, 2007; Prados et al.,
2005). This situation warrants an EEI to accredit its programmes and then implement ISO
9001:2000 standard. It appears that this two-stage process may provide dual solution of
meeting the mandatory requirement of accreditation and the implementation of ISO
9001:2000 based QMS for making the engineers’ skills and knowledge compatible with
those that are required in industrial organisations. However, there may not be many
takers of this process, as many EEIs may hesitate to implement the requirements of both
ABET criteria and ISO 9001:2000 standard, as it could be a very expensive and
unaffordable endeavour. To overcome this hurdle, this research was carried out.
During this research, ABET was adopted as the model of accreditation (Carberry
et al., 2010; Kemenade and Hardjono, 2009). The reason for choosing the ABET is that it
is fast becoming a globally acceptable accreditation model (Patil and Codner, 2007;
Prados et al., 2005). Even those countries which have established their own accreditation
agencies have formulated criteria for accrediting EEIs based on ABET criteria (Letelier
and Carrasco, 2004). The studying of ABET criteria and the clauses of ISO 9001:2000
standard revealed that many of them were found to be common with each other. This
coincidence would indicate that EEIs having got accredited its programmes with ABET
need not have to develop the elements which are commonly required by ISO 9001:2000
standard. These EEIs are required only to carry out the requirements of ISO 9001:2000
standard which are not addressed under ABET criteria. However, this task cannot be
done in a straightforward manner because the above-mentioned commonalities and non-
commonalities are scattered in ABET and ISO 9001:2000 standard. Hence, it is necessary
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 129

to study the practical viability of implementing ISO 9001:2000 standard via ABET-based
accreditation in EEIs. However, a literature overview indicated that this kind of efforts
and researches has not been so far attempted in the world. To explore in this direction,
this research was carried out to examine the implementation of ISO 9001:2000 standard
via ABET-based accreditation.

2 Literature survey

During this research, literature survey was carried out to search for any work carried out
to instal ISO 9001:2000 based quality system in EEIs via ABET-based accreditation.
This literature survey was carried out in three phases. First, the trend of implementing
ABET-based accreditation was surveyed. In the second phase, the trend of implementing
ISO 9001:2000 based quality system in industrial organisations was surveyed. During the
third phase, the trend of implementing ISO 9001:2000 based quality system in EEIs was
studied. The details of the three phases of this literature survey are presented in Sections
2.1–2.3.

2.1 Trend of ABET-based accreditation in EEIs

It is commonly believed that accrediting programmes in EEIs is a new development in
engineering educational scenario. However, the identification of papers by Augusti
(2006) and Patil and Codner (2007) and their subsequent review of these papers revealed
that accreditation of engineering educational programmes was started in 1932 itself
(Memon et al., 2009). This was marked by the stipulation released by Engineers Council
for Professional Development (ECPD) situated in the USA. Later, this agency was
renamed as ABET. After a gap of about two decades, the concept of accreditation
was brought out in Europe by the European Federation of National Engineering
Association in 1951. Hence, ABET can be considered as the foundation of accreditation
criteria of engineering education (Jain et al., 2010; Svanstrom et al., 2008; Uhomoibhi,
2009). It is intensively noticed that many countries have been accepting ABET criteria
for accrediting the programmes of EEIs (Letelier and Carrasco, 2004). The papers that
have reported this development and other relevant information are given in Table 1. As,
shown, many countries have established accreditation agencies to accredit the EEIs.
Table 1 Statistics of papers reporting accreditation

Year of initiation Paper Country Accreditation agency

1932 Heitmann and Augusti (2001) USA ABET
and Memon, Demirdogen and
Chowdhry (2009)
1934 Augusti (2005) France Commission des Titres
d’Ingénieur
1989 Prados et al. (2005) Australia The Institution of Engineers
1989 Prados et al. (2005) Canada Canadian Engineering
Accreditation Board
1989 Prados et al. (2005) Ireland The Institution of Engineers
1989 Prados et al. (2005) New Zealand The Institution of Professional
Engineers
1989 Prados et al. (2005) South Africa Engineering Council
130 D. Thandapani et al.

Table 1 Statistics of papers reporting accreditation (continued)

Year of initiation Paper Country Accreditation agency

1989 Prados et al. (2005) Hong Kong Institute of Engineers
(China)
1992 Pokholkov et al. (2004) Russia Russian Association of
Engineering Education
1993 Castillo (2000) Peru Peru Engineering Academy
1994 Barros (2001) Portugal Institution of Portuguese
Engineers
1994 Patil and Codner (2007) India National Board of
Accreditation (NBA) of All
India Council for Technical
Education (AICTE)
1994 Akduman et al. (2001) Turkey ABET
1994 Castillo (2000) Mexico Engineering Programmes
Accreditation Agency
1995 Castillo (2000) Bolivia Bolivia University
Executive Committee
1996 Castillo (2000) Colombia Colombian Association of
Engineering Colleges
1997 Dodridge (2002) UK Engineering Council
1997 Castillo (2000) Argentina Comision Nacional de
Evaluacion y Acreditacion
Universitaria
1999 Letelier and Carrasco (2004) Chile National Commission for
Undergraduate
Accreditation
1999 Ohnaka (2001) Japan Japan Accreditation Board
for Engineering Education
2003 Prados et al. (2005) Malaysia Board of Engineers
2003 Prados et al. (2005) Singapore The Institution of Engineers
2003 Prados et al. (2005) Germany Accreditation Agency for
Study Programs in
Engineering and Informatics
2009 Lee (2010) South Korea Accreditation Board of
Engineering Education of
Korea

2.2 Trend of ISO 9001:2000 standard implementation in industrial

organisations
Right from the year of release of ISO 9000 series standards, the quest for obtaining its
certification has been increasing (Fotopoulos et al., 2010). This trend has been occurring
despite some researchers claiming the deficiencies of obtaining ISO 9000 certification
(Sroufe and Curkovic, 2008). In literature arena, a section of researchers have reported
the unabated growth of ISO 9000 certification (Martinez-Costa et al., 2009; Shalij et al.,
2009). During this stage of literature survey, as many as 16 papers reporting the wide
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 131

dissemination of ISO 9000 certification across the world were encountered. Some of the
information provided in these papers are highlighted in this section.
Franceschini et al. (2006) have traced the growth of ISO 9000 certification from 1993
to 2002. They have pointed out that, in 1993, only 27,816 ISO 9000 certifications were
reported from 48 countries in the world. This number increased to 5,61,747 in 2002.
During this year, as many as 159 countries/economics and 27 industrial sectors have
reported the ISO 9000 certifications. This statistics lead to an inference that ISO 9000
certification has spread across almost all parts of the world and the industrial sectors
(Castka and Balzarova, 2008b). Similar statistics is provided in Saraiva and Duarte
(2003). These authors have pointed out that ISO 9000 certification has been reported
from 161 countries. Some more papers, such as Briscoe et al. (2005), Singh and Manson-
Nehra (2006) and Franceschini et al. (2008), have reported the continuous growth of ISO
9000 certification across the world. More recently, Sampaio et al. (2009) have mentioned
that 8,97,866 ISO 9000 valid certifications from at least 170 countries have been reported
till the end of December 2006. They have also pointed out the diffusion of ISO 9000
certification across all continents. According to this statistics, Europe stands first by
reporting 48.9% of ISO 9000 certifications that have occurred in the entire world. This
kind of rapid and continuous growth of ISO 9000 certifications indicates that a modern
engineer irrespective of the field of work is required to possess intensive knowledge on
ISO 9001:2000 based QMS and shall acquire the capabilities to work under the aegis of
this QMS.

2.3 Trend of implementing ISO 9001:2000 standard in EEIs

Even though a large volume of ISO 9000 certifications has been reported about industrial
organisations, there has been very little number of papers reporting the ISO 9000
certifications in EEIs. During this stage of literature survey, only three papers reporting
the implementation of ISO 9001:2000 standard in EEIs could be encountered. Out of
them, two papers have enumerated the similarities and differences between the ISO 9000
certification and ABET requirements. These papers have been contributed by
Karapetrovic et al. (1998) and Sarin (2000). Both papers have dealt the earlier version of
ISO 9001 standard released in 1994. Hence, the contributions of these papers have
become outdated. However, these contributions have shown the ways of implementing
ISO 9001:2000 standard in EEIs. According to this method, first an EEI has to get
accredited to ABET and then implement the non-commonalities of ISO 9001:2000
standard with ABET criteria. This process will save time and money to make the system
adopted in the EEIs to contribute globally acceptable products, namely ‘engineers’.
Besides the above two papers, another two papers contributed by Sakthivel et al. (2005)
and Pramod et al. (2010) were encountered. The information provided in these papers
indicate that EEIs situated in India lead the race of obtaining ISO 9001 certification. This
is despite the fact that as a country, China is leading in the race of obtaining ISO 9000
certifications in various organisations and, as a continent, Europe is leading in this race
(Sampaio et al., 2009).

2.4 Inferences
The results of the literature survey reported in Sections 2.1–2.3 indicated that both EEIs
and industrial organisations have realised the need of implementing systems for infusing
132 D. Thandapani et al.

higher degree of quality in the products, processes and services offered by them to the
society. Yet, the direction of progress in this regard occurs in two different paths. In one
path, EEIs are spending enormous amount of time and money for accrediting their
programmes by following ABET-based criteria. Along the other path, industrial
organisations are implementing ISO 9001:2000 based quality systems. The industry
captains possess little knowledge on ABET-based accreditation. Likewise, engineering
educationalists possess very little knowledge about implementing ISO 9001:2000 based
quality system in EEIs. The growth in these two different paths results in the non-
compatibility of skills and knowledge of engineers produced by EEIs with those that are
required by industrial organisations. Hence, it is high time that both EEIs and industrial
organisations are incorporated with a common quality system, which would make the
products, processes and services compatible to each other’s requirements.
ABET-based criteria are highly biased towards enhancing the quality of EEIs. Hence
it is not prudent to expect industrial organisations to get accredited using ABET criteria.
Therefore, the alternative is the adoption of ISO 9001:2000 standard for implementing
the process-based quality management model (Benner and Veloso, 2008) in EEIs, which
is also implemented in industrial organisations. However, as mentioned earlier, EEIs
cannot dispense away the implementation of ABET-based accreditation, as it is a
mandatory legal requirement in many countries. Hence, EEIs shall have to implement
ABET-based accreditation and then they have to instal ISO 9001:2000 based quality
system. This two-stage process will consume abundant time and money which may not
be justified in terms of returns and gains to be reaped in future by the EEIs. However, an
encouraging fact is that many requirements of ABET criteria and stipulations of ISO
9001:2000 standard are common to each other. Quite interestingly, these findings are
corroborated by those presented in Sarin (2000). Hence, an EEI accredited to ABET or its
related standard established by the different countries can avoid carrying out the common
stipulations and criteria while implementing ISO 9001:2000 standard. These EEIs shall
have to carry out the non-commonalities of ISO 9001:2000 standard and ABET criteria.
However, these commonalities and non-commonalities are available in a scattered
manner in ABET criteria and ISO 9001:2000 standard. Hence, a model is required to be
developed to enable the EEIs to carry out the non-commonalities of ISO 9001:2000
standard with ABET criteria. This methodology will also enable the organisations to
develop the commonalities and non-commonalities of the stipulations of ISO 9001:2000
standard and ABET-based criteria.

3 Research methodology

Having identified the absence of a model to implement ISO 9001:2000 standard in EEIs
via ABET accreditation as the problem, this research was carried out by following the
methodology shown in Figure 1. As shown, after conducting the literature survey and
studying the requirements of ABET criteria and ISO 9001:2000 standard, the research
was proceeded by studying the requirements of ABET criteria and ISO 9001:2000
standard (www.abet.org and www.iso.org). The commonalities existing between them
were listed in Table 2. Subsequently, the non-commonalities existing between ABET
criteria and ISO 9001:2000 standard were listed in Table 3. Then, the clauses of ISO
9001:2000 standard were listed in Table 4. In this list, the commonalities and non-
commonalities between ABET criteria and ISO 9001:2000 standard were marked. This
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 133

marked-up list of the clauses of ISO 9001:2000 standard clauses will help an EEI to
substitute the commonalities of ABET criteria in its ISO 9001:2000 based QMS. The
QMS can be fully built by developing the elements of non-commonalities marked up in
the above list of ISO 9001:2000 standard clauses, as shown in Table 4. After developing
this framework, the implementation of ISO 9001:2000 standard via ABET criteria was
studied in the baccalaureate mechanical engineering programme of a typical EEI situated
in India. The experiences of conducting this implementation study were used to draw
inferences for indicating the feasibility of implementing ISO 9001:2000 standard in EEIs
via ABET-based accreditation.

Figure 1 Research methodology

134 D. Thandapani et al.

Table 2 Commonalities of ABET and ISO 9001:2000

Commonalities (near equivalent clauses of ISO 9001:2000

ABET accreditation criteria standard) Count
1 Students 5.3: Quality policy 1
5.4.1: Quality objectives 2
8.2.1: Customer satisfaction 3
8.2.3: Monitoring and measurement of processes 4
8.2.4: Monitoring and measurement of product 5
2 Programme educational 4.2.1: General (documentation requirements) 6
objectives
3 Programme outcomes 4.1: General requirements 7
4.2.4: Control of records 8
5.2: Customer focus 9
5.4.2: Quality management system planning 10
7.1: Planning of product realisation 11
7.2.1: Determination of requirements related to the product 12
7.2.2: Review of requirements related to the product 13
7.3: Design and development 14
4 Continuous improvement Clause 8.1: General 15
8.2.2: Internal audit 16
8.3: Control of non-conforming product 17
8.4: Analysis of data (a, b and c) 18
8.5.1: Continual improvement 19
8.5.2: Corrective action 20
8.5.3: Preventive action 21
5 Curriculum 4.2.2: Quality manual 22
6 Faculty 5.5.1: Responsibility and authority 23
6.1: Provision of resources 24
6.2.1: General (human resources) 25
6.2.2: Competence, awareness and training 26
7 Facilities 6.3: Infrastructure 27
6.4: Work environment 28
8 Support 5.1: Management commitment 29
9 Programme criteria Since the requirements are covered under the previous criteria, this
criterion is not considered for development of elements pertaining to
the baccalaureate programme of mechanical engineering
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 135

Table 3 Non-commonalities of ISO 9001:2000 with ABET

Quality model Sub-clauses Non-commonalities/additional requirements Count

ISO 9001:2000 Clause 4.2.3 Control of documents 1
Clause 5.5.2 Management representative 2
Clause 5.5.3 Internal communication 3
Clause 5.6 Management review 4
Clause 7.2.3 Customer communication 5
Clause 7.4 Purchasing 6
Clause 7.5 Production and service provision 7
Clause 7.6 Control of monitoring and measuring devices 8
Clause 8.4. (d) Analysis of data suppliers 9

Table 4 Marked-up listing of ISO 9001:2000 standard with ABET

Clause number of ISO 9001:2000 Sub-clause of ISO 9001:2000 standard

standard with title with title Commonality with ABET criteria
1 Scope These are the primitive clauses which are not the constituents of process-
2 Normative reference based management model of ISO 9001:2000 standard

3 Terms and definitions

4 Quality management system 4.1: General requirements 3. Programme outcomes
4.2: Documentation requirements 2. Programme educational
4.2.1: General objectives

4.2.2: Quality manual 5. Curriculum

5 Management responsibility
4.2.3: Control of documents Non-commonality
4.2.4: Control of records 3. Programme outcomes
5.1: Management commitment 8. Support
5.2: Customer focus 3. Programme outcomes
5.3: Quality policy 1. Students
5.4: Planning 1. Students
5.4.1: Quality objectives
5.4.2: Quality management system 3. Programme outcomes
planning 9. Programme criteria
5.5.1: Responsibility and authority 6. Faculty
5.5.2: Management representative Non-commonality
5.5.3: Internal communication
5.6: Management review Non-commonality
5.6.1: General
5.6.2: Review input
5.6.3: Review output
136 D. Thandapani et al.
Table 4 Marked-up listing of ISO 9001:2000 standard with ABET (continued)
Clause number of ISO 9001:2000
standard with title
6 Resource management
7 Product realisation
Sub-clause of ISO 9001:2000 standard
with title Commonality with ABET criteria
6.1: Provision of resources 6. Faculty
6.2: Human resources
6.2.1: General
6.2.2: Competence, awareness and
training
6.3: Infrastructure 7. Facilities
6.4: Work environment
7.1: Planning of product realisation 3. Programme outcomes
7.2: Customer-related processes 3. Programme outcomes
7.2.1: Determination of requirements
related to the product
7.2.2: Review of requirements related to 3. Programme outcomes
the product
7.2.3: Customer communication Non-commonality
7.3: Design and development 3. Programme outcomes
7.3.1: Design and development planning
7.3.2: Design and development inputs
7.3.3: Design and development outputs
7.3.4: Design and development review
7.3.5: Design and development
verification
7.3.6: Design and development
validation
7.3.7: Control of design and development
changes
7.4: Purchasing Non-commonality
7.4.1: Purchasing process
7.4.2: Purchasing information
7.4.3: Verification of purchased product
7.5: Production and service provision Non-commonality
7.5.1: Control of production and service
provision
7.5.2: Validation of processes for
production and service provision
7.5.3: Identification and traceability
7.5.4: Customer property
7.5.5: Preservation of product
7.6: Control of monitoring and Non-commonality
measuring devices
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 137

Table 4 Marked-up listing of ISO 9001:2000 standard with ABET (continued)

Clause number of ISO 9001:2000 Sub-clause of ISO 9001:2000 standard

standard with title
8 Measurement, analysis and
improvement
with title Commonality with ABET criteria
8.1: General 4. Continuous improvement
8.2: Monitoring and measurement 1. Students
8.2.1: Customer satisfaction
8.2.2: Internal audit 4. Continuous improvement
8.2.3: Monitoring and measurement of 1. Students
processes
8.2.4: Monitoring and measurement of 1. Students
product
8.3: Control of non-conforming product 4. Continuous improvement
8.4: Analysis of data (a, b and c) 4. Continuous improvement
8.4: Analysis of data (d) Non-commonality
8.5: Improvement 4. Continuous improvement
8.5.1: Continual improvement
8.5.2: Corrective action
8.5.3: Preventive action

4 Commonalities and non-commonalities between ABET criteria and the

clauses of ISO 9001:2000 standard

As mentioned in the previous section, the theoretical work of the research was started by
studying the commonalities and non-commonalities existing between ABET criteria and
ISO 9001:2000 standard. This study indicated that 29 sub-clauses of ISO 9001:2000
standard were found to address the requirements commonly with ABET criteria
(www.abet.org and www.iso.org). These commonalities are listed in Table 2. As a
sample, the ABET criterion 1 and its commonalities of ISO 9001:2000 standard with
sub-clause numbers 5.3, 5.4.1, 8.2.1, 8.2.3 and 8.2.4 titled ‘quality policy’, ‘quality
objectives’, ‘customer satisfaction’, ‘monitoring and measurement of processes’ and
‘monitoring and measurement of product’, respectively, are presented in Table 5.
The rationale behind identifying the commonalities between ABET criteria and ISO
9001:2000 standard is described here by citing criterion 1 of ABET and its
commonalities given in Table 5. As shown, the title of criterion 1 of ABET is ‘students’.
The major issues addressed under this criterion are policy, procedures, objective,
evaluation and monitoring. These issues or their near equivalents were located in ISO
9001:2000 standard. As a result, five sub-clauses of ISO 9001:2000 standard were
identified as commonalities of ABET criterion 1. Those issues and words are indicated
using italics. For example, sub-clause 5.3 (b) contains the statement, ‘includes a
commitment to comply with requirements and continually improve the effectiveness of
the quality management system’. This statement is found to be near equivalent of the
following statement in criterion ‘1’ of ABET, ‘The programme must have and enforce
policies for the acceptance of transfer students and for the validation of courses taken for
credit elsewhere’.
138 D. Thandapani et al.

Table 5 Sample of the ABET criteria and ISO 9001:2000 standard

ABET criteria ISO 9001:2000 standard

Criterion 1: Students Clause 5.3: Quality policy
The programme must evaluate student performance, Top management shall ensure that the quality policy
advice students regarding curricular and career matters (a) is appropriate to the purpose of the organisation
and monitor student’s progress to foster their success
in achieving programme outcomes, thereby enabling (b) includes a commitment to comply with requirements
them as graduates to attain programme objectives and continually improve the effectiveness of the quality
management system
The programme must have and enforce policies for the
acceptance of transfer students and for the validation (c) provides a framework for establishing and reviewing
of courses taken for credit elsewhere. The programme quality objectives
must also have and enforce procedures to assure that (d) is communicated and understood within the
all students meet all programme requirements organisation
(e) is reviewed for continuing suitability
Clause 5.4.1 Quality objectives
Top management shall ensure that quality ‘objectives’,
including those needed to meet requirements for product
(see 7.1(a)), are established at relevant functions and
levels within the organisation. The quality ‘objectives’
shall be ‘measurable’ and consistent with the quality
policy
Clause 8.2.1: Customer satisfaction
As one of the measurements of the ‘performance’ of the
QMS, the organisation shall ‘monitor’ information
relating to customer perception as to whether the
organisation has met customer requirements. The
methods for obtaining and using this information shall
be determined.
Clause 8.2.3: Monitoring and measurement of processes
The organisation shall apply suitable methods for
‘monitoring’ and, where applicable, measurement of the
QMS processes. These methods shall demonstrate the
ability of the processes to achieve planned ‘results’.
When planned results are not achieved, correction and
corrective action shall be taken, as appropriate, to ensure
conformity of the product.
Clause 8.2.4: Monitoring and measurement of product
The organisation shall ‘monitor and measure’ the
characteristics of the ‘product’ to verify that product
‘requirements’ have been met. This shall be carried out
at appropriate stages of the product realisation process in
accordance with the planned arrangements (see 7.1).
Evidence of conformity with the acceptance criteria
shall be maintained. Records shall indicate the person(s)
authorising release of product (see 4.2.4).
Product release and service delivery shall not proceed
until the planned arrangements (see 7.1) have been
satisfactorily completed, unless otherwise approved by a
relevant authority and, where applicable, by the
customer.
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 139

In the case of sub-clause 5.3 (e) of ISO 9001:2000 standard, it was not possible to
identify its near equivalent in any of the ABET criteria. This sub-clause envisages the
reviewing of quality policies for its continual suitability. This same issue is also
addressed under clause 5.6.1. In this situation, clause 5.6.1 is included under non-
commonalities, while clause 5.3 (e) is included under commonalities. This has also been
done so because normally any EEI accredited to ABET will continuously review the
suitability of the policy even though it is not explicitly envisaged in criterion ‘1’ of
ABET. This kind of critical study was carried out to identify all the commonalities of ISO
9001:2000 standard with ABET criteria, which are listed in Table 2.
During this critical study, some clauses of ISO 9001:2000 standard were not found to
be common with any of the ABET criteria. These non-commonalities are given in
Table 3. As shown, nine sub-clauses were identified as non-commonalities of ISO
9001:2000 standard with ABET criteria. The elements of these sub-clauses have to be
developed by an EEI while implementing ISO 9001:2000 standard via ABET-accredited
system. The number of non-commonalities is much lesser than the commonalities found.
In fact, the proposition of non-commonalities constitutes only 24% of the total
requirements for implementing ISO 9001:2000 standard via ABET accreditation process.

5 Marking of ISO 9001:2000 standard with ABET criteria

Though 76% of the sub-clauses of ISO 9001:2000 standard are commonalities with
ABET criteria, they are scattered and disordered. For example, sub-clause 4.2.2 ‘Quality
manual’ is a commonality with ABET criterion 5 ‘Curriculum’. Next to this, only sub-
clause 4.2.4 titled ‘Control of records’ of ISO 9000 standard is found to be a
commonality with ABET criterion 3: ‘programme outcomes’. Hence, an EEI after
developing the non-commonalities shall have to insert them in appropriate locations and
bring the elements of ABET criteria to suit the chronological ordering of ISO 9001:2000
standard. To exercise this process, the sub-clauses of ISO 9001:2000 standard are to be
listed with the marking of the commonalities and non-commonalities with ABET criteria.
Accordingly, such a marked-up listing of sub-clause of ISO 9001:2000 standard given in
Table 4 was prepared. An EEI has to compile the elements of ISO 9001:2000 based QMS
according to the chronological order shown in Table 4. Subsequently, the EEI has to
ensure the coherence and continuity of the elements of ISO 9001:2000 standard-based
QMS thus developed. This checking is required as these elements are brought from
different locations of ABET criteria and the non-commonalities are further developed.

6 Implementation study

The study on implementing ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation
was carried out in an EEI by the name C. Abdul Hakeem College of Engineering and
Technology (CAHCET). CAHCET is located in Melvisharam, Tamil Nadu, India.
CAHCET was started in 1998 with three baccalaureate engineering programmes, namely,
Mechanical, Electrical and Electronics, Computer Science and Engineering. Later in
2001, two more baccalaureate engineering programmes were added. During the past two
years, three master’s degree programmes in Business Administration, Applied
Electronics and Computer Applications along with one baccalaureate engineering
140 D. Thandapani et al.

programme in Civil Engineering were started. In India, according to the regulations of

NBA, a programme run by an EEI will become eligible for accreditation by AICTE after
two batches of graduates pass out of them (www.aicte-india.org). In CAHCET, five
programmes became eligible for accreditation by NBA of AICTE in 2004. Subsequently,
in 2006 and 2008, CAHCET obtained accreditation from NBA of AICTE against all
these eligible programmes. Besides, CAHCET obtained ISO 9001:2000 certification in
2002. However, the NBA accreditation and ISO 9001:2000 certification were carried out
separately. Yet, the possession of ISO 9001:2000 certification by CAHCET was viewed
as the favourable factor for conducting the implementation study of ISO 9001:2000
standard-based QMS installation via ABET-based accreditation. The details of this
implementation study, which was carried out in the baccalaureate mechanical engineering
programme of CAHCET, are presented in this section.
The implementation study was begun by developing the non-commonalities of ISO
9001:2000 standard with ABET criteria. As a sample, the development of QMS elements
pertaining to the non-commonality sub-clause 4.2.3: ‘control of documents’ is illustrated
here. In order to ensure clear understanding, the contents of this sub-clause of ISO
9001:2000 standard are furnished in Table 6.
As given in Table 6, the sub-clause 4.2.3 of ISO 9001:2000 standard envisages the
release of approved documents and maintenance of the same through the processes like
updating, tracing and legibility and controlling of distribution. As CAHCET already has
been certified to ISO 9001:2000 standard, the existing QMS elements of this clause were
referred. These elements were subsequently refined. During this process, certain elements
were found to be missing and these elements were added. An excerpt of those elements
developed at CAHCET is presented in Table 7.
In Table 7, the steps followed in CAHCET to carry out document changes are
enumerated. Likewise, in order to ensure accurate distribution of documents, the format
of a seal to be prepared is given in Table 7. The affixing of seal on the documents and
subsequent entry of details ensured that the documents are distributed at the correct
points. The other QMS elements pertaining to the remaining non-commonalities were
developed in CAHCET in the same manner described above.
Table 6 Contents of ISO 9001:2000 QMS sub-clause 4.2.3

Sub-clause 4.2.3: Control of documents

Documents required by the quality management system shall be controlled. Records are a special
type of document and shall be controlled according to the requirements given in 4.2.4. A
documented procedure shall be established to define the controls needed:
(a) to approve documents for adequacy prior to issue;
(b) to review and update as necessary and reapprove documents
(c) to ensure that changes and the current revision status of documents are identified
(d) to ensure that relevant versions of applicable documents are available at points of use
(e) to ensure that documents remain legible and readily identifiable
(f) to ensure that documents of external origin are identified and their distribution controlled
(g) to prevent the unintended use of obsolete documents, and to apply suitable identification to
them if they are retained for any purpose
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 141

Table 7 An excerpt of QMS elements of sub-clause 4.2.3 of ISO 9001:2000 standard

developed at CAHCET

Document changes:
Any person indicated in the chart on a written request initiates changes to documents. The changes
are reviewed and approved by the management representative. The changes to quality manual and
quality system procedures are incorporated in ‘revision status’ and ‘record sections’. Changes in
other documents are indicated where appropriate.
Document status:
Management representative and respective Head of Department’s (HOD’s) maintain a master list of
documents indicating current revision status of documents in use. The revision number of the
‘Index’ identifies the revision status of the quality manual and quality system procedure. The
revision status of the other documents is suitably indicated either in the document or in the master
list of documents with concerned departments.
The documents such as circulars from AICTE and Anna University, letters from parents and
students, purchase-related documents from companies and suppliers, letters communicating the
placement of students from companies, etc. are received by the principal. Those documents are
entered and numbered and the distribution points are notified after affixing the seal as shown
below:

After entering the details, the attender is required to make sufficient copies for circulation plus a
copy for keeping in the file
All obsolete documents are either destroyed by the users or marked as OBSOLETE (if retained for
any purpose) on the documents. Management representative and HOD’s retain superseded
documents and procedures till the next issue of the release of authentic documents

After developing the non-commonality sub-clauses of ISO 9001:2000 standard with

ABET criteria, the commonalities of them were inserted in the ISO 9001:2000 based
quality manual with ABET foundation. One such commonality whose sub-clause
numbered as 4.2.4 and titled as ‘Control of records’ is described here. To ensure the clear
understanding of the steps followed, the contents of sub-clause 4.2.4 and its commonality
with ABET criteria are indicated in Table 8.
As presented in Table 8, the stipulations of the sub-clause 4.2.4 of ISO 9001:2000
standard are found to be the commonalities with ABET criterion 3: ‘programme
outcomes’ (sub-criteria: 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E and 3F). The reader can check this
commonality aspect by referring to Tables 2 and 5. As a sample, the elements pertaining
to ABET 3A criterion developed at CAHCET are given in Table 9.
In Table 9, the requirements of controlling records are specified for the purpose of
establishing and revising the outcomes of a baccalaureate mechanical engineering
programme. CAHCET is affiliated to Anna University Chennai. The regulations of this
university are referred implicitly as records. The last sentence given in this table indicates
that the regulations are revised and additional activities are identified to fulfil
142 D. Thandapani et al.

the outcomes of baccalaureate mechanical engineering programme at CAHCET. The

regulations of Anna University Chennai are stored by assigning the file number
ABET13/MECH/URR/F1/2008-2009 at CAHCET. Thus, as shown in Table 5, all
the common elements of ISO 9001:2000 standard’s sub-clauses were inserted in the
consolidated list. Finally, the compilation of commonalities and non-commonalities of
ISO 9001:2000 standard with ABET criteria has formed the quality manual of ISO
9001:2000 standard supported by ABET as foundation.
Table 8 Contents of sub-clause 4.2.4 of ISO 9001:2000 standard and their commonality with
ABET

Sub-clause 4.2.4: Control of records

Records shall be established and maintained to provide evidence of conformity to requirements and
of the effective cooperation of the quality management system. Records shall remain legible,
readily identifiable and retrievable. A documented procedure shall be established to define the
controls needed for the identification, storage, protection, retrieval, retention time and disposition
of records.
Commonality with ABET criteria: 3. programme outcomes (3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, 3E and 3F)

Table 9 Elements of ABET 3A developed at CAHCET

3A: Process for establishing and revising programme outcomes

CAHCET is affiliated to Anna University Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. The curriculum, syllabi,
rules and regulations are the stipulations formulated by Anna University Chennai, which need to be
adhered to by CAHCET. These stipulations of Anna University Chennai are compared with the
programme outcomes. The baccalaureate mechanical engineering programme outcomes which are
not covered in the stipulations of the Anna University Chennai are noted and additional activities
are carried out. Once in every four years, Anna University Chennai revises the regulations. Every
time when these regulations are revised, additional activities are identified to fulfil the
baccalaureate mechanical engineering programme outcomes.
Proof or evidence:
University rules and regulations book file number: ABET13/MECH/URR/F1/2008-2009

7 Conclusion

During the recent years, global competition has changed the way engineers have to
contribute their skills and knowledge. Till last years, engineers were involved largely in
routine activities which required fundamental knowledge and its low-level application.
However today, engineers are required to apply high level of new knowledge and
innovate to offer quick solutions to the customers (Thandapani et al., 2010; Uhomoibhi,
2009). This situation forces the engineers to be globally competitive. In order to meet this
requirement, modern EEIs are required to develop engineers under globally competitive
environments. One such environment in industrial organisations is created through ISO
9001:2000 certification.
To commensurate with this environment, modern EEIs are required to implement ISO
9001:2000 based QMS. This task has to be accomplished via ABET-based accreditation
as it has become a mandatory requirement of EEIs in many parts of the world (Prados
et al., 2005; Patil and Codner, 2007). This paper reports a research in which a manual for
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 143

implementing ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation was developed.
During this research, the sub-clauses of ISO 9001:2000 standard which are common with
ABET criteria were found out. Quite interestingly, 76% of those sub-clauses were found
to be common with ABET criteria. Hence, an ABET-accredited EEI shall have to
develop only 24% of the sub-clauses of ISO 9001:2000 standard which are not common
with ABET criteria for the purpose of obtaining ISO 9001:2000 certification. An ABET-
accredited EEI shall have to arrange these commonalities and non-commonalities
according to the chronological order of ISO 9001:2000 standard clauses. This modality of
installing ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET accreditation was subjected to test
implementation in the baccalaureate mechanical engineering programme at CAHCET.
This test implementation could be easily carried out because the elements of non-
commonalities with ABET criteria were developed by refining the elements already
developed at CAHCET as a part of obtaining ISO 9001:2000 certification in 2002. This
non-commonality elements were to be refined and amended to suit the ISO 9001:2000
QMS supported by ABET criteria.
A manual was developed at CAHCET by indicating the commonalities and
presenting the detailed elements of non-commonalities of ISO 9001:2000 based QMS
supported by ABET criteria. The manual of new QMS of ISO 9001:2000 standard
created via ABET criteria was presented to the HODs and professors of CAHCET. Their
opinions and views about the ABET criteria supported ISO 9001:2000 standard were
gathered by supplying a systematically prepared questionnaire. This questionnaire and
the responses obtained are given in Table 10. As shown, the grand averages of HODs
and professors against the first and second questions were, respectively, 7.8 and 8.1 on a
Likert’s scale of 0–10. The minimum and maximum average scores against question 1 are
6.5 and 8.5, respectively. These scores are 6.5 and 9, respectively, against the second
question. The high scores indicate that ISO 9001:2000 based QMS designed via ABET
accreditation can be installed at CAHCET with a high success rate. This exercise is
expected to save significant system installation expenditure. This is due to the reason that
only the non-commonalities are developed in the proposed ISO 9001:2000 standard-
based QMS. Besides, this will reduce the cost of training and educating the employees, as
76% of the ABET criteria is going to be used in the proposed ISO 9001:2000 based
QMS.
Table 10 Quantification of opinions and views of HODs and professors about new QMS of ISO
9001:2000 standard created via ABET criteria using a Likert’s scale of 0–10

Electrical and Electronics and

Name of the Mechanical Electronics Communication Computer Science Information
department Engineering Engineering Engineering and Engineering Technology
Designation First Second First Second First Second First Second First Second
of the faculty question question question question question question question question question question
HOD 6 9 9 9 9 9 7 7 8 8
Assistant 7 6 – – 8 9 7 6 – –
Professor
Lecturer – – 8 9 – – – – 9 9
Average 6.5 7.5 8.5 9 8.5 9 7 6.5 8.5 8.5
Grand average of respondents against first question = 6.5  8.5  8.5  7  8.5 = 39/5 = 7.8
Grand average of respondents against second question = 7.5  9  9  6.5  8.5 = 40.5/5 = 8.1
Questionnaire:
 First question:
144 D. Thandapani et al.

Table 10 Quantification of opinions and views of HODs and professors about new QMS of ISO
9001:2000 standard created via ABET criteria using a Likert’s scale of 0–10
(continued)

Electrical and Electronics and

Name of the Mechanical Electronics Communication Computer Science Information
department Engineering Engineering Engineering and Engineering Technology
Designation First Second First Second First Second First Second First Second
of the faculty question question question question question question question question question question
 In CAHCET, ISO 9001:2000 QMS is already installed. To what extent do you believe that the proposed ISO
9001:2000 based QMS developed via ABET criteria cohere with already installed QMS?
 Second question:
 To what extent do you believe that the new proposed ISO 9001:2000 based QMS developed via ABET
criteria can be implemented in CAHCET?

This research suffered from the limitation of not actually implementing the ISO
9001:2000 based QMS supported by ABET criteria. This is due to the reason that though
CAHCET’s baccalaureate mechanical engineering programme was accredited, it was
done with NBA of AICTE and not with ABET. Hence, even though CAHCET is certified
ISO 9001:2000 based QMS, the same developed via ABET accreditation could not be
actually implemented. Future researchers may adopt the modalities presented in this
paper and actually implement them in ABET-accredited EEIs. They may carry out
this task using ISO 9001:2008 standard. The same modalities presented in this paper can
be adopted, as in this standard the process-based QMS presented in the previous version
is also encapsulated. Future researches may result in valuable findings which may be
used to develop the model of ISO 9001:2008 standard supported by ABET criteria with a
high practical propensity. The implementation of this model will help the fresh engineers
to become globally competitive and face the challenges emerging in engineering fields.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the anonymous referees for their constructive comments which
enabled them to improve the organisation of this paper to a significant extent. The
authors are highly indebted to the management of CAHCET for permitting the first
author to conduct a survey among the HODs of CAHCET, who have shown interest and
sincerity in responding to the feedback questionnaire.

References
Akduman, I., Ozkale, L. and Ekinci, E. (2001) ‘Accreditation in Turkish universities’, European
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.231–239.
Augusti, G. (2005) ‘Trans-national recognition and accreditation of engineering educational
programmes in Europe: recent developments’, European Journal of Engineering Education,
Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.417–422.
Augusti, G. (2006) ‘Transnational recognition and accreditation of engineering educational
programmes in Europe: perspectives in a global framework’, European Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 31, No. 3, pp.249–260.
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 145

Bae, S.H. (2007) ‘The relationship between ISO 9000 participation and educational outcomes of
schools’, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp.251–270.
Barros, A.S.D. (2001) ‘Engineering courses and accreditation in Portugal’, European Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp.195–203.
Beatty, J.R. (2006) ‘The quality journey: historical and workforce perspectives and the assessment
of commitment to quality’, Int. J. Productivity and Quality Management, Vol. 1, Nos. 1/2,
pp.139–167.
Benner, M.J. and Veloso, F.M. (2008) ‘ISO 9000 practices and financial performance: a technology
coherence perspective’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp.611–629.
Briscoe, J.A., Fawcett, S.E. and Todd, R.H. (2005) ‘The implementation and impact of ISO 9000
among small manufacturing enterprises’, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 43,
No. 3, pp.309–330.
Carberry, A.R., Lee, H.S. and Ohland, M.W. (2010) ‘Measuring engineering design self-efficacy’,
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 99, No. 1, pp.71–79.
Castillo, J.A.D. (2000) ‘Evaluation and accreditation of engineering programmes in Latin
America’, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 25, pp.281–290.
Castka, P. and Balzarova, M.A. (2008a) ‘Adoption of social responsibility through the expansion of
existing management systems’, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 108, No. 3,
pp.297–309.
Castka, P. and Balzarova, M.A. (2008b) ‘The impact of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 on
standardisation of social responsibility – an inside perspective’, Int. J. Production Economics,
Vol. 113, pp.74–87.
Dodridge, M. (2002) ‘Recognition and accreditation of ‘short cycle’ degrees in engineering’,
European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp.307–323.
Doherty, G.D. (2008) ‘On quality in education’, Quality Assurance in Education, Vol. 16, No. 3,
pp.255–265.
Ehigie, B.O. and McAndrew, E.B. (2005) ‘Innovation, diffusion and adoption of total quality
management (TQM)’, Management Decision, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp.925–940.
Fotopoulos, C.V., Psomas, E.L. and Vouzas, F.K. (2010) ‘ISO 9001:2000 implementation in the
Greek food sector’, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2. pp.129–142.
Franceschini, F., Galetto, M. and Cecconi, P. (2006) ‘A worldwide analysis of ISO 9000 standard
diffusion’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 13, No. 4, pp.523–541.
Franceschini, F., Galetto, M., Mastrogiacomo, L. and Viticchie, L. (2008) ‘Diffusion of ISO 9000
and ISO 14000 certification in Italian commodity sectors’, Int. J. Quality and Reliability
Management, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.452–465.
Gotzamani, K.D. (2005) ‘The implications of the new ISO 9000:2000 standards for certified
organizations’, Int. J. Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 54, No. 8,
pp.645–657.
Heitmann, G. and Augusti, G. (2001) ‘Recognition and accreditation of higher engineering
education in Europe: a position paper’, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 26,
No. 3, pp.209–217.
Hokoma, R.A., Khan, M.K. and Hussain, K. (2010) ‘The present status of quality and
manufacturing management techniques and philosophies within the Libyan iron and steel
industry’, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, pp.209–221.
Jain, R., Chandrasekaran, A. and Gunasekaran, A. (2010) ‘Benchmarking the redesign of “business
process reengineering” curriculum’, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 17, No. 1,
pp.77–94.
Kaluarachchi, K.A.S.P. (2010) ‘Organizational culture and total quality management practices:
a Sri Lankan case’, The TQM Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp.41–55.
146 D. Thandapani et al.

Karapetrovic, S., Rajamani, D. and Willborn, W. (1998) ‘Quality assurance in engineering

education: comparison of accreditation schemes and ISO 9001’, European Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.199–212.
Kemenade, E.V. and Hardjono, T.W. (2009) ‘Professionals freaking out: the case of accreditation
in Dutch higher education’, The TQM Journal, Vol. 21, No. 5, pp.473–485.
Lee, J.W. (2010) ‘Investigation of mechatronic education in South Korea’, Mechatronics, Vol. 20,
pp.341–345.
Letelier, M.F. and Carrasco, R. (2004) ‘Higher education assessment and accreditation in Chile:
state-of-the-art and trends’, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 29, No. 1,
pp.119–124.
Macdonald, J. (1998) ‘The quality revolution- in retrospect’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 10, No. 5,
pp.321–333.
Martinez-Costa, M., Choi, T.Y., Martinez, J.A. and Martinez-Lorente, A.R. (2009) ‘ISO
9000/1994, ISO 9001/2000 and TQM: the performance debate revisited’, Journal of
Operations Management, Vol. 27, pp.495–511.
Memon, J.A., Demirdogen, R.E. and Chowdhry, B.S. (2009) ‘Achievements, outcomes and
proposal for global accreditation of engineering education in developing countries’, Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1, pp.2557–2561.
Ohnaka, I. (2001) ‘Introduction of an accreditation system in Japan’, European Journal of
Engineering Education, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp.247–253.
Patil, A. and Codner, G. (2007) ‘Accreditation of engineering education: review, observations and
proposal for global accreditation’, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 32,
No. 6, pp.639–651.
Pokholkov, Y.P., Chuchalin, A.T., Morozova, E.A. and Boev, O.B. (2004) ‘The accreditation of
engineering programmes in Russia’, European Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 29,
No. 1, pp.163–169.
Prados, J.W., Perterson, G.D. and Lattuca, L.R. (2005) ‘Quality assurance of engineering education
through accreditation: the impact of engineering criteria 2000 and its global influence’,
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, pp.165–184.
Pramod, V.R., Devadasan, S.R. and Jagathyraj, V.P. (2010) ‘Quality improvement in engineering
education through the synergy of TPM and QFD’, Int. J. Management Education, Vol. 4,
No. 1, pp.1–24.
Sakthivel, M., Devadasan, S.R., Vinodh, S., Ramesh, A. and Shyamsundar, S. (2007) ‘ISO
9001:2000 based quality information management responsibility system’, Int. J. Business
Information Systems, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.217–237.
Sakthivel, P.B., Rajendran, G. and Raju, R. (2005) ‘TQM implementation and students satisfaction
of academic performance’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 17, No. 6, pp.573–589.
Sampaio, P., Saraiva, P. and Rodrigues, A.G. (2009) ‘ISO 9001 certification research: questions,
answers and approaches’, Int. J. Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 26, No. 1,
pp.38–58.
Saraiva, P.M. and Duarte, B. (2003) ‘ISO 9000: some statistical results for a worldwide
phenomenon’, TQM and Business Excellence, Vol. 14, No. 10, pp.1169–178.
Sarin, S. (2000) ‘Quality assurance in engineering education: a comparison of EC-2000 and ISO-
9000’, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 89, No. 4, pp.495–501.
Shalij, P.R., Devadasan, S.R. and Prabhushankar, G.V. (2009) ‘Design of ISO 9001:2000 based
supply chain quality management systems’, Int. J. Process Management and Benchmarking,
Vol. 3, No. 1. pp.1–23.
Singh, P.J., Feng, M. and Smith, A. (2006) ‘ISO 9000 series of standards: comparison of
manufacturing and service organizations’, Int. J. Quality and Reliability Management,
Vol. 23, No. 2, pp.122–142.
Singh, P.J. and Manson-Nehra, P. (2006) ‘ISO 9000 in the public sector: a successful case from
Australia’, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp.131–142.
 ISO 9001:2000 based QMS via ABET-based accreditation 147

Sroufe, R. and Curkovic, S. (2008) ‘An examination of ISO 9000:2000 and supply chain quality
assurance’, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, pp.503–520.
Svanstrom, M., Lozano-Garcia, F.J. and Rowe, D. (2008) ‘Learning outcomes for sustainable
development in higher education’, Int. J. Sustainability in Higher Education, Vol. 9, No. 3,
pp.339–351.
Teh, P.L., Ooi, K.B. and Yong, C.C. (2008) ‘Does TQM impact on role stressors? A conceptual
model’, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 108, No. 8, pp.1029–1044.
Thandapani, D., Gopalakrishnan, K., Devadasan, S.R. and Shalij, P.R. (2010) ‘World class quality
in engineering education via ABET accreditation: an implementation study in an Indian
engineering educational institution’, Int. J. Indian Culture and Business Management, Vol. 3,
No. 2, pp.208–237.
Uhomoibhi, J.O. (2009) ‘The Bologna process, globalization and engineering education
developments’, Multicultural Education and Technology Journal, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp.248–255.
Winfield, I. and Kerrin, M. (1994) ‘Toyota and management change in east midlands’, Journal of
Managerial Psychology, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp.3–6.
Zaramdini, W. (2007) ‘An empirical study of the motives and benefits of ISO 9000 certification:
the UAE experience’, Int. J. Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 24, No. 5, pp.472–491.

View publication stats