AN ANALYSIS ABOUT SYSTEMATIC REVIEW ON TOTAL QUALITY

MANAGEMENT IN INSTITUTIONS LIBRARIES REGARDING ISO 9001:2000 FOR

HIGHER STANDARD OF EDUCATION

MANAJEMEN MUTU

RADIFAN ABRAR TAHRIZI 1806187732

UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA

2021
ABSTRACT

The ISO 9001 standard is a tool that many libraries have started using in recent years. This paper
discusses how libraries in universities have been certified for their quality management systems
under ISO (ISO standard 9001:2000). We talk to those seeking certification about their reasons for
doing so and the advantages and drawbacks they've faced as they tried to apply this ISO standard.
We conclude our discussion with an assessment of the potential for ISO standard 9001 in university
libraries.

ANALYSIS

While ISO 9001-based quality systems and their certification are fairly straightforward, the
implementation is not, as it requires significant time and resources. It's believed that libraries are
extremely grateful for the significant support and dedication of their institutions during the
implementation of the quality system in the library — 56 percent of them describe it as "absolute."
The support they need can be demonstrated by the fact that 79.4% of libraries could count on
external consultancy assistance either regularly (44.4%) or sporadically (34.9%) during the
implementation of the system. Only 20.6 percent of them succeeded in getting their quality control
system certified without outside help. ISO 9000 has long been seen as a cumbersome and overly
bureaucratic process, even though some of this perception was valid at the outset. Although this
bad reputation originated in the original version, the ISO Technical Committee 176, which revised
it in 2000, worked hard to reduce the cause for this reputation. Understanding the standard is
crucial, as it is generic and independent of the economic sector of the organization. The level of
difficulty in implementing the concepts and methods described in the ISO 9001:2000 standard and
its chapters and clauses was discussed with library directors. Respondents used a 5-point scale (1
= none, 2 = little, 3 = quite; 4 = very; 5 = total) to rate each section. Chapters one through three do
not contain anything that can be proved. The review of this document starts in Chapter Four.

In Chapter 4, Quality Management System, clause 4.2, dealing with documentation requirements,
the ambiguity is concentrated. However, this is a simple chapter, and the overall difficulty rating
is 1.9. (little difficulty). Also, Chapter 5, Management Responsibility, is easily interpreted by
libraries using the standard. The overall rating is 1.8. (little difficulty). However, clause 5.4,
Planning, is a little more difficult to grasp than the others. The overall interpretation difficulty of
Chapter 6, Resource Management, is 1.8 (moderate) with only clause 6.2, Human Resources,
slightly exceeding the average. In Chapter 7, Production Realization, the standard increase and
overall assessment are 2.3. (between little difficulty and quite difficult). In this case, 7.6, Control
of monitoring and measuring devices, is the most challenging. Chapter 8, Measurement, Analysis,
And Improvement, is rated 2.4 difficult to understand (between little difficulty and quite difficult).
With this assessment, higher education libraries will find this chapter the most difficult to interpret.
Clause 8.3, Control of nonconforming product, was the most difficult to implement.
Table 3 indicates that the difficulty level of interpreting the standard is in Chapters 4, 5, and 6.
Difficulties in Chapters 7 and 8 are in the 3+ (greater difficulty) range.

Interpretation of the ISO 9001:2000 Rating

(scale of 5)
4. Quality management system 1,9
(overall)
4.1. General requirements 1,7
4.2. Documentation requirements 1,9
5. Management responsibility 1,8
(overall)
5.1. Management commitment 1,6
5.2. Customer focus 1,7
5.3. Quality policy 1,6
5.4. Planning 1,9
5.5. Responsibility, authority, and 1,8
communication
5.6. Management review 1,9
6. Resource management (overall) 1,8
6.1. Provision of resources 1,9
6.2. Human resources 2,0
6.3. Infrastructure 1,9
6.4. Work environment 1,9
7. Production realization (overall) 2,3
7.1. Planning of product realization 2,3
7.2. Customer-related processes 2,2
7.3. Design and development 2,5
7.4. Purchasing 2,2
7.5. Production and service provision 2,1
7.6. Control of monitoring and 2,6
measuring devices
8. Measurement, analysis, and 2,4
improvement (overall)
8.1. General 2,0
 8.2. Monitoring and measurement 2,3
8.3. Control of nonconforming product 2,6
8.4. Analysis of data 2,4
8.5. Improvement 2,4

Table 3. Ratings of the interpretation of the ISO 9001:2000 standard

Figure 2 shows how understanding the standard becomes more difficult, as well as more erratic,
depending on whether the library has or does not have consultants. It's easier to interpret the
standard without outside consulting than with it.

Figure 2. Ratings on the interpretation of ISO 9001:2000

The libraries were consulted on both the standard's interpretation and its implementation. The
overall difficulty rating for Chapter 4, Quality Management System, is 2.0 (moderate difficulty).
This slight difficulty is felt in clause 4.2, which covers the Documentation requirements. The
overall difficulty rating for Chapter 5, Management Responsibility, is 2.0. (little difficulty).
However, planning (clause 5.4) has a more complex application. Chapter 6, Resource
Management, is rated 2.2 (moderate difficulty), but clause 6.2, Human Resources, is rated slightly
more difficult. 7.3, Design and development, and 7.6, Control of monitoring and measuring
devices, are two of the most difficult clauses to implement in Chapter 7, Product Realization. The
overall difficulty rating for Chapter 8, Measurement, Analysis, And Improvement, is 2.7.
(between little difficulty and quite difficult). This appraisal shows that the chapter is the most
difficult to implement, and specifically clause 8.4, Data Analysis, is the most difficult to
implement.
The figures in Table 4 demonstrate that the least challenging (lowest valuation) settings in the
application of the standard are found in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 while the most challenging (highest
valuation) settings are in Chapters 7 and 8.

Application of the ISO 9001:2000 Rating

(scale of 5)
4. Quality management system 2,0
(overall)
4.1. General requirements 1,9
4.2. Documentation requirements 2,2
5. Management responsibility 2,0
(overall)
5.1. Management commitment 1,8
5.2 Customer focus 1,9
5.3. Quality policy 1,9
5.4. Planning 2,2
5.5. Responsibility, authority, and 2,1
communication
5.6. Management review 2,2
6. Resource management (overall) 2,2
6.1. Provision of resources 2,2
6.2. Human resources 2,3
6.3. Infrastructure 2,1
6.4. Work environment 2,0
7. Production realization (overall) 2,3
7.1. Planning of product realization 2,3
7.2. Customer-related processes 2,2
7.3. Design and development 2,7
7.4. Purchasing 2,5
7.5. Production and service provision 2,3
7.6. Control of monitoring and 2,7
measuring devices
8. Measurement, analysis, and 2,7
improvement (overall)
 8.1. General 2,2
8.2. Monitoring and measurement 2,7
8.3. Control of nonconforming product 2,7
8.4. Analysis of data 2,8
8.5. Improvement 2,7

Table 4. Assessments on the implementation of ISO 9001:2000.

Figure 3 shows that the challenge of implementing the standard is proportionate to the difficulty
of interpreting the standard.

Figure 3. Relationship between interpretation and application of ISO 9001:2000

In the library, before the quality system was launched, some practices were similar to ISO
9001:2000. The difficulty of understanding and applying Chapter 8, devoted to Measurement,
analysis, and improvement, will likely increase if a library does not have a system for collecting
indicators before the first contact with the standard. Setting up and certifying a quality management
system takes time. But how much? Many factors influence the project duration, such as system
complexity, initial library management, and resource availability. The answers ranged from
libraries that completed the process in a few months to those that took three years. 13.5 months on
average Comparing private and public institutions shows a slightly shorter process in private
libraries (11.7 months) than in public libraries (14.2 months). However, the availability of
consultants does not significantly reduce the time spent implementing the quality system. Using
external consultants saves one month.
REFERENCES

[1] R. A. Tahrizi, "Systematic Review On Total Quality Management In Institutions Libraries

Regarding Iso 9001:2000 For Higher Standard Of Education," Jakarta, 2021.
[2] N. B. Mola, "The use of ISO 9001 quality standard in higher education institution libraries,"
Library Service Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, vol. I, no. 19, December 2007.
[3] M. L. Higa, B. Bunnertt, B. Maina, J. Perkins, T. Ramos, L. Thompson and R. Wayne,
"Redesigning a Library's Organizational Structure," College & Research Libraries, vol. I,
no. 66, pp. 41-58, 2005.