Total Quality Management & Business Excellence

ISSN: 1478-3363 (Print) 1478-3371 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ctqm20

ISO 9001:2015: the evolution and convergence of

quality management and knowledge management
for competitive advantage

John P. Wilson & Larry Campbell

To cite this article: John P. Wilson & Larry Campbell (2018): ISO 9001:2015: the evolution and
convergence of quality management and knowledge management for competitive advantage, Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, DOI: 10.1080/14783363.2018.1445965

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1445965

Published online: 01 Mar 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ctqm20
Total Quality Management, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2018.1445965

ISO 9001:2015: the evolution and convergence of quality

management and knowledge management for competitive advantage
John P. Wilsona* and Larry Campbellb
a
Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; bKPMG, Hong Kong,
Hong Kong

The ISO 9001:2015 standard released in September 2015 contains, for the first time, a
specification for ‘organizational knowledge’ as a resource and during the following three
years more than 1.1 million organisations seeking recertification will need to take this
into account. There are few clear guidelines about the practical implications of
addressing this knowledge requirement, and therefore this paper attempts to identify
some theoretical and practical frameworks. Firstly, it considers the complementary
nature of quality management and knowledge management. Secondly, it conducts the
first content analysis of how knowledge has emerged in the evolving ISO 9001
standards and how three of the main elements in the data, information, knowledge
and wisdom pyramid are represented. Thirdly, it identifies that the knowledge cycle
provides a coherent structure for assisting organisations to understand the new
standard and applying knowledge requirements in practice. Next, it examines the
issues faced with explicit and tacit knowledge. Finally, it summarises a number of
conclusions.
Keywords: ISO 9001:2015; quality management; knowledge management; tacit
knowledge; explicit knowledge

1. Introduction
ISO 9001 certification reached 1,138,155 worldwide in 2014 (ISO, 2015b) and all organ-
isations must comply with changes in the specifications. In September 2015, a new version
was released which had, for the first time, a requirement for ‘organizational knowledge’ as a
resource and to ‘determine the knowledge necessary for the operation of its processes’ (ISO
9001:2015a, p. 7.1.6). This addition is a significant one which signals a recognition that
knowledge contributes to the overall quality performance of an organisation leading to
competitive advantage (Molina, Lloréns Montes, & Del Mar Fuentes Fuentes, 2004; Ooi,
2014; Stewart & Waddell, 2008; Zhao & Bryar, 2001). The relationship between quality
management (QM) and knowledge management (KM) is represented by a small but
growing literature, e.g. Lin and Wu (2005); Ju, Lin, Lin, and Kuo (2006); Stewart and
Waddell (2008); Garstenauer, Blackburn, and Olson (2014); Chuang, Chen, and Tsai
(2015); Ooi (2015); Honarpour, Jusoh, and Nor (2017); Honarpour, Jusoh, and Long
(2017). In particular, Honarpour, Jusoh, and Nor (2017) drew attention to the ‘shortage
of empirical studies that examine the TQM–KM relationship’ (p. 2). Moreover, none of
the other articles above incorporate the ISO 9001:2015 standards which is probably the
result of the recent inclusion of knowledge specifications in ISO 9001 (2015a). The only
identified reference to knowledge and ISO 9001:2015 was a brief mention by Attila and
Jussi (2017) who stated: ‘It is questionable whether such topics [opportunity, knowledge,

*Corresponding author. Email: j.p.wilson@sheffield.ac.uk

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

2 J.P. Wilson and L. Campbell

awareness and innovation] should at all exist in the requirement standard’ (p. 1099). More-
over, they add: ‘ … no notable innovations have been realised in the standard’ (Attila &
Jussi, 2017, p. 1091). This paper argues strongly to the contrary and states that the inclusion
of knowledge for the first time is significant and that there is a definitive case for the
inclusion of knowledge in the standards. This means that there is a lacuna in the research
into the potential implications and benefits of knowledge requirements in ISO 9001:2015
which this paper, therefore, intends to address.
The necessity for commercial organisations to ensure sustainable competitive advan-
tage is one of the main drivers for connecting QM with KM (Ju et al., 2006; Lin & Wu,
2005; Stewart & Waddell, 2008). Molina, Lloréns-Montes, and Ruiz-Moreno (2007)
maintained that a knowledge-based perspective of an organisation ‘is an excellent one
to explain competitive advantages’ (p. 694), and added that QM positively influences
knowledge transfer. These views were echoed by Zhao and Bryar (2001) who reasoned
that: ‘KM and total quality management (TQM) are complementary. A synergistic com-
bination of KM and TQM forms a cycle of improvement and development, leading to
organizational excellence’ (p. 4). Furthermore, organisations which ignore this link are
more likely to have sub-optimal performance compared to those which do (Stewart &
Waddell, 2008; Ooi, 2014). Indeed, the close temporal emergence of the two terms
appears to have: ‘not occurred by chance’ (Molina et al., 2007, p. 694) and KM would
also seem to be a significant factor in encouraging the growth of the quality movement
(Waddell & Stewart, 2008).
The million-plus organisations holding ISO 9001:2008 certification have three years in
which to amend their systems and bring them in line with the new requirements of ISO
9001:2015. During this period, organisations will be obliged to consider how they identify,
create, store, share and apply knowledge (Heisig, 2009) and how this can be demonstrated
for recertification. This paper is intended to assist this process and, firstly, will consider the
complementary nature of QM and KM. Secondly, it will conduct, for the first time, a
content analysis of how data, information and knowledge have emerged in the evolving
ISO 9001 standards and how these relate to the data, information, knowledge, wisdom
(DIKW) pyramid (Ackoff, 1989). Thirdly, it will examine the new ISO standard and
assess how the knowledge cycle relates to it. The paper will also address the issues faced
with identifying explicit and tacit knowledge. Finally, a number of conclusions will be
drawn to assist organisations to coherently address knowledge requirements.

2. Literature review
2.1 Quality management and knowledge
The explicit inclusion of knowledge in ISO 9001:2015 has been long presaged by a number
of writers connecting various dimensions of KM and QM. Of particular significance is
Walter Shewhart’s (1939/1986) book: Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality
control, which explained that the three steps of mass production corresponded to the scien-
tific method, i.e. making a hypothesis, undertaking an experiment, and testing the hypoth-
esis. Shewhart (1939/1986, p. 45) stated: ‘The three steps constitute a dynamic scientific
process of acquiring knowledge’.
Shewhart’s (1939/1986) book also contained a foreword by W. Edwards Deming, the
quality guru, and subsequently during Deming’s talks to the Japanese Union of Scientists
and Engineers in 1950 and 1951 he presented a cyclical process model with the steps of:
design, produce, sell, test in service and redesign through market research. The Japanese
then modified this model into what they called the Deming Wheel, i.e. plan, do, check,
 Total Quality Management 3

act (PDCA) and which Deming described as the Shewhart cycle (1994). It is this PDCA
cycle which underpins all ISO management systems standards including ISO 9001 (BSI,
2013).
In his final book, The new economics for industry, government and education, Deming
(1994) insisted that the prevailing system of management had resulted in decline and, there-
fore, required transformation. He stated: ‘Will best efforts bring improvement? Unfortu-
nately, no. Best efforts and hard work, not guided by knowledge, only dig deeper the pit
that we are in’ (p. 1). Deming (1994) also stated that: ‘There is no substitute for knowledge’
(p. 2) and continued: ‘The system of profound knowledge provides a lens. It provides a new
map of theory by which to understand and optimize the organizations that we work in’ (p. 94).
Deming insisted that all managers should have an understanding of the system of profound
knowledge which consisted of four interconnected parts: appreciation of a system, knowl-
edge of variation, theory of knowledge and knowledge of psychology. This unequivocal rec-
ognition of the importance of knowledge in support of quality has taken a considerable time
to materialise in the ISO 9001:2015 standards. In addition to Deming’s advocacy for the
linking of knowledge and quality, there have been more recent acknowledgements by
writers who have articulated similar connections including Garstenauer et al. (2014),
Chuang et al. (2015), Ooi (2015) and Honarpour, Jusoh, and Nor (2017).
Based on the above discussions, the hypothesis to be examined here is that: The knowl-
edge cycle provides a suitable structure to assist in the development of quality systems to
address ISO 9001:2015 Clause 7.1.6.

2.2 The relationship between QM and KM

In spite of these influential writings by Shewhart and Deming, some writers have argued that
there has been limited integrated discussion of QM and KM, e.g. Ruzevicius (2006) commen-
ted that many authors: ‘treat quality and knowledge management as two absolutely different
theories and independent systems of management practice’ (p. 31); and Martín-Castilla and
Rodriguez-Ruiz (2008) also concluded that there was: ‘a lack of systematic attempts’ (p. 152)
to connect the philosophies of QM and KM. This shortcoming is steadily being addressed
with investigations, for example, into the combined effect of KM and TQM on performance
(Honarpour, Jusoh, & Nor, 2012; Ooi, 2014; Owlia, 2010). The discussion around KM and
ISO quality standards, however, is much less explored, and therefore, this paper attempts to
address this lacuna particularly in respect of ISO 9001:2015 and knowledge.
The literature connecting QM and KM is generally quite varied with different foci and
emphases, which make like-for-like analysis relatively challenging. For example, Linder-
man, Schroeder, Zaheer, Liedtke, and Choo (2004) stated that quality gurus such as She-
whart, Deming and Ishikawa did not define knowledge while other quality writers
separately considered tacit, explicit, individual and organisational knowledge with the
result that: ‘quality management has dealt with concepts related to knowledge in a hapha-
zard manner’ (p. 592).
In an attempt to clarify the literature involving QM and KM, Jaime, Gardoni, Mosca,
and Vinck (2006) identified four types: (1) the integration of QM and KM (Zhao &
Bryar, 2001); (2) the application of QM and how QM supported KM (Johannsen, 2000;
Bénézech, Lambert, Lanoux, Lerch, & Loos-Baroin, 2001; Linderman et al., 2004;
McAdam, 2004; Molina et al., 2004); (3) the use of KM to improve the impact of QM
(Galandere-Zı̄le, 2009) and (4) the application of KM which also suggested that using
QM could assist the achievement of improved results (Tsai, 2003; Owlia, 2010; Wang &
Huynh, 2014).
4 J.P. Wilson and L. Campbell

It is clear that there is a strong association between QM and KM (e.g. Loke, Downe, Sam-
basivan, & Khalid, 2012) but what is less discernible is whether one incorporates and out-
ranks the other. The majority of writers tend to consider KM as a helpful tool with which
to support quality initiatives (Johannsen, 2000; Martín-Castilla & Rodriguez-Ruiz, 2008;
Stewart & Waddell, 2008; Yang, 2008; Zhao & Bryar, 2001). In contrast, Zhao and Bryar
(2001, p. 603) concluded that QM practices should be structured around knowledge creation
processes. On balance, there would appear to be a symbiotic relationship in which organis-
ational excellence is only achieved through the application of both QM and KM and both con-
cepts are part of the more fundamental concept of organisational development (Zetie, 2002).
A more balanced perspective is presented by Zhao and Bryar (2001) who conceptualised the
relationship between TQM and KM as one of reciprocal causation. This relationship is ben-
eficial since ISO certification would appear to improve knowledge obtained from customers
and employee dissemination of knowledge (Duran, Çetindere, & Ş ahan, 2014).
One explanation for this lack of analytical consistency might be due to the different
understanding, skill sets and experience required by KM and QM. Managers are frequently
presented with new trends and face difficulties acquiring expertise within the range of new
practices (Hsu & Shen, 2005), and the same considerations would appear to be no less true
for academic writers. Indeed, the range of dimensions contained within both quality, e.g.
TQM, EFQM, Malcolm Baldridge, quality control and assurance, Six Sigma, lean, etc.;
and KM, e.g. tacit and explicit knowledge; KM cycle; learning; knowledge creation, acqui-
sition, transfer; the socialisation, externalisation, combination and externalisation (SECI)
model (Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995), etc. make any form of comprehensive investigation
and research challenging. For this reason, authors have tended to focus on specific
aspects with the result that findings and conclusions tend to be narrowly constrained and
therefore of restricted value for broader application in organisations.
Drawing from the literature it is evident that both QM and KM are closely associated with
a systems approach. Wiig’s (1990) ‘knowledge management’ neologism was first used in an
expert systems context and Linderman, Schroeder, and Sanders (2010) argued that there was
a KM framework underlying process management systems such as Six Sigma, TQM, lean
and business process engineering. Likewise, Oakland (1993) in an examination of quality
identified a process as involving nine inputs including knowledge. Significantly, the
PDCA cycle which underpins all management systems standards (BSI, 2013) ‘can be
applied to all processes’ (ISO 9001:2000, p. vi) and would therefore appear to include the
KM cycle. In the USA, the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award 2015-16 contains
seven criteria for performance excellence including: ‘Measurement, analysis and knowledge
management’ and it is KM which is a recent addition. In Europe, the European Foundation for
Quality Management model was described as an appropriate framework for governance of
organisational knowledge (Martín-Castilla & Rodriguez-Ruiz, 2008, p. 135).
In summary, there is a consistent message throughout much of the literature regarding
the close association and synergy of QM and KM (Akdere, 2009; Asif, de Vries, & Ahmad,
2013; Martín-Castilla & Rodriguez-Ruiz, 2008; Ooi, 2014; Ribière & Khorramshahgol,
2004). In particular, Linderman et al. (2004) emphasise the value of QM and KM in per-
formance improvements and Stewart and Waddell (2008) argued that they: ‘are closely
linked in a common cause: competitive advantage’ (p. 994).

3. Methodology
The structure of the research conducted in this paper began with a historical consideration
of the role of knowledge in the development of QM and then examined the literature
 Total Quality Management 5

connecting QM and KM. Scopus and Google Scholar were used to identify literature
sources for this paper and the main source for the content analysis involved physically vis-
iting the British Library on numerous occasions in order to scrutinise the early British Stan-
dards which were not available online and subsequent ISO quality standards.
The next stage was to conduct a content analysis (Berelson, 1952; Krippendorff &
Bock, 2008) of all the QM standards from 1979 onwards to explore the core elements of
the DIKW pyramid (Ackoff, 1989). Keyword searches for these terms revealed that there
was a slow but emerging recognition of data, information and knowledge culminating in
the explicit recognition of knowledge as a resource, for the first time, in the new ISO
9001:2015 standard.
This paper is a theoretical analysis of organisational knowledge contained in the new
ISO standard. As such, it contains an inherent limitation, i.e. it has not identified empirically
the practices which organisations might adopt in adhering to the standard’s requirements.
This will be the focus of future research; however, organisations need to begin with a
basic conceptual framework and it is hoped that this paper will provide an approach
using the KM cycle.
The theory may be defined as: ‘A group of logically organized laws or relationships that
constitutes explanation in a discipline’ (Heinen, 1985, p. 414), and this paper takes the con-
ceptual framework of the knowledge cycle and applies it systematically to the new ISO
9001:2015 quality standard. This revealed that the key components of the knowledge
cycle – identify, create, store, share and apply knowledge, can be identified within the stan-
dard. Moreover, explicit and tacit knowledge dimensions were found thus confirming the
sound theoretical foundations of the standard.
As was discussed above, the PDCA cycle used in quality standards was based on the
scientific method which Shewhart (1939/1986) described as making a hypothesis, undertak-
ing an experiment and testing the hypothesis. The hypothesis to be examined here is that:
The knowledge cycle provides a suitable structure to assist in the development of quality
systems to address ISO 9001:2015 Clause 7.1.6.

4.1 The evolving relationship between ISO 9001 and knowledge

Having examined the close relationship between QM and KM we will now use content
analysis to investigate the evolution and development of data, information and knowledge
in the ISO 9001 standards whose chronology is presented in Table 1.

4.1.1. BS 5750:1979
BS 5750:1979 (British Standards Institute, 1979a) was largely intended for use in manufac-
turing rather than the provision of services; however, its broader application was demon-
strated in the BSI’s (1979b) ‘Glossary of terms used in Quality Assurance’ which
defined quality as: ‘The totality of features and characteristics of a product or service
that bear on its ability to satisfy a given need’. To accommodate a wider range of industries,
a number of Quality Assurance Schedules (QAS) were introduced including QAS 8 which
was designed for service sector industries. There was no mention of knowledge or infor-
mation in these documents.

4.1.2. ISO 9001:1987

In 1987, BS 5750 was revised and adopted in its entirety by the International Organisation
for Standardisation – ISO 9000:1987, European – EN 29000 and USA standards ANSI/
6 J.P. Wilson and L. Campbell

Table 1. History of ISO 9001 standards.

Year Conformance standard Title
1979 BS 5750:1979 Quality systems: Part 1. Specification for design,
manufacture and installation
1987 BS 5750:1987; ISO 9001:1987; EN ISO title: Quality systems – Model for quality
29000; ANSI/ASQC Q91 assurance in design/development, production,
installation and servicing.
1994 ISO 9001:1994: ANSI/ASQC Quality systems – Model for quality assurance in
Q9001-1994 design, development, production, installation and
servicing.
2000 ISO 9001:2000 Quality management systems – Requirements
2008 ISO 9001:2008 Quality management systems – Requirements
2015 ISO 9001:2015 Quality management systems – Requirements

ASQC Q91. These identical standards were still largely based on stable manufacturing pro-
cesses and conformance to the 20 elements using documented procedures. Again, the terms
information and knowledge were not included in this standard.

4.1.3. ISO 9001:1994

The standards were updated again in 1994 with ISO 9001, 9002 and 9003 versions repre-
senting different stages in the quality assurance process; however, the emphasis was still on
preventive measures and documented procedures thus creating a strongly bureaucratic
system with many procedure manuals which hindered adaption and improvement of the
systems. Definition provided in ISO 8402:1994 ‘Quality Management and Quality Assur-
ance – Vocabulary’ specified that a product was ‘Result of activities or processes’ and that:
‘A product can be tangible (e.g. assemblies or processed materials) or intangible (e.g.
knowledge or concepts), or a combination thereof’. This recognition of intangible knowl-
edge and concepts represented an emerging appreciation that knowledge contributed to the
process.
In order to demonstrate conformance to specified requirements, documented procedures
were required to identify, collect, index, access, file, store, maintain and dispose of quality
records (ISO 9001:1994) – in other words, knowledge documentation and records manage-
ment, i.e. ISO 15489 Records Management. This specification of the procedures enabled
organisational practices and procedural knowledge to be captured and codified in the docu-
ments (Zetie, 2002). Another requirement related to knowledge was that there should be
documentation of procedures for identifying training needs for all personnel whose per-
formance affected quality. All these personnel were to be qualified based on education,
training and/or experience.

4.1.4. ISO 9001:2000

Criticism of ISO 9001:1994 and its restrictive bureaucracy led to a substantially revised ISO
9001:2000 which incorporated ISO 9001, 9002, 9003 into one standard. The 20 elements
were reduced to eight core QM principles: customer focus, leadership, involvement of
people, process approach, system approach to management, continual improvement,
factual approach to decision making and mutually beneficial supplier relationships. In par-
ticular, the emphasis changed from a bureaucratic system of quality control documents to
one which focused on a documented system of process management. Continuous improve-
ment and tracking customer satisfaction were considered key elements.
 Total Quality Management 7

There was no mention of the term ‘knowledge’ in ISO 9001:2000; however, the term
‘information’ was frequently used in a range of contexts including: ‘evaluation of infor-
mation relating to customer perception’ (ISO 9001:2000, p. 0.2); ‘ensure the availability
of resources and information necessary to support the operation and monitoring of these
[quality management] processes’ (ISO 9001:2000, p. 4.1 d); ‘The input to management
review shall include information on:

(a) results of audits,

(b) customer feedback,
(c) process performance and product conformity,
(d) status of preventive and corrective actions,
(e) follow-up actions from previous management reviews,
(f) changes that could affect the quality management system and
(g) recommendations for improvement’ (ISO 9001:2000, p. 5.6.2)
(h) communicate product information to customers (ISO 9001:2000, p. 7.2.3).

The term ‘data’ was also included in ISO 9001:2000 including: ‘The organization
shall determine, collect and analyse appropriate data to demonstrate the suitability and
effectiveness of the quality management system and to evaluate where continual improve-
ment of the effectiveness of the quality management system can be made’ (ISO
9001:2000, p. 8.4). Arguably, once the data are used for evaluation purposes it
becomes knowledge; however, nowhere in the standard is knowledge specified or con-
sidered as a resource.
ISO 9000:2005 Quality Management systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary
described the eight underpinning principles of QM and Principle 7 ‘Factual approach to
decision making’ stated that: ‘Effective decisions are based on the analysis of data and
information’ (ISO 9000:2005, p. 0.2f). It did not define data but described information
as ‘meaningful data’ (ISO 9000:2005, p. 3.7.1).
ISO 9000:2005 Principle 3 ‘Involvement of People’ ‘People at all levels are the essence
of an organization and their full involvement enables their abilities to be used for the organ-
ization’s benefit’ is only briefly described but ISO (2012) document Quality Management
Principles suggested that the involvement of people typically leads to ‘People actively
seeking opportunities to enhance their competence, knowledge and experience’ and
‘People freely sharing knowledge and experience’. This inclusion of ‘knowledge’ would
appear to be a distinct precursor to the formal inclusion of ‘knowledge’ in ISO
9001:2015 as will be discussed below.
ISO 9000:2005 also defined the terms which were used in the series and ‘competence’
was defined as: ‘demonstrated ability to apply knowledge and skills’ (ISO 9000:2005,
p. 3.1.6); ‘technical expert’ was also defined as a: ‘person who provides specific knowledge
or expertise to the audit team’ (ISO 2005, p. 3.9.11.).

4.1.5. ISO 9001:2008

ISO 9001:2008 contained a few minor revisions and was mainly redesigned to complement
the other management standards such as environmental management ISO 14001:2004. The
standard contained no mention of knowledge although it did use the term ‘information’ at
regular intervals and more specifically: 4.1. d. ‘ensure the availability of resources and
information necessary to support the operation and monitoring of these processes’.
There is also discussion of data and the standard states:
8 J.P. Wilson and L. Campbell

8.4 The analysis of data shall provide information relating to: (a) customer satisfaction, (b) con-
formity to product requirements, (c) characteristics and trends of processes and products,
including opportunities for preventive action and (d) suppliers.
What is evident from the content analysis is that the terms data and information have gradu-
ally become more prevalent and provided the foundations for the inclusion of knowledge.
Significantly, these three represent the foundations of the knowledge hierarchy or knowl-
edge pyramid of DIKW (Ackoff, 1989) (Figure 1).
The standard also acknowledged the importance of personal knowledge in section 6.2.2
Competence, training and awareness which stated that: ‘The organization shall a) determine
the necessary competence for personnel performing work affecting conformity to product
requirements’.

4.1.6. ISO 9001:2015

In 2011, the ISO 9001 technical committee conducted a worldwide survey of existing and
potential users of ISO 9001 and 9004 and received 11,722 responses (Jarvis & MacNee,
2011). Question 10 of the survey asked: ‘How important is it to incorporate the following
concepts into ISO 9001?’ and the following highest scoring results from 6299 respondents
were reported:

. Resource management – 75%

. Voice of customers – 74%
. Integration of risk management – 73%
. Systematic problem solving and learning – 73%
. Measures (e.g. performance, satisfaction, return on investment) – 72%
. Knowledge management – 72%

The last major revision to ISO 9001 was in 2000 and so ISO 9001:2015 was updated to
take into account a number of factors including: increase documentation flexibility, inte-
gration of standards, leadership, maintain relevance, provide a consistent foundation for
the future, provide increased recognition of service industries and office environments
including non-office and virtual offices and risk-based thinking. The standards went
through a series of development stages before they become ‘statutes’, i.e. working draft;
committee draft, draft international standard, final draft international standard and,
finally, international standard.

Figure 1. The knowledge pyramid.

 Total Quality Management 9

Of particular significance was the new clause: 7.1.6 Organizational Knowledge (ISO
2015a):
7.1.6, Organizational Knowledge – The organization shall determine the knowledge necessary
for the operation of its processes and to achieve conformity of products and services. This
knowledge shall be maintained and be made available to the extent necessary. When addressing
changing needs and trends, the organization shall consider its current knowledge and determine
how to acquire or access any necessary additional knowledge and required updates.
A closer analysis of this clause reveals that it contains the core elements of the KM cycle
(Wilson & Cattell, 2005; Heisig, 2009), i.e. creation and acquisition, capture and storage,
distribution and application (Figure 2, Table 2).
This specification unequivocally recognised the role of knowledge in the delivery of goods
and services and confirmed the views that: ‘a resource-based theory of the firm thus entails a
knowledge-based perspective’ (Conner & Prahalad, 1996, p. 477); and that for today’s
organisations: ‘to succeed they have to view knowledge as an asset and manage it effec-
tively’ (Lim, Ahmed, & Zairi, 1999, p. S616).
ISO defined knowledge as the: ‘available collection of information being a justified
belief and having a high certainty to be true’. And this definition indicates the emphasis
in the standard on explicit knowledge which can be created, acquired, captured, stored, dis-
tributed and applied.
Note 1, in the standard, states that organisational knowledge is specific to the organis-
ation and is mostly gained through experience. Additionally, Note 2 explains that knowl-
edge can be based on internal and external sources. Sources of internal knowledge
include: experiential knowledge, intellectual property, lessons learned from failed and suc-
cessful projects; the capture and distribution of undocumented experience and knowledge;
and from improvements. Sources of external knowledge include: academia, conferences,
knowledge from customers and external providers and standards.
A further recognition of ‘knowledge’ can be found in Quality Management Principal 3 –
Engagement of People, which explained that empowerment of people’s ‘knowledge’
enhanced their ability and engagement to achieve organisational objectives. Furthermore,
a note about risk explained that uncertainty was linked to the level of ‘understanding or
knowledge’.

Figure 2. The knowledge management cycle.

10 J.P. Wilson and L. Campbell

Table 2. The Knowledge Management Cycle and ISO 9001:2015 Clause 7.1.6.
Knowledge management
cycle ISO 9001:2015 knowledge specification
Creation and acquisition ‘Acquire or access the necessary additional knowledge’
Capture and storage ‘Knowledge shall be maintained’
Distribution ‘Knowledge shall be … made available as necessary’
Application ‘The organization shall determine the knowledge necessary for the
operation of the quality management system and its processes.’

In the Annex to ISO 9001:2015, there is additional guidance about protecting organis-
ational knowledge arising from staff turnover and failures in capturing and sharing knowl-
edge. The Annex also encourages the acquisition of knowledge through various means
including: benchmarking, learning from experience and mentoring.

4.2 Other knowledge resources addressed by ISO 9001:2015

Polanyi (1966) divided knowledge into explicit knowledge – that which could be captured
and stored, for example, in operational manuals; and tacit knowledge, i.e. hidden knowl-
edge that is held in the heads of people and which is not easily captured and transferred
to others, e.g. the understanding and skills required to operate a machine or, perhaps,
ride a bicycle (Collins, 2010). Importantly, Clause 7.1.6 refers to Organisational Knowl-
edge and this might be interpreted mainly as referring to explicit knowledge.
ISO 9001:2015 indirectly recognises tacit knowledge held by people in the specification
for competence, i.e. ‘ability to apply knowledge and skills to achieve intended results’.
Clause 7.2 Competence states that: ‘The organization shall determine the necessary compe-
tence of person(s) doing work under its control that affects its quality performance’. It also
adds that competence is based on suitable education, training or experience and that correc-
tive actions for competence shortfalls should be implemented and evaluated together with
relevant documentary evidence. Clause 7.2 would appear to complement 7.1.6 Organis-
ational Knowledge which focuses on knowledge which is more explicit and is held in oper-
ational processes, manuals, systems, etc.
Clause 7.4 Communication refers to the internal and external communications of who,
what, when and how which are relevant to the QM system. This requirement draws atten-
tion to the necessity of involving stakeholders in quality processes.
Previously described as ‘documents and records’ in ISO 9001:2008, Clause 7.5 of ISO
9001:2015 refers to ‘documented information’. The clause specifies that this information
needs to be maintained and retained in order to support quality procedures.

4.3 ISO standards and KM

How organisations and ISO certification bodies will take into account the new specification
for knowledge is, as yet, unclear; and therefore, we will now examine some of the benefits
and challenges facing 1.1 million organisations.
Competitive advantage is one of the main drivers for the implementation of quality stan-
dards, and eight purposes of standardisation were identified by Swann (2010, p. ii) includ-
ing codified knowledge which was shown to have intermediate economic effects on the:
division of labour, competencies and barriers to entry; which, in turn, have ultimate econ-
omic effects on: productivity, market entry, competition, innovation, trade and outsourcing.
 Total Quality Management 11

‘Standards are codified knowledge. They express the work and experience of gener-
ations’ (Mosch, 2007, p. 2) and an organization’s quality manual is the depository of its
process knowledge (Zetie, 2002). The use of standards to codify knowledge enables
these common language properties to enhance communication between organizations
(Clougherty & Grajek, 2012) and customers (Duran et al., 2014) and enhance international
trade through this corresponding technical knowledge (Blind, 2001). ISO 9001 also pro-
vides a helpful architecture for structuring organizational knowledge and boosting internal
knowledge flow and transfer through the requirement for administrative assistance, docu-
ment management, message communication and quality improvement (Lin & Wu, 2005;
Molina et al., 2004).
Among the early articles to link ISO 9001 and knowledge was Heng (2001) who used
the 20 elements of ISO 9001:1994 as a systematic method for mapping critical knowledge
and intellectual capital in a company. He concluded that although ISO 9001 was a helpful
tool for process mapping it was inadequate for capturing critical knowledge about markets,
customer base and product opportunities. Around the same time, Bénézech et al. (2001)
concluded that ISO 9000:1994 standards could be used to codify tacit knowledge and
accumulate knowledge through the SECI model of Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995). Also,
Ribière and Khorramshahgol (2004) maintained that there were numerous similarities
between implementing KM and TQM and described how KM was the keystone linking
ISO 9000:2000 quality standards, TQM and Six Sigma quality awards. More recently, Siva-
kumar, Devadasan, and & Murugesh (2014) linked KM principles with ISO 9001:2000 and
then used the five major clauses to assist in the development of a KM portal.
Due to the relatively recent publication of the ISO 2001:2015 standards, there have been
a limited number of papers discussing their impact (Attila & Jussi, 2017; Rybski, Jochem,
& Homma, 2017). Of particular relevance is the reciprocal relationship between QM and
KM (Honarpour, Jusoh, & Long, 2017) and the benefits of ISO certification in improving
knowledge obtained from customers and increasing employee dissemination of knowledge
(Duran et al., 2014).
Much of the literature linking quality and knowledge has concentrated mainly on expli-
cit knowledge which is more easily shared and imitated (Linderman et al., 2004); however,
in the majority of industries, explicit knowledge is only a ‘qualifier’ in continuous improve-
ment strategies, e.g. TQM, lean production and Six Sigma (Anand, Ward, Tatikonda, &
Schilling, 2009). To gain commercial success, organisations require competitive advantage
which is achieved through knowledge which is not easily imitated, i.e. tacit knowledge
(Dooley, 2000); and thus Linderman et al. (2004, p. 591) concluded that QM systems
would increasingly focus attention on tacit knowledge.
Yet, focussing on tacit knowledge or even explicit knowledge presents a challenge for
quality improvement because ‘Knowledge is not fixed or stable, but quite the opposite, in
that it is fluid and emergent’ (Waddell & Stewart, 2008, p. 33). Attempting to ‘rigidify’
knowledge (Bénézech et al., 2001) and not accept that it is epistemic, involving beliefs, jud-
gements, values and wisdom and contested might risk failure (Jayawarna & Holt, 2009).
To add further complexity, it must be considered that the capturing of both tacit and
explicit knowledge is required not only internally within an organisation but also externally
across the value chain since organisations benefit from the knowledge of suppliers and cus-
tomers. To achieve this, Ju et al. (2006) recommended that each TQM critical factor be sup-
ported through the application of KM value chain activities.
ISO 9001 standards encourage the explicitisation of knowledge, and organisations
which are more mechanistic and use explicit knowledge would appear to be more compa-
tible with ISO 9000 certification than those which are more organic and use tacit knowledge
12 J.P. Wilson and L. Campbell

(Abdullah & Ahmad, 2009). Organisations which operate using high levels of tacit knowl-
edge may lack comprehensive documentation, and thus quality auditors may judge these
systems weak. Abdullah and Ahmad (2009) used a four-quadrant model with two axes
of organic – mechanistic and control – creativity and concluded that mechanistic and con-
trolling organisations will be a ‘perfect fit’ (p. 750) for ISO 9000; in contrast, organisations
in the opposite organic and creative quadrant will be a ‘perfect misfit’, e.g. high customisa-
tion services.
Another constraining factor is that only the tacit knowledge which can be captured will
be codified and made explicit in operational manuals, knowledge which is more elusive and
perhaps of even greater value may not be netted and universally applied. This unarticulable
knowledge built upon past experiences may be more effective in identifying operational
failures than restrictive detailed procedures (Bénézech et al., 2001). Importantly, too
great an emphasis on codification may: ‘kill innovation and creativity’ (Ribière & Khorram-
shahgol, 2004, p. 40), which are outcomes of effective KM.

5. Practical considerations for organisations

Summarising from the discussion above there would appear to be a number of consider-
ations for organisations:

. There is now a clear explicit requirement for organisations to manage organisational

knowledge.
. There is a valuable and complementary relationship between QM and KM.
. The knowledge cycle of creation and acquisition, capture and storage, distribution
and application is implicitly described in the standard. These areas provide suitable
categories within which to demonstrate adherence to the standard.
. Knowledge should be considered broadly not solely with a focus on Clause 7.1.6;
other areas of the standard need to be considered in relation to knowledge particularly
7.2 Competence, 7.4 Communication and 7.5 Documented Information.
. For those wishing to introduce KM into an organisation, Clause 7.1.6 provides a
strong justification.
. Quality managers will need to conduct their own knowledge audit.
. Explicit knowledge will be easier to capture than tacit knowledge. Indeed tacit
knowledge needs to be protected in order to maintain competitive advantages.
. There needs to be a strategic knowledge plan which systematically and comprehen-
sively addresses, where possible, all areas of explicit and tacit knowledge.
. It may be easier for more mechanistic organisations to describe knowledge than crea-
tive ones.

6. Conclusions
The growing literature connecting QM and KM confirms that the two disciplines are comp-
lementary and are essential to the successful management of organisations and their com-
petitive advantage. Furthermore, the inclusion of a knowledge clause is likely to enhance
the role and importance of KM in the quality arena. Significantly, the inclusion of an organ-
isational knowledge specification parallels the development of KM standards by the ISO
following a recommendation by the Standards Institute of Israel (American National Stan-
dards Institute, 2013). One of the authors is contributing to this process. Also, the ISO’s
(2014) Annex SL for management systems standards is designed to overcome the
 Total Quality Management 13

limitations of separately designed standards through unifying a high-level structure, core

text, terms and definitions, thus indicating an increased role for knowledge in the future.
Notwithstanding the complementary nature of QM and KM, there still would appear to
be an inbuilt structural tension between the mechanistic approaches of ISO 9001 require-
ments for the codification of knowledge and the inherent difficulty of capturing tacit knowl-
edge. Moreover, tacit knowledge is often considered to be a source of competitive
advantage and codifying it increases transferability thus making it more vulnerable to
copying by other competing organisations.
Finally, this paper is an exploratory investigation into the role of knowledge in ISO
9001:2015 and further empirical research needs to be conducted into how organisations
actively incorporate the knowledge clause into their QM practices. Each organisation
may approach this in its own manner; however, there are likely to be commonalities
which might be beneficially shared through research. In particular, the practical application
of the KM cycle to organisational ISO 9001:2015 certification is deserving of further
detailed research. Other important areas of future research include knowledge audits
especially of tacit knowledge; and the training and development of employees to identify
knowledge and its relationship to QM. It is hoped that this paper will assist the million-
plus organisations which are required by ISO 9001:2015 certification to incorporate knowl-
edge as a resource within their operational practices.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

References
Abdullah, H. S., & Ahmad, J. (2009). The fit between organizational structure, management orien-
tation, knowledge orientation, and the values of ISO 9000 standard: Aconceptual analysis.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 26(8), 744–760.
Ackoff, R. L. (1989). From data to wisdom. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16(1), 3–9.
Akdere, M. (2009). The role of knowledge management in quality management practices: Achieving
performance excellence in organizations. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 11(3),
349–361.
American National Standards Institute. (2013). ANSI seeks comments on proposed new ISO standard
on knowledge management systems. Retrieved from http://www.ansi.org/news_publications/
news_story.aspx?menuid=7&articleid=5ff0867f-7325-4c50-bf5b-c14d2e1c56ba, 23.06.2016
Anand, G., Ward, P. T., Tatikonda, M. V., & Schilling, D. A. (2009). Dynamic capabilities through
continuous improvement infrastructure. Journal of Operations Management, 27(6), 444–461.
Asif, M., de Vries, H. J., & Ahmad, N. (2013). Knowledge creation through quality management.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 24(5–6), 664–677.
Attila, J., & Jussi, K. (2017). ISO 9001:2015 – a questionable reform. What should the implementing
organisations understand and do? Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 28(10),
1090–1105.
Bénézech, D., Lambert, G., Lanoux, B., Lerch, C., & Loos-Baroin, J. (2001). Completion of knowl-
edge codification: An illustration through the ISO 9000 standards implementation process.
Research Policy, 30(9), 1395–1407.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis in communication research. Glencoe: Free Press.
Blind, K. (2001). The impact of innovations and standards on trade of measurement and testing pro-
ducts: Empirical results of Switzerland’s bilateral trade flows with Germany, France and the
UK. Information Economics and Policy, 13, 439–460.
British Standards Institute. (1979a). BS 5750: Part 1: 1979 quality systems: Part 1. Specification for
design, manufacture and installation. London: British Standards Institution.
British Standards Institute. (1979b). BS 4778:1979 glossary of terms used in quality assurance.
London: British Standards Institution.
14 J.P. Wilson and L. Campbell

British Standards Institute. (2013). ISO 9001 It’s in the detail: Your implementation guide. London:
BSI. Retrieved from http://www.bsigroup.co.uk/Documents/iso-9001/resources/BSI-ISO-
9001-implementation-guide.pdf
Chuang, S. S., Chen, K. S., & Tsai, M. T. (2015). Exploring the antecedents that influence
middle management employees’ knowledge-sharing intentions in the context of total quality
management implementations. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26(1-2),
108–122.
Clougherty, J. A. and Grajek, M. (2012). International standards and international trade: Empirical
evidence from ISO 9000 diffusion (NBER Working Paper 18132). Retrieved from http://static.
esmt.org/publications/workingpapers/NBER_18132.pdf
Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: Knowledge versus
opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.
Deming, W. E. (1994). The New economics for industry, government and education. Cambridge, MA:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Centre for Advanced Educational Studies.
Dooley, K. J. (2000). The paradigms of quality: Evolution and revolution in the history of the disci-
pline. Advances in the Management of Organizational Quality, 5, 1–28.
Duran, C., Çetindere, A., & Ş ahan, Ö. (2014). An analysis on the relationship between total quality
management practices and knowledge management: The case of Eskişehir. Procedia – Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 109, 65–77.
Galandere-Zı̄le, I. (2009). The effective management approach: Integration of business, quality man-
agement and knowledge management processes. Scientific Journal of Riga Technical
University. Computer Sciences, 38, 175–141.
Garstenauer, A., Blackburn, T., & Olson, B. (2014). A knowledge management based approach to
quality management for large manufacturing organizations. Engineering Management
Journal, 26(4), 47–58.
Heinen, J. R. (1985). A primer on psychological theory. The Journal of Psychology, 119(5), 413–421.
Heisig, P. (2009). Harmonisation of knowledge management-comparing 160 KM frameworks around
the globe. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(4), 4–31.
Heng, M. S. H. (2001). Mapping intellectual capital in a small manufacturing enterprise. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 2(1), 53–60.
Honarpour, A., Jusoh, A., & Long, C. S. (2017). Knowledge management and total quality manage-
ment: A reciprocal relationship. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management,
34(1), 91–102.
Honarpour, A., Jusoh, A., & Nor, K. M. (2012). Knowledge management, total quality management
and innovation: A new look. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 7(3), 22–31.
Honarpour, A., Jusoh, A., & Nor, K. M. (2017). Total quality management, knowledge management,
and innovation: An empirical study in R&D units. Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence, 1–19.
Hsu, S., & Shen, H. (2005). Knowledge management and its relationship with TQM. Total Quality
Management and Business Excellence, 16(3), 351–361.
International Organization for Standardization. (1987). Quality systems – model for quality assurance
in design/development, production, installation and servicing. Geneva: Author.
International Organization for Standardization. (1994). Quality systems – model for quality assurance
in design/development, production, installation and servicing. Geneva: Author.
International Organization for Standardization. (2000). Quality systems - model for quality assurance
in design/development, production, installation and servicing. Geneva: Author.
International Organization for Standardization. (2008). Quality systems - model for quality assurance
in design/development, production, installation and servicing. Geneva: Author.
International Organization for Standardization. (2012). Quality management principles. Geneva:
Author. Retrieved from www.iso.org/iso/qmp_2012.pdf
International Organization for Standardization. (2014). ISO/IEC directives, part 1, consolidated ISO
supplement: Procedures specific to ISO. Geneva: ISO/IEC.
International Organization for Standardization. (2015a). ISO 9001:2015 quality management systems
– requirements. Geneva: Author.
International Organization for Standardization. (2015b). The ISO survey of management system stan-
dard certifications – 2014. Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/
certification/iso-survey.htm?certificate=ISO%209001&countrycode=AF
 Total Quality Management 15

Jaime, A., Gardoni, M., Mosca, J., & Vinck, D. (2006). From quality management to knowledge man-
agement in research organizations. International Journal of Innovation Management, 10(2),
197–215.
Jarvis, A., & MacNee, C. (2011). Improved customer satisfaction: Key result of ISO 9000 user survey.
Retrieved from http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/news.htm?refid=
Ref1543
Jayawarna, D., & Holt, R. (2009). Knowledge and quality management: An R&D perspective.
Technovation, 29(11), 775–785.
Johannsen, C. G. (2000). Total quality management in a knowledge management perspective. Journal
of Documentation, 56(1), 42–54.
Ju, T. L., Lin, B., Lin, C., & Kuo, H. J. (2006). TQM critical factors and KM value chain activities.
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 17(3), 373–393.
Krippendorff, K., & Bock, M. (Eds.) (2008). The content analysis reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lim, K. K., Ahmed, P. K., & Zairi, M. (1999). Managing for quality through knowledge management.
Total Quality Management, 10(4/5), 615–621.
Lin, C., & Wu, C. (2005). A knowledge creation model for ISO 9001: 2000. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 16(5), 657–670.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., & Sanders, J. (2010). A knowledge framework underlying process
management. Decision Sciences, 41(4), 689–719.
Linderman, K., Schroeder, R. G., Zaheer, S., Liedtke, C., & Choo, A. S. (2004). Integrating quality
management practices with knowledge creation processes. Journal of Operations
Management, 22(6), 589–607.
Loke, S. P., Downe, A. G., Sambasivan, M., & Khalid, K. (2012). A structural approach to integrating
total quality management and knowledge management with supply chain learning. Journal of
Business Economics and Management, 13(4), 776–800.
Martín-Castilla, J. I., & Rodriguez-Ruiz, O. (2008). EFQM model, knowledge governance and com-
petitive advantage. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 9(1), 133–156.
McAdam, R. (2004). Knowledge creation and idea generation: A critical quality perspective.
Technovation, 24(9), 697–705.
Molina, L. M., Lloréns Montes, F. J., & Del Mar Fuentes Fuentes, M. (2004). TQM and ISO 9000
effects on knowledge transferability and knowledge transfers. Total Quality Management &
Business Excellence, 15(7), 1001–1015.
Molina, L. M., Lloréns-Montes, J., & Ruiz-Moreno, A. (2007). Relationship between quality
management practices and knowledge transfer. Journal of Operations Management, 25(3),
682–701.
Mosch, K. (2007). The experience of whole generations. Wissenshaftsmanagement, p. 2–3. Retrieved
from http://www.wissenschaftsmanagement.de/dateien/dateien/archive_special/downloadda
teien/special_2_2007_en.pdf
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies
create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oakland, J. S. (1993). Total quality management: The route to improving performance (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Ooi, K. B. (2014). TQM: A facilitator to enhance knowledge management? A structural analysis.
Expert Systems with Applications, 41(11), 5167–5179.
Ooi, K. B. (2015). TQM practices and knowledge management: A multi-group analysis of constructs
and structural invariance between the manufacturing and service sectors. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 26(11–12), 1131–1145.
Owlia, M. S. (2010). A framework for quality dimensions of knowledge management systems. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence, 21(11), 1215–1228.
Polanyi, M. (1966). The logic of tacit inference. Philosophy (London, England), 41(155), 1–18.
Ribière, V. M., & Khorramshahgol, R. (2004). Integrating total quality management and knowledge
management. Journal of Management Systems, 16(1), 39–54.
Ruzevicius, J. (2006). Integration of total quality management and knowledge management.
Informacijos Mokslai, 37, 30–38.
Rybski, C., Jochem, R., & Homma, L. (2017). Empirical study on status of preparation for ISO
9001:2015. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 1–14.
Shewhart, W. (1939/1986). Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. Mineola: Courier
Corporation/Dover Publications.
16 J.P. Wilson and L. Campbell

Sivakumar, M. V., Devadasan, S. R., & & Murugesh, R. (2014). Theory and practice of knowledge
managed ISO 9001:2000 supported quality system. The TQM Journal, 26(1), 30–49.
Stewart, D., & Waddell, D. (2008). Knowledge management: The fundamental component for deliv-
ery of quality. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 19(9), 987–996.
Swann, G. M. P. (2010, May 27). The economics of standardization: an update (Report for the UK
Department of Business, Innovation and Skills). Retrieved from http://web.foresight.gov.uk/
assets/biscore/innovation/docs/e/10-1135-economics-of-standardization-update.pdf
Tsai, B. S. (2003). Information landscaping: Information mapping, charting, querying and reporting
techniques for total quality knowledge management. Information Processing & Management,
39(4), 639–664.
Waddell, D., & Stewart, D. (2008). Knowledge management as perceived by quality practitioners.
The TQM Journal, 20(1), 31–44.
Wang, D. H. M., & Huynh, Q. L. (2014). The relationships among quality management system,
knowledge management and organizational performance: An application of the Heckman
two-step method. Journal of Applied Economics & Business Research, 4(4), 235–245.
Wiig, K. (1990). Expert systems: A manager’s guide. Geneva: International Labour Organisation.
WIlson, J. P., & Cattell, A. (2005). Knowledge management. In J. P. Wilson (Ed.), Human resource
development: Learning and training for individuals and organizations (pp. 111–133). London:
Kogan Page.
Yang, J. (2008). Managing knowledge for quality assurance: An empirical study. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 25(2), 109–124.
Zetie, S. (2002). The quality circle approach to knowledge management. Managerial Auditing
Journal, 17(6), 317–321.
Zhao, F. and Bryar, P. (2001). Integrating knowledge management and total quality: a complemen-
tary process. Paper presented at the 6th International Conference on ISO-9000 and TQM (6-
ICIT), Paisley, April.