©18-ICIT: 21-23/4/14 at UiTM-Sarawak ST-2: ISO 9000/14001/50001, OH18001, etc.

Paper #: 02-2K P- 1

Usage of ISO 10000 Augmentative Standards in Serbia

Prof. Stanislav Karapetrovic
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Alberta, Canada
stanislav@ualberta.ca

A/P Vesna Spasojevic Brkic

Dept. of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, Serbia
vspasojevic@mas.bg.ac.rs

ABSTRACT
Preliminary results of a 2013 survey of thirty-nine ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 –registered organizations in
Serbia with respect to the usage of ISO 10001, ISO 10002, ISO 19011 and other augmentative
management system standards are presented. Implementation priorities, actual usage and the reasons not
to apply augmentative standards from the ISO 10000 series were focused on. Although these standards
were prioritized for implementation by the largest percentage of the respondents, the organizations still
do not seem to be aware of customer satisfaction or other augmentative standards, which also appears to
be the main non-implementation reason. The most widely used augmentative standard is ISO 19011,
followed by ISO 10005, with no clear pattern in the sequence of application relative to ISO 9001 or ISO
14001.

Keywords: ISO 10001, ISO 10002, ISO 19011, Management System Standards, Quality Management,
Serbia

1.0 Introduction
28 years after the publication of the first augmentative Management System Standards (MSSs) in quality
management (e.g., ANSI/ASQ Q1: 1986), 23 years following the appearance of the first international
such standard (ISO 10011: 1991), 13 years after their usage in support of the integration of function-
specific standardized Management Systems (MSs) was discussed at ICIT (Karapetrovic, 2001), a full
decade subsequent to the emergence of the potential for the integration of three internationally-
standardized augmentative MSs themselves (with ISO 19011: 2002, ISO 10012: 2003 and ISO 10002:
2004), and seven years after the forming of a distinct group of augmentative (AUG) MSSs devoted to
customer satisfaction (including ISO 10001: 2007 and ISO 10003: 2007), we still do not know much
regarding the actual implementation of AUG MSSs in organizations or the realization of any of these
AUG MS integration possibilities.

In previous ICITs, in terms of empirical research, members of the Auditing and Integration of
Management Systems Research Laboratory (AIMS-RL) at the University of Alberta examined the
applications of customer-satisfaction-focused AUG MSSs in health care (e.g., Fernandez et al., 2010, and
Khan et al., 2010) and education (e.g., Honarkhah and Karapetrovic, 2010). Results of a survey of ISO
9001 and ISO 14001 registrants with respect to AUG MSSs from 2006 were analyzed, for example, in
Karapetrovic et al. (2006 and 2012). However, this survey was largely focused on the integration of other
types of MSs, rather than the augmentative ones (e.g., see Karapetrovic and Casadesus, 2007), and was
performed at the time when only three AUG MSSs had been issued by the “Supporting Technologies”
subcommittee (SC3) of the “Quality Assurance and Management” Technical Committee (TC176) in the
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), namely ISO 19011 on auditing, ISO 10012 on
measurement MSs and ISO 10002 on complaint handling.

Now that ISO/TC176/SC3 has developed at least seven AUG MSSs, five of which create a group of
customer-satisfaction augmentative standards (ISO 10001: 2007, ISO 10002: 2004, ISO 10003: 2007,
ISO 10004: 2012 and ISO 10008: 2013), it made sense to probe AUG MSS application in organizations
further. Therefore, as a part of a study of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 registrants in several countries, and
using the 2006 survey as the basis (e.g., see Karapetrovic et al., 2006), implementation of AUG MSSs and
the related augmentative integration was investigated in Serbia, with some preliminary AUG MSS
application results illustrated here.
©18-ICIT: 21-23/4/14 at UiTM-Sarawak ST-2: ISO 9000/14001/50001, OH18001, etc. Paper #: 02-2K P- 2

The survey methodology, including the size and sector summary of the 39 responding companies, is
described first. Subsequently, the results regarding the priorities given to the implementation of AUG
MSSs specifically, and then in the context of other MSSs, are shown, followed by the findings related to
the five customer satisfaction standards and two additional AUG MSSs. The actual reported usage of
eight AUG MSSs, including the manner of usage, is analyzed. After a presentation of the AUG MSSs
non-implementation reasons, brief conclusions regarding AUG MSSs and MSs are provided.

2.0 Methodology
According to the currently-available “ISO Survey” (ISO, 2013), Serbia had 3066 and 817 ISO 9001 and
ISO 14001 - registered organizations, respectively, at the end of 2012. Therefore, for the Serbian part of
the study, the survey was sent to the “managers responsible for quality and/or environmental” MSs in the
302 organizations that, according to the Serbian Chamber of Commerce (2012) data, were registered to
both ISO 9001 and ISO 14001. The survey was performed through Google Docs, including one reminder,
with 39 responses (13% rate), obtained in roughly a two-month period from the beginning of September
to the beginning of November 2013, analyzed here.

As illustrated in Figure 1, most of the 39 responding organizations were in the manufacturing sector (19
or 49%), followed by six construction companies (15%) and three in the energy / utilities sector (8%).

Wholesale / Retail trade; 2; 5% Information technology; 1; 3%

Transportation / Distribution; 2; 5%

Energy / Utilities; 3; 8%

Health care; 2; 5%
Manufacturing; 19; 49%
Science / Technology; 1; 3%

Other; 3; 8%

Construction; 6; 15%

Figure 1: Industrial sectors

In terms of the size (according to the European Commission, 2003), 18 organizations (46%) had between
50 and 250 employees, representing the largest group, 13 (or 33%) employed less than 50 people, with
the smallest of the three groups including 8 (21%) organizations with more than 500 employees. The
average and median number of employees were 751 and 111, respectively.
©18-ICIT: 21-23/4/14 at UiTM-Sarawak ST-2: ISO 9000/14001/50001, OH18001, etc. Paper #: 02-2K P- 3

3.0 Implementation priorities for augmentative MSSs

Following the 2006 empirical research in Catalonia (e.g., see Karapetrovic et al., 2006), all organizations
participating in the Serbian survey were asked to prioritize excellence models and two particular groups
of MSSs (e.g., see Karapetrovic, 2005) in terms of adequacy of their addition in the organizations. The
statement and the options were identical to the 2006 survey (Karapetrovic et al., 2006) and included AUG
MSSs, presented as “standards for support of specific areas of the organization (complaint handling,
measurement management,…)” as one of the two groups of MSSs, together with the “do not add any new
MSSs […] excellence model” as the fourth option.

Figure 2 illustrates the number and percentage of organizations (out of 39) that placed a particular priority
(from 1 (highest) to 4 (lowest), since they were asked to rank the four options) for the AUG MSSs only.
The largest percentage of organizations (31%) assigned the third priority to the implementation of new
AUG MSSs, while 10 organizations (29%) gave those standards the first priority. However, comparing
29% with the percentages of organizations that indicated the first priority to one of the other three
options, it turns out that the highest number of respondents actually placed the first priority to AUG
MSSs.

Namely, adding new MSSs from the group related to the “management of the organization” received the
first priority from 26% of the respondents (nine out of 35), while only 11% (four out of 35) assigned the
first priority to the “using excellence models” alternative. Finally, eight out of 32 respondents (25%)
prioritized the alternative not to implement any new MSSs or excellence models. These results differ
from the Catalonian findings (Karapetrovic et al., 2006), where the largest percentage of organizations
assigned the first priority to implementing occupational health and safety, social responsibility and such
overall MSSs (i.e., the group that received 26% and took the second spot in Serbia). Nevertheless, the
difference between these and AUG MSSs in Serbia were just one organization, in the sample of about a
quarter size of the Catalonian one.

12
11 (31%)

10 (29%) 10 (29%)
10

4 (11%)
4

0
Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Priority 4
Figure 2: Priorities assigned to implementing new augmentative standards

In addition to the priorities for the implementation of new MSSs as groups, the awareness and
implementation (both actual and potential) of seven specific AUG MSSs, namely the five existing
©18-ICIT: 21-23/4/14 at UiTM-Sarawak ST-2: ISO 9000/14001/50001, OH18001, etc. Paper #: 02-2K P- 4

customer satisfaction standards, an environmental performance measurement AUG MSS (ISO 14031) and
ISO 19011 for auditing MSs, were investigated. Figure 3 shows the results for all seven AUG MSSs.

The awareness of customer-satisfaction AUG MSSs is very low, with more than half of the respondents
indicating that they are “not aware” or are “aware and not sure” of ISO 10001, ISO 10002, ISO 10003 or
ISO 10008, with this percentage reaching 70% in the case of the dispute resolution AUG MSS (ISO
10003). About a quarter of the organizations indicated that it is either “important to implement” or that
they have “already implemented” ISO 10001 and/or ISO 10002 (26% for ISO 10001 and 25% for ISO
10002), with 36% marking one of these two responses for ISO 10004 on customer satisfaction
measurement. Generally, it seems that the three measurement-related AUG MSSs fare better than the
other four included standards, since the “important to…” or “should…” “…implement” fractions are
larger than one third in each case (39% for ISO 14031 and 46% for ISO 19011).

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%
Aware + Should Not Implement
50% Aware + Already Implemented
Aware + Should Implement
40% Aware + Do Not Know
Not Aware
30%

20%

10%

0%
ISO ISO ISO ISO ISO ISO ISO
10001 10002 10003 10004 10008 14031 19011
Figure 3: Awareness and potential or actual implementation of seven augmentative standards

4.0 Actual implementation of augmentative MSSs

The current usage of augmentative MSSs was researched with two “yes/no”-type questions provided in a
separate section of the survey. The first question related to four customer satisfaction standards (namely
ISO 10001 to ISO 10004), while the second referred to ISO 10012 for measurement in quality MSs, ISO
10005 for quality plans, ISO 19011 for MS auditing and ISO 14031 for measurement in environmental
MSs. The results, shown in Table 1, indicate a low degree (less than 20%) of implementation of six out of
the eight standards, namely all four customer satisfaction AUG MSSs and the two measurement-related
AUG MSSs (for both quality and environmental MSs). ISO 10005 application in eight out of the 39
organizations came surprisingly in the second place, but, as in Karapetrovic et al. (2006) for Catalonia,
the most-widely applied AUG MSS is clearly ISO 19011.
©18-ICIT: 21-23/4/14 at UiTM-Sarawak ST-2: ISO 9000/14001/50001, OH18001, etc. Paper #: 02-2K P- 5

AUG MSS ISO 10001 ISO 10002 ISO 10003 ISO 10004 ISO 10012 ISO 10005 ISO 19011 ISO 14031

Number of organizations
2 5 2 5 4 8 18 5
using the AUG MSS

Percentage of organizations
5% 13% 5% 13% 10% 21% 46% 13%
using the AUG MSS

Table 1: Extent of usage of eight augmentative standards

The organizations indicating that they had implemented at least one AUG MSS were prompted to answer
further related questions. For instance, there was an even split of 15 organizations that responded to the
question whether they had implemented the AUG MSSs before, at the same time or after the
implementation of ISO 9001, with five organizations indicating each of the three alternatives. With
respect to ISO 14001, the split was three, five and three for the “before”, “at the same time” and “after”
alternatives. All nine organizations that answered the corresponding question stated that they do not
conduct internal audits against the single AUG MSS they implemented. However, five out of six
organizations that answered a similar question on the AUG MSs auditing in the case they implemented
multiple AUG MSSs stated that they audit “all” AUG MSs internally. In addition, six out of seven
organizations responding to the related question indicated that they used ISO 19011 as a guideline for
auditing.

5.0 Non-implementation of augmentative MSSs

In order to probe the reasons that ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 – registered organizations had for deciding
not to implement AUG MSSs, a related statement with seven alternatives, each evaluated for importance
on a 1 (“not important”) to 5 (“extremely important”) Likert scale, was included. This statement, based on
a similar one used in Karapetrovic et al. (2006) for non-integration, was aimed at the organizations who
responded beforehand that they had not implemented any of the eight AUG MSSs offered. Figure 4
illustrates the averages received for each alternative, with 18 companies providing the response for the
first (“Difficulties…”), 19 for the second (“Differences…”), sixth (“Lack of interest…”) and seventh
(“Lack of need…”), and 20 for the remaining three alternatives.

As in Karapetrovic et al. (2006), the seven alternatives provided for a response covered two groups of
reasons, namely the ones related to the standards (the first three in Figure 4) and the ones stemming from
the systems, i.e., the organizations themselves (the last four in Figure 4). Both Figure 4 and the
corresponding median results seem to point out that ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 registrants do not see a
problem in the content of AUG MSSs (indicated by the first two alternatives, with the medians of 2.5 and
2.0, respectively), but rather in their “lack of awareness of AUG MSSs” (median of 4.0), as well as in the
lack of resources (“human” and “financial”, both with the median of 4.0), “interest” (median of 4.0), and
perhaps the “need” to implement AUG MSSs (median of 4.0).
©18-ICIT: 21-23/4/14 at UiTM-Sarawak ST-2: ISO 9000/14001/50001, OH18001, etc. Paper #: 02-2K P- 6

5.00

4.00
3.70 3.65 3.60 3.58
3.21
3.00

2.39 2.42

2.00

1.00

0.00
Difficulties in Differences Lack of awareness Lack of human Lack of financial Lack of interest in Lack of need for
understanding between AUG about AUG MSSs resources for resources for AUG MSSs AUG MSSs
AUG MSSs MSSs and ISO AUG MSSs AUG MSSs
9001 / ISO 14001

Figure 4: Importance of the reasons not to use augmentative management system standards

6.0 Conclusions
Since most quality-related augmentative management system standards (AUG MSSs) have been available
for at least seven years now, this research focused on the implementation and integration of the related
augmentative management systems in 39 organizations registered to both ISO 9001: 2008 and ISO
14001: 2004 in Serbia. In terms of the priorities for AUG MSS application, most respondents (31%)
assigned them the third priority. However, the percentage giving the AUG MSSs group the first priority
(29%) was the largest relative to the other MSS-related groups. A large fraction of organizations (30% on
average over seven standards) seem to be unaware of AUG MSSs in general, and customer satisfaction
standards in particular (e.g., 38% for ISO 10008). The actual usage of AUG MSSs appears to be low, for
example 5% for ISO 10001 and ISO 10003 and 13% for ISO 10002 and ISO 10004, with the lack of
awareness and resources for AUG MSSs application quoted as the most important AUG MSSs non-
implementation reasons. Therefore, a lot of work in AUG MSSs research and practice remains (e.g.,
Karapetrovic, 2007), as mentioned in many previous ICITs.

References
European Commission (2003), “2003/361/EC: Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 Concerning
the Definition of Micro, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises”, Official Journal of the European
Union, 20.05.2003, L124, pp. 36-41, Available from: <eur-lex.europa.eu> [Accessed 18 March
2014].
Karapetrovic, S. (2001), “Integration of Management Systems and Supporting Audits: Toward a
Universal System and Standard”, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on ISO 9000
and TQM (ICIT), Ayr, Scotland, pp. 19-24.
Karapetrovic, S. (2005), “IMS in the M(E)SS with CSCS”, Total Quality Management and Excellence –
Menadzment Totalnim Kvalitetom i Izvrsnost (Special Issue: Papers from the 3rd International
Working Conference – Total Quality Management: Advanced and Intelligent Approaches), Vol.
33, No. 3, pp. 19-25.
 ©18-ICIT: 21-23/4/14 at UiTM-Sarawak ST-2: ISO 9000/14001/50001, OH18001, etc. Paper #: 02-2K P- 7

Fernandez, E., Karapetrovic, S., Brooks, P. M. (2010), “ISO 10002 in Health Care: Update on a Case
Study”, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on ISO and TQM (ICIT), Scranton,
Pennsylvania, 8 pages.
Honarkhah, M., Karapetrovic, S. (2010), “An Application of ISO 10001 and ISO 10002 in Engineering
Courses”, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on ISO and TQM (ICIT), Scranton,
Pennsylvania, 7 pages.
ISO (2013), The ISO Survey of Management System Standard Certifications - 2012, International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland, Available from: <www.iso.org/iso/iso-
survey> [Accessed 18 March, 2014].
Karapetrovic, S., Casadesus, M. (2007), “A Future for ISO Standards in Quality Management:
Augmenting ISO 9001”, in Foley, K., Hensler, D., Jonker, J (ed.), Quality Management and
Organizational Excellence: Oxymorons, Empty Boxes or Significant Contributions to
Management Thought and Practice, Standards Australia, Sydney, Australia, Chapter 8.
Karapetrovic, S., Casadesus, M., Heras, I. (2006), Dynamics and Integration of Standardized
Management Systems: An Empirical Study, Documenta Universitaria, Girona, Spain.
Karapetrovic, S. (2007), “Integrative Augmentation of Standardized Systems”, Proceedings of the 12th
Int. Conference on ISO 9000 and TQM (ICIT), Taichung, Taiwan.
Karapetrovic, S., Casadesus, F. M., Heras, I. S. (2012), “Augmentation of Standardized Quality
Management Systems: An Empirical View”, International Journal of Advanced Quality, Vol.
40, No. 1, pp 9-15.
Khan, M.A.R., Karapetrovic, S., Liss, K. (2010), “A Methodology for an ISO/TS 10004 Application in
Integrated Health Care”, Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on ISO and TQM
(ICIT), Scranton, Pennsylvania, 8 pages.
Serbian Chamber of Commerce (2012), Register of ISO Certificates (in Serbian), Available from:
<www.pks.rs/Aplikacije.aspx?aplikacija=sertifikati> [Accessed 19 March 2014].

Authors’ Backgrounds

Prof. Stanislav Karapetrovic is a Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the

University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. He is also the Convenor of
the ISO/TC176/SC3 Customer Satisfaction Liaison Team (CSLT). Stanislav has
been coming to ICIT since 2001.

Dr. Vesna Spasojevic Brkic is an Associate Professor of Mechanical

Engineering at the University of Belgrade. She has over 80 publications,
including one teaching book and two monographs, over 20 papers in impact
factor journals, over 20 papers in national journals, and over 20 technical
solutions and national and international projects.

View publication stats