Implementing UNE 166002:2006

Implementing UNE 166002:2006
Barriers to the Implementation of the R&D&I Management System
Paper submission for the Wicanem Conference 2012
Author(s): A.S. Soler-Celma, W.W.M.E. Schoenmakers.
Affiliation: Management Studies Group, Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Corresponding author:
Dr. W.Schoenmakers
Hollandseweg 1
6706 KN Wageningen
The Netherlands
T: +31 (0) 317 482583
Today, the business environment is involved in fast and continuous change, pushing
companies to constantly having to redesign their business processes. Adapting to a new
organizational structure, implementing new business processes or modifying the traditional
activities, are examples of the different changes that organizations must undertake if they
want to remain competitive. One of the most common changes that organizations are involved
in worldwide is the implementation of management systems, such as quality management
systems (e.g. ISO 9001; TQM), environmental management systems (e.g. ISO 14000) or food
safety management systems (e.g. FSMS). The reason behind this is that management systems
can help organizations to systematize their operations, and consequently, plan, design,
organize and develop their processes and activities better, and ultimately, improve their
In line with these developments, and given the growing importance of Research,
Development and Innovation (R&D&I) activities undertaken by organizations, a new
standard for R&D&I activities is recently published and implemented in several
organizations: the UNE 166002:2006 standard. This standard, published by AENOR, is the
first certifiable management system for innovation in the world (Mir and Casadesús, 2011).
Furthermore, CEN (European Committee for Normalization) is preparing the standardization
of tools to improve innovation management under the leadership of the organizations who
published the UNE 166002:2006 standard. However, in contrast to other well-known
management systems, such as ISO 9001, TQM or ISO 14001, little information is currently
available concerning the potential barriers to implementing this standard. Given the high cost
of the implementation process and the impact the implementation activity has on current and
future company activities and performances, this information will nonetheless be very
valuable for companies wanting to use this standard. Suboptimal implementation can also
have far reaching consequences for the company involved. The first objective of this paper is
therefore, to identify the most common barriers for implementing the UNE 166002:2006based management system. After a literature review of the potential barriers for implementing
similar management systems like ISO 9001 and Total Quality Management, a sample of
organizations involved in the implementation of the UNE 166002:2006-based management
system is interviewed in order to identify the potential barriers that are specific for the
implementation of this standard.
Based on the potential barriers the second objective of this paper is to develop a model for the
implementation of the UNE 166002:2006 standard. The model is used as a guideline for the
actual implementation of the standard in one organization, in order to verify the validity of the
implementation model. Given the fact that this is the first research, to our knowledge,
investigation specifically the implementation of the UNE 166002:2006 standard, this research
will add to our knowledge of implementing standards in general and the UNE 166002:2006
standard in particular. The results of our research are therefore valuable for science as well as
for companies, willing to implement the UNE 166002:2006 standard.
Key words: UNE 166002, organizational change, implementation model, barriers to change.
Implementing UNE 166002:2006
Barriers to the Implementation of the R&D&I Management System
1. Introduction
Innovation is considered one of the major drivers of economic growth. Schumpeter claimed
already in 1932 that the process of industrial innovation was important for the economy.
However, the first time that innovation was introduced into an economic growth model was
not until 1957 by Robert Solow. The theories up till that moment stated that economic growth
was primarily determined by capital accumulation. Solow (1957) on the other hand attributed
part of the growth to “technical change”. Later, Romer (1986) and Lucas (1988) designed
models in which innovation was the driver of long-run growth, and Grossman and Helpman
(1994) concluded that improvements in technology help to overcome the “limits to growth”.
Given this positive influence of innovation on economic growth, the public administrations of
different countries try to stimulate innovation by three main policy instruments: (1) public
research, (2) government funding of business performed R&D activities, and (3) fiscal
incentives (Czarnitzki and Fier, 2002), such as direct and indirect subsidies (Varas et al.,
2007). In this respect, it is necessary to determine what exactly can be considered an
innovative activity so that the public administration can apply their policy instruments wisely
(Varas et al., 2007). For this reason, several regulations and standards that specify the
requirements to consider a certain activity an innovative activity have been published in
European countries (CEN, 2008). See Table 1 for a list of examples.
A standard usually is a collection of documents that establishes the requirements and
guidelines that a product, technical criteria, service or activity must fulfil according to the
issuing entity. For this reason, it is also called a Standard Series or Standard Family when it
consists of more than one document. For instance, one of those documents can provide the
standard definitions of the terms being used in the rest of the standards series.
(FR) FD X50-901:1991
Project management and innovation. Memorandum for the use
of the actors of an innovation project.
(PT) NP 4456:2007
Management of Research, Development and Innovation (RDI).
Terminology and definitions of RDI activities.
(PT) NP 4457:2007
Management of Research, Development and Innovation (RDI).
Management system requirements of RDI.
(UK) BS 7000-1:2008
Design management systems. Part 1: Guide to managing
Table 1 - Examples of Regulations and Standards published in some European countries
(CEN, 2008)
In Table 1, we can see some of these regulations and standards introducing the term
“management systems” (e.g. (PT) NP 4457:2007 and (UK) BS 7000-1:2008). A management
system is a framework of processes and procedures concerning a certain discipline or
technical area (for instance quality management or environmental care management) that
ensures that a company develops its activities under established minimum requirements in
that specific area. According to these standards and regulations, a management system can be
standardised and converted into a standard or norm. For the different management systems,
specific standards and regulations exist and hence, a company can work according to several
management systems, like for instance ISO 9001 for Quality Management, ISO 14001 for
Environmental Management, ISO 22000 for Food Safety or SA8000 for Social
Accountability, at the same time. Furthermore, the use of the management systems can be
audited and certified by certification bodies or companies. Companies that obtain a
certification have a competitive advantage over their competitors by, for instance, improving
their image in the eyes of their customers and clients (AENOR, 2011a), being more easily
selectable for public administration tenders (AENOR, 2011b) or being able to compete in a
more higher quality demanding global market (Iseri-Say et al., 2008).
In relation to these standards and the concept of the management system, in Spain a new
standard for R&D&I management has been published. This standard is known as the UNE
166000 Standards Family for R&D&I management, published in the year 2002 by AENOR
(Asociación Española de Normalización - Spanish Association for Standardization and
Certification) in collaboration with the Ministry of Science and Technology; and updated in
the year 2006 (AENOR, 2010). The acronym R&D&I, standing for Research, Development
and Innovation, summarizes the activities aimed at gaining new knowledge about a specific
area; developing that knowledge into new feasible products, processes or services; and
obtaining tangible products, processes or services out of that development via innovation.
Consequently, it can even be considered as a synonym of the term Innovation as Smith (2006)
describes it, who considered innovation as “a process of turning opportunity into new ideas
and of putting these into widely used practice” (Smith, 2006 - p.16). The Spanish UNE
166000 standard series is a pioneering methodology in both the national and international area
of systematization of innovation activities, and given its benefits (e.g. tax benefits, reduction
of uncertainties, increase of management efficiency) has already been accepted in other
countries such as Mexico, Brazil, Italy and Portugal (Pellicer et al., 2008).
Failures or mistakes during the implementation process of a new standard lead unavoidably to
failure of the new strategy (Nutt, 1986; Klein and Sorra, 1996) and to high costs, thus making
it important to know the possible problems that might occur during the implementation
process in advance. Since there is a lack of specific information regarding the barriers, pitfalls
or problems when implementing the UNE 166002:2006 standard, this research is particularly
important for those companies that want to successfully implement this specific standard. On
the other hand, this research might also be interesting for companies wanting to implement a
similar standard, since many implementation problems could be the same.
In this paper we therefore want to determine the best way for companies to implement the
UNE 166002:2006 standard for the R&D&I management system by first determining the
possible problems and pitfalls that might occur during the implementation process. Next we
want to design a sound UNE 166002:2006 standard implementation model that companies
can use when implementing this standard in their own company.
This paper is structured as follows: in section 2 we will introduce our theoretical framework;
next in section 3 we will explain the methodology used; and in section 4 our results will be
discussed. Section 5 will focus on the conclusions, and recommendations for further research
will be formulated.
2. Theoretical framework
Implementation of a new management system for an activity means that companies have to
make changes in the way they perform such activity. When implementing a new management
system it can be assumed that it is a planned change. But, even though the change is planned,
many drawbacks might occur (Drawbacks during planned change are due to human
nature)(Schermerhorn, 2008). When focusing on the specific case of the implementation of
management systems, we can find much information in contemporary literature about the
problems and barriers faced when implementing such systems. For instance, several authors
(Carlsson and Carlsson, 1996; Erel and Ghosh, 1997; Gotzamani, 2005; Zeng et al., 2007;
Cagnazzo et al., 2010) have reported on the most common problems that companies faced
when implementing the ISO 9001-based quality management system. We can expect to
encounter many of these pitfalls in implementing other standards also in the implementation
of the UNE 166002 standard.
Implementing a change involves a process consisting of several steps that aim to achieve
compliance to install the change or innovation (Nutt, 1986). However, implementing changes
such as new strategies, structural forms or administrative procedures (that is, an innovation)
can be a difficult, costly, risky and time-consuming process (Rumelt, 1995). Therefore, given
its complexity there are chances that a change fails. It can be considered that a change or
implementation has failed when employees use the innovation introduced in the organization
to a lesser degree than required in order to obtain its potential benefits (Nutt, 1986).
A company can fail to make a change because of two reasons: one, there might be problems
with the new strategy, procedure, vision, practices, etc. to be implemented; or two, problems
occurred during the implementation process. In other words, failure can be due to problems
concerning what is being implemented, or problems concerning how it is being implemented.
According to several researchers (Bushe, 1988; Reger et al., 1994; Hackman and Wageman,
1995; Klein and Ralls, 1995), the second problem is the most common reason for failure
when making changes, such as total quality management practices, statistical process control
or quality circles.
As previously stated, the UNE 166002:2006 standard aims to systematise the R&D&I
activities in the organizations. In this sense, it is claimed that the standard provides several
advantages (AENOR, 2006). These advantages are: (1) identification, management and
promotion of R&D&I activities, (2) provision of guidelines to organize and manage
efficiently the R&D&I activities, (3) ensuring the exploitation of all the activities capable of
generating additional benefit from technology transfer or tax deductions (e.g. developing own
technologies and patents), (4) promotion of R&D&I as a competitive advantage and to
consider it in the corporate reputation plot, and (5) assistance in the planning, organization
and control of R&D&I units. For this reason, the standard helps to establish the basis for the
R&D&I activities. The standard further helps to define, implement, and improve the R&D&I
management system and keep it up to date in accordance with the policy of the company. And
lastly it helps to demonstrate to third parties that the performance of the company is in
accordance with the Standard via the issued certificate (AENOR, 2006).
The UNE 166002:2006 standard is not unique in the sense that a related standard has not been
introduced before. The ISO 9001 standard or the Total Quality Management system standard
have been introduced before and research into their implementation problems is available
(Carlsson and Carlsson, 1996; Erel and Ghosh, 1997; Gotzamani, 2005; Zeng et al., 2007;
Cagnazzo et al., 2010). And even though these standards are not fully comparable with the
UNE 166002:2006 standard, we expect that related problems with the implementation might
occur. Some research was also been done concerning the implementation of the UNE 166002
standard itself, but then in a very specific situation; in small service enterprises (Varas et al.
2007). However specific this situation might be, it still could offer us valuable information
and thus needs to be investigated here.
Our first research question therefore is:
RQ1: Can we, based on the barriers found in literature on the implementation of the ISO
9000 Standard, the Total Quality Management system standard, and the UNE 166002:2006
standard in small service enterprises, establish potential implementation barriers for the UNE
166002:2006 standard in general?
There are however already some companies that implemented the UNE 166002 standard, or
that were involved in the implementation of the standard in other companies. We can expect
these companies to have at least some idea about possible problems they encountered with the
implementation of the standard. These problems could be very case specific, but might still be
a valuable addition to our theoretical model. Therefore we will also investigate companies
that did already implement the UNE 166002 standard.
Our second research question therefore is:
RQ2: What possible barriers to implementing the UNE 166002 standard can be derived from
However, the implementation of a new standard, like the UNE 166002:2006 standard, does
not only involve the implementation of the standard itself. It typically also involves making
changes to the organizational routines of the implementing firm, at least to those routines
which are affected by the implementation of this new standard. When investigating the
implementation of the UNE 166002:2006 standard we thus need to continue our research by
focusing also on organizational change models. We need to know what contemporary
literature can tell us about implementing a new standard and making the appropriate
organisational changes. This information aids us further in the construction of an
implementation model.
Our third research question therefore is:
RQ3: Considering the implementation barriers we find in theory (RQ1), and in practice
(RQ2), what would be a suitable implementation model for the UNE 166002:2006 Standard,
using organisational change theory?
However, even though R&D&I activities can be standardised like other activities such as
quality management or environmental management (AENOR, 2006), and even though general
organisational change problems might apply, there could be specific characteristics inherent
to the R&D&I process, such as the uncertainty about its success at the end of the process or
the need of being aware of the state-of-the-art of strategic subjects (AENOR, 2006), and for
this reason special attention should be paid to the specific characteristics of this management
system. We therefore plan to test our initial model in practice.
Our last research question thus becomes:
RQ4 – Can we, based on our initial model, and using an actual implementation case, build a
model that will be a useful tool for firms for the implementation of the UNE 166002:2006
In the following sections we will define the methodology used to answers our research
3. Methodology
In this section, a brief description of the UNE 166002:2006 standard is given. After this, the
methodology used to answer the research questions is supplied.
A management system can be defined as the framework of processes and procedures
concerning a specific discipline (quality, environment, etc.) that ensures that a company
develops its activities under established minimum requirements in that particular field. A
standard usually consists of one or several complementary normative documents that provide
the guidelines and requirements inherent to the respective management system. One of the
most well-known families of management systems is related to quality aspects. For instance,
the ISO 9000 standard can be considered as a reference standard that sets the working
framework for implementing a quality assurance system (Martínez Fuentes et al., 2000).
Given that a management system is a framework of processes and procedures, management
systems can be standardized. It means that each of the procedures or processes used or
developed by a company should be executed according to the guidelines of the standard. As a
consequence of this, management systems can be certified by certification bodies if they
follow the guidelines and fulfil the requirements of this specific standard.
The UNE 166000 standard series in general, and the UNE 166002:2006 standard for R&D&I
management systems in particular are relatively new standards, and for this reason little
specific information about the implementation problems or pitfalls has been published up till
now. With this research we would like to fill this gap in our knowledge.
The UNE 166000 standards series was published first in 2002 and was updated in 2006 by
AENOR, the Spanish Association of Normalization, in collaboration with the Ministry of
Science and Technology. AENOR is a private non-profit organisation that was founded in
1986. AENOR is the organisation that is legally responsible for developing and disseminating
technical standards in Spain. The UNE 166000 standard series consists of a list of five
complementary normative documents establishing the referential frame to standardize the
R&D&I activities:
The UNE 166000:2006 - R&D&I management document determines for instance the
terminology and definitions of R&D&I activities, and establishes the terminology and
definitions of the most significant terms used in the UNE 166000 Standard series.
UNE 166001:2006 - R&D&I management contains Requirements for R&D&I
projects aims to systematize the R&D&I projects by defining, developing and
documenting them according to a methodology (Pellicer et. at, 2008).
UNE 166002:2006 R&D&I management establishes the bases for systematization of
R&D&I activities in organizations, and hence defines an R&D&I Management
UNE 166006:2006 - EX R&D&I management is the technological watch system. The
Technological watch system is one of the requirements of the UNE 166002:2006
Standard. This information might consist of technical or scientific innovations or
changes in the company’s environment that can lead to new opportunities or threats
for the organization (AENOR, 2006).
UNE 166007:2010 IN R&D&I management is the application guide for UNE
166002:2006. The objective of this Standard is to facilitate the implementation process
of the UNE 166002:2006 Standard for R&D&I Management system by providing
some examples, descriptions and advice regarding the requirements for obtaining the
aforementioned R&D&I management system (AENOR, 2010).
To be able to answer our first research question, we will analyse literature for the
implementation barriers of two well-known management systems: ISO 9000 and TQM which
are comparable to the UNE 166002:2006 standard, and we will investigate research into the
implementation of the UNE 166002 standard in a very specific case; The implementation of
the standard in small service enterprises.
To answer our second research question we will conduct a set of interviews with managers
from organizations that already implemented the UNE 166002:2006 standard or people that
were involved in implementing the standard in another company. The managers that we
interviewed were all involved in the actual transformation process. In appendix 1 you can find
more information on the companies that we interviewed. The objective of these interviews
was not quantitative (to see how frequently the different barriers occurred), but was done to
have an exploratory verification and elaboration of possible pitfalls that the two literature
reviews perhaps did not deliver.
Next we will analyse organisational change theory. This will help us to construct a systematic
implementation model, based on the pitfalls and problems discovered in our first two
Finally, to answer our last research question, we tested our constructed implementation model
in a real-life situation, implementing the UNE 166002 standard in an actual company (for
reasons of confidentiality we can not disclose the name of the company here). Based on these
findings we fine-tuned or model even further.
4. Results
Pitfalls and barriers when implementing management systems have been investigated by
several authors. Problems have been reported with the implementation of management
systems such as Quality Management Systems, Environmental Management Systems or
Performance Management System. However, since the R&D&I Management Systems in
general, and in particular the UNE 166002:2006 standard, are relatively recent standards,
there is little information about pitfalls or barriers when implementing them. Some authors
however did investigate the UNE 166002 standard in specific instance. Varas et al. (2007),
for instance, detected four important difficulties when implementing the UNE 166002:2006
standard for R&D&I management in small service enterprises. First, given the effort required
to carry out R&D&I activities, it is difficult to maintain it as a continuous process. Hence
R&D&I activities in these companies occur in an intermittent way, and there is a lack of
continuity in R&D&I effort. Second, small service companies have difficulties to access
Public Administration aids. Lack of experience and the load of work are reasons for this
problem. Third, additional effort is required when implementing the management system. The
implementation process itself represents an additional project, and therefore, it has to pass the
project-choice processes and related mechanism that the company might have. Not all small
companies can cope with this. Fourth, small service companies lack the knowledge about the
phases of the R&D&I processes. For this reason, it is difficult for them to establish the
necessary requirements for the standard specifically with respect to the monitoring and
exploitation of results.
However, these difficulties are confined to the group of small service enterprises, which
represent a subset of the whole population of companies. This, coupled with a lack of
literature about empirical findings in relation to the UNE 166000 standard series, makes it
necessary to find alternatives to foresee possible implementation problems. An analysis of the
barriers and pitfalls when implementing other management systems might give us insight into
the general problems when implementing the UNE 166002:2006 standard. Nevertheless, as
we mentioned before, when reviewing the range of management systems available, we can
see that there is a number of disciplines for which management systems have been designed.
In this sense we can find principles for implementing quality management systems,
environmental management systems, performance management systems, etc. As a result, by
looking at the nature of the different management systems, it seems obvious that one might
face different implementation problems depending on the peculiarities of the discipline. In
other words, the barriers are likely to be found when implementing a management system for
a certain discipline might not be the same when implementing a management system for a
different discipline. In this respect, we will focus on publications referring to problems when
implementing ISO 9000 standards and, by extension, Total Quality Management (TQM)
Implementation of the TQM practices is chosen because of its relation with innovation
management. TQM aims to make the quality principles (continuous improvement, product
quality and customer needs) part of the organization’s strategic objectives (Schermerhorn,
2008). Nevertheless, as a positive side effect, it is claimed that TQM can promote innovative
culture in organizations (Santos-Vijande and Álvarez-González, 2007). In this respect,
Prajogo and Sohal (2006) concluded that innovation can complement TQM effectively, and
hence improve business strategy, achieving high levels of performance. Taken together, these
two facts pinpoint the commonalities between TQM and innovation management, and hence
the value of the advisability of studying TQM implementation pitfalls with a view to foresee
the implementation pitfalls of R&D&I management systems.
The ISO 9000 standards family is selected because, it is considered a preliminary stage of the
TQM model implementation (Gotzamani and Tsiotras, 2001); and furthermore, because of its
similarities with the UNE 166002 standard. The former reason is supported by Boiral (2003),
who stated that the implementation of the ISO 9000 standards by organizations can help to
establish a common TQM language and tools for the use by organizations. The second reason
is based on the fact that some companies have operated their R&D activities on the basis of
the ISO 9000 family guidelines (Jayawarna and Pearson, 2001). A second proof of their
similarities is the existence of similar requirements between the ISO 9001 standard and the
UNE 166002 standard. Finally, we can refer to the conclusion of Boiral (2003), who
suggested that the behaviours found among the employees when implementing ISO 9000
might be very similar to those found when implementing other management systems and
In summary, both quality tools TQM and ISO 9000 are considered very useful for the
management of innovation (Bossink, 2002).
Barriers to the implementation
Several authors have analysed the difficulties when implementing the TQM and ISO 9000
management systems, and the majority of the authors agreed on a collection of the items.
Some of these items are repeated two or even more times, others are equivalent or similar, and
some others are closely related. From an exhaustive analysis of the barriers, pitfalls, factors
and actions that hamper the implementation of both TQM and ISO 9000 management
systems, a number of potential barriers for the UNE 166002:2006 standard were obtained.
First of all, several authors (Rahim and Whalen, 1994; Masters, 1996; Gotzamani, 2005)
claim that lack of top management support and commitment is one of the key barriers when
implementing TQM or ISO 9000 management systems. Some organizations focus on the
short term (Masters, 1996), leading to situations in which the organization only cares about
getting certified (Zeng et al., 2007) without a real wholehearted commitment (Zeng et al.,
2007). One reason behind this is that certified companies can tender for business from which
they would be otherwise excluded (Chin et al., 2000). Companies implementing the
management system whose only motivation is to follow the trend are lacking real top
management support (Zeng et al., 2007).
Besides this, another important reason for failure when implementing a new management
system occurs when employees are resistant to change (Rahim and Whalen, 1994; Carlsson
and Carlsson, 1996; Tamimi and Sebastianelli, 1998; Jun et al., 2004). Several reasons can be
responsible for this resistance. For example, Kotter and Schlesinger (1979) identified in
general terms four specific reasons for individual resistance, namely (1) parochial selfinterest, (2) misunderstanding, (3) low tolerance to change and (4) different assessments of
the situation. In this respect, Carlsson and Carlsson (1996) identified lack of understanding on
what the new management system implies from the part of the employees as one of the causes
for failure, which can be considered as “misunderstanding” according to the classification of
Kotter and Schlesinger (1979). Tamimi and Sebastianelli (1998) also pointed out that another
reason for the employees’ resistance is the lack of proper training.
In relation to this, misunderstanding was also referred to as lack of information, and this is
translated into “lack of proper training”. It seems clear that when the employees do not know
how the new system works, the chances of failure are greater. For this reason, a continuous
training program for employees increases the chances of success of the implementation
(Rahim and Whalen, 1994; Masters, 1996). However, some organizations still think that
expenditures in training activities are an unnecessary cost rather than an investment (Tamimi
and Sebastianelli, 1998). Nevertheless, the truth is that quality improvement skills or problem
identification and problem-solving techniques are recommended to be taught to the
employees (Tamimi and Sebastianelli, 1998).
Training can be considered as the previous requirement for a more active role during the
change implementation. Several authors consider that it is necessary to empower the
employees to adopt the changes (Masters, 1996; Adebanjo and Kehoe, 1998; Salegna and
Fazel, 2000). By making them part of the change instead of “observers” of the change, there
are less chances of resistance against change, and hence higher success rate. A negative aspect
to be avoided is auto-complacency of the team (Rahim and Whalen, 1994). For this reason,
some authors understand that an appropriate system of rewards is needed. Some organizations
do not appropriately reward their employees when making an adequate use of the new
implemented management system, and are not compensated when they achieve the goals
(Masters, 1996; Tamimi and Sebastianelli, 1998; Jun et al., 2004). When employees’
evaluation is not systematic, the appreciation for their contribution is not apparent, and hence
salary is not adjusted accordingly (Adebanjo and Kehoe, 1998).
In this respect, wrong measurement of quality rises as an aspect closely related to failure in
measuring the performance. A wrong measurement of improvements in quality related aspects
causes the failure of the implementation process (Rahim and Whalen, 1994). When an
organization is not able to identify or relate a recently improved performance with the
adoption of the new management system, it is likely that the organization misses the effect of
the management system and hence underestimates its importance (Erel and Ghosh, 1997).
Ineffective measurement techniques (Masters, 1996) cause this problem in a straightforward
way. However, there are some other factors responsible for this; for instance, a failure to
understand the new management system (Carlsson and Carlsson, 1996) leads to difficulties on
setting relevant quality goals (Carlsson and Carlsson, 1996), which in turn, lead to the already
mentioned ineffective measurement techniques.
Also related to measurement of quality is the communication with both suppliers and
customers or consumers. Some companies fail to measure consumer satisfaction and do not
pay enough attention to their feedback (Masters, 1996; Adebanjo and Kehoe, 1998). Some
other companies do not communicate nor involve suppliers when making improvements in
their products, and in turn, suppliers fail to meet organizational requirements (Adebanjo and
Kehoe, 1998).
Sometimes companies make poor and less-then accurate planning for the change (Rahim and
Whalen, 1994; Masters, 1996). Moreover, the change or the new management system to be
implemented is not well understood by the stakeholders of the change (Carlsson and Carlsson,
1996; Erel and Ghosh, 1997); and hence, the message is not properly communicated
(Carlsson and Carlsson, 1996; Salegna and Fazel, 2000). Besides that, this lack of
understanding leads to inappropriate levels of documentation (Carlsson and Carlsson, 1996),
and the process might become too bureaucratic; or the benefits provided by the new
management system are overestimated (Zeng et al., 2007). All of this can be translated into a
lack of necessary guidance for the changing process (Zeng et al., 2007). Besides this, the
structure or the conditions of the organization are not the most appropriate for the
implementation of the new system (Masters, 1996), which is another key barrier.
As we can see from the work done so far, and the findings of different authors,
implementation of a new management system is a time consuming and resource demanding
task (Rahim and Whalen, 1994; Carlsson and Carlsson, 1996; Masters, 1996; Salegna and
Fazel, 2000). For this reason, time constrains and lack of appropriate resources hampers
Another important mistake when implementing a quality management system is to make use
of strict, rigid, off-the-shelf programs that do not adapt to the singularities of each
organization (Rahim and Whalen, 1994; Masters, 1996; Zeng et al., 2007).
Finally, as has been mentioned previously, for any organizational change to occur, it is
indispensable that the organization feels the need to change. However, many organizations
fail to change their philosophy or culture (Rahim and Whalen, 1994; Masters, 1996;
Gotzamani, 2005); and are not willing to change (Erel and Ghosh, 1997). One of the cultural
change requirements that often fails is how to modify the organization into a learning
organization that is continuously improving (Masters, 1996).
Besides these problems for TQM and ISO 9000, we can mention the four important
difficulties faced by small service organizations when implementing the UNE 166002:2006
standard, as mentioned earlier (Varas et al. 2007), namely: first, the difficulty to maintain the
constant pace of R&D&I activities; second, the lack of knowledge to access the Public
Administration aids; third, the additional effort required to implement the management
system; and fourth, the lack of knowledge of the phases of the R&D&I process. These four
main difficulties are, to some extent, included in the other general barriers to the
implementation of management systems found in the literature on TQM and ISO 9000. For
instance, the lack of knowledge to access the Public Administration aids and the lack of
knowledge of the R&D&I process, can be considered a lack of proper training. In the same
way, the additional efforts required to implement the management system results in a need for
resources, such as time. Finally, the difficulty to carry out R&D&I activities constantly, can
be due to a poor structure of the organization and/or to a lack of resources.
From this analysis, we can conclude that there are twelve potential main barriers or problems
when implementing management systems such as TQM, ISO 9000, or the UNE 166022
standard in small service businesses. These barriers are in random order: (1) lack of top
management support and commitment; (2) resistance to change; (3) lack of proper training;
(4) not empowering the employees to adopt the changes; (5) lack of an appropriate system of
rewards; (6) failure in measuring the performance and quality aspects improvements; (7) lack
of communication with suppliers and customer satisfaction measurement; (8) poor and not
accurate planning of the change; (9) inadequate organizational structure; (10) lack of time and
adequate resources; (11) use of strict, rigid and off-the-shelf implementation programs; and
(12) failure to change organizational culture and philosophy.
Verification of the barriers
Now that the potential barriers for the UNE 166002:2006 standard are obtained from
literature, we can test our pitfalls in practice. Therefore several interviews were carried out in
order to verify the barriers, or to find possibly different ones. Three types of organizations
were interviewed: First, UNE 166002:2006 standard certification bodies; second,
organizations being certified the UNE 166002:2006 standard; and third, consultancy
organizations specialized in the UNE 166002:2006 implementation. Even though each
organization plays a different role in the implementation process, we can expect them to have
at least partly similar points of view and opinions on the implementation of the UNE
166002:2006 standard. For this reason, when organizations share the same point of view, no
distinction will be made in the analysis of results, significant differences however will be
The implementation of the UNE 166002:2006 standard is in general not compulsory for
organizations. However, in some cases, such as the application for certain tenders, it is
demanded as a requirement or provides extra points in the selection processes. Given that
organizations can choose whether they want to implement the standard or not, the first
question organizations were asked was about their motivations for implementing the UNE
166002:2006 standard. As expected, organizations showed different motivations for
implementing the standard. The motivations and reasons mentioned were: to provide an added
value to their activities; to change the organizational culture to a more innovative culture; to
show externally that their R&D&I activities work and are productive; to be electable for
certain tenders and subsidies; to apply for tax deductions; or simply, to improve the image of
the organization. When asked whether they achieved the objective that motivated them to
implement the standard, all organizations replied positively.
However, having achieved the objectives does not necessarily mean that organizations are
satisfied with the standard. According to a consultant, small organizations were the ones
being less satisfied with the UNE 166002:2006 standard. Nevertheless, except for this opinion
from a consultant, the rest of the interviewed organisations claimed that they were rather
satisfied with the management system and only minor complaints arose; these will be
discussed later.
Related to this, when organizations were asked whether the overall results (regardless the
main objective) were worse, equal or better than expected, organizations that had
implemented the standard less than three years ago replied that it was still early to evaluate.
Organizations working according to the standard for more than three years stated that the
results were excellent. In this respect, organizations indicated that the standard helped them to
promote an innovative culture within the organization; to create a more efficient structure and
a group of people generating ideas and new projects; to establish detailed processes for certain
previously unknown activities that turned out to be useful to the organization; and to define
key performance indicators (KPI) for the R&D&I activities.
It is important to remark that, as stated before, in general terms, organizations were satisfied
with the standard, and hence no critical barriers to the implementation were expected to be
found. Besides this, and according to the certification body interviewed, those organizations
implementing the UNE 166002:2006 standard for R&D&I activities had in most cases
previously implemented the ISO 9001 Standard for Quality management. Therefore we can
consider these companies to have had at least some experience with implementing standards.
In fact, one of these organizations admitted that the disastrous experience suffered due to poor
management when implementing the ISO 9000-based quality management system helped
them not to repeat the same mistakes again when implementing the UNE 166002:2006
standard which, otherwise, would have inevitably led to an implementation failure.
It is also interesting to evaluate whether the structure of the organization was suitable for the
UNE 166002:2006-based management system, since an inadequate organizational structure is
one of the most common barriers to a successful implementation. Organizations were asked
about their structure at the moment of implementing the standard. Among these organizations,
only one had an R&D&I unit previously established, and the rest of the organizations created
the R&D&I department at the moment of implementing the standard. In these organizations,
R&D&I tasks had been previously carried out by other departments, mainly by quality
departments. In the case of small enterprises, this turned out to be one of the critical factors
according to the declarations of the consultancy organization. The reason is because most of
the times these organizations do not have an R&D&I department, so their capacity to create
one is scarce, and their R&D&I activities are not organised enough and the range of R&D&I
tasks demanded by the UNE 166002:2006 Standard is too broad for them. In a certain way
this supports one of the main difficulties faced by small service enterprises detected by Varas
et al. (2007), namely the difficulty to maintain a continuous rate of R&D&I activities. In other
words, the UNE 166002:2006 standard seems to be too ambitious for small organizations,
since it is necessary to create an R&D&I department or unit.
As we can see, implementation of the standard entails the allocation of a certain amount of
resources to this task. Not allocating enough essential resources to the implementation can be
a reason for a failed management system. According to all the organisations interviewed, time
is one of the most important resources. Both during the implementation and during the
regular use of the standard; time needs to be invested. In fact, one organization claimed that
those employees working to maintain the standard had to spend approximately 20-30 % of
their time maintaining it. They also complained that the UNE 166002:2006 standard
management system was too bureaucratic, just as most of the standardised management
systems. Such dedication of time can lead to a necessity to increase the number of employees
working in R&D&I activities. Besides this, another important resource is a software
application to simplify the implementation and to make tasks related to the standard easier.
Examples of this are for instance the diffusion and approval of documents, the filling in of
records or the management of the technology watch system. In this respect, all the
organisations interviewed had a software application, whether bought or developed in-house,
that was especially used in the field of technology watch. Therefore, we can agree with Varas
et al. (2007) that if the resources are scarce, the efforts needed to implement the standard will
be greater, and hence this can be a barrier. However, it was claimed that due to the current
economic crisis, companies find it ever more difficult to allocate resources to maintaining the
UNE 166002:2006 management system.
As previously mentioned, the standard demands to determine Key Performance Indicators or
KPI. These indicators are established throughout the whole innovation process in order to
allow monitoring the most significant variables that determine the performance of the R&D&I
activities. For example, the organizations interviewed mentioned some examples of KPI, such
as number of ideas generated, number of projects executed, productivity of the investment,
number of new partnership agreements with external organizations, etc... However, most of
the organizations agreed that finding suitable KPI was a hard task. This can be connected to
one of the barriers found in the literature, “lack of effective R&D&I improvement
measurement”. When organizations do not choose appropriate KPIs, it is very likely that they
perceive a distorted overview of the system. For example, a higher number of projects under
development do not necessarily mean that the company has improved their R&D&I activities,
because the quality of these projects might be lower. Consequently, there might be a wrong
judgment of the added value provided by the new management system, and because of this,
we can confirm that this barrier is present when implementing R&D&I management systems.
The main usefulness of the KPI is to monitor and evaluate the performance of the whole
R&D&I management system for certain variables. Because of this, usually the KPIs are a
reference to established goals within the organization, both at an individual or global level.
According to the literature, one of the reasons for failure when implementing the management
system was attributed to a lack of reward for the employees when goals were achieved. In our
case, when organisations were asked whether they had a reward system for employees, none
of them had any specific reward related to the R&D&I management system. However, one of
the organizations considered that it was a mistake not to establish a reward system linked to
certain KPIs of the R&D&I management system (such as number of ideas generated) but they
admitted that it was more a top management decision. On the contrary, another organisation
argued that setting rewards was difficult and in some cases even counterproductive. This is
due to the fact that it is difficult to line up the contribution of each employee with the project
results; attempting to do so might bring along conflicts. In the case of rewards not linked to
the KPIs but to a more general aspect, such as rewards to the mere use of the R&D&I
management system most companies did not even consider it because organizations believe
that it should be part of the assigned job.
Another important factor for a successful implementation was to ensure the training and
education of the employees with relation to the standards. When employees were not
educated, chances of failure of the management system were higher, according to the
literature review. In this respect, organizations confirmed that training activities had been
carried out in order to teach the employees how to work according to the standard. These
activities included general explanation of the standard and then specific explanation of certain
aspects, especially the most complex, namely “technology watch” and “use of software”.
Usually these activities were organized and managed by the external consultant. However, we
can differentiate between the knowledge of the use of the management system, such as
trainings on the use of the software or the filling in of records, and the knowledge related to
the R&D&I area itself, such as the R&D&I process stages; the techniques to evaluate results,
the sources of funding, etc. We found that both types of knowledge are necessary for the
success of the implementation.
Regarding planning and communication during the implementation process, many authors
identified poor planning and communication as a reason for failure of the management
systems. In this respect, all respondents pointed out that the implementation process was
carefully planned (mainly by the external consultant) and that fluent communication channels
were established, especially between the members of the guiding coalition.
One of the most important barriers surfacing from the literature review was lack of top
management commitment and support. When organizations were asked whether they faced
this problem, they agreed that it was a decisive factor. According to the certification body:
when organizations implement the standard as a sort of “marketing strategy”, it is
implemented in a lax way and eventually comes to nothing. Some of the organizations
interviewed admitted that top managers were not very involved in the implementation of the
standard, although at least they provided enough attention to fulfil the basic requirements
demanded by the standard, such as the formal declaration of their support to the R&D&I
activities. Hence, even though top management was not fully involved in the implementation
process, they supported it in a certain way, and it cannot be considered that the standard was
implemented for image purposes only. Actually, in one of the organizations the decision to
implement the standard was the consequence of the new organization strategy focused on
R&D&I prioritization.
An aspect shared by all organizations interviewed, and especially significant in the case of
those that did not have a strong top management commitment, was a determined
empowerment of the person or persons designated to implement the standard. It means that
these people had to be able to put a lot of effort into the implementation, but at the same time,
also had enough authority to involve and manage the employees and, to a certain level, be
able to allocate or request resources. We can understand that this implies the creation of a
coalition dedicated to the implementation, as was the case for all organizations interviewed.
Moreover, at least in one case the coalition was formed by the head of each department within
the organization, which gives an insight into the importance attributed to the project. Thus, we
can assume that employee empowerment is necessary for a successful implementation.
Closely related to the necessity of involving and empower employees in a coalition, is the
problem of employee resistance against the implementation. When organisations were asked
about this barrier, they replied that they did not encounter employee resistance. Nevertheless,
at least two organisations recognized that their employees perceived the new standard as an
additional work load for them. A very interesting remark was made by the certification body
regarding the reasons for not encountering active employee resistance, as was the case of
other management systems such as TQM or ISO 9000. According to the certification body,
the reason was that employees working within the scope of the UNE 166002:2006 standard
have, as general rule, a higher average educational attainment than employees whose jobs are
developed within the scope of the ISO 9000 management system or TQM practices.
When organizations were asked if they had achieved a change in the organizational culture
and philosophy, most of them claimed that this was essential but at the same time it was
considered a long term goal. The implementation process is valid for bringing in a new
concept or approach to the R&D&I activities, but this new culture and philosophy had to be
further developed.
Another aspect that is relevant for understanding the implementation of the UNE
166002:2006 standard is the role of the external consultants. These organisations are experts
on the field of the implementation and they provide all the documents needed to satisfy the
requirements of the standard, and in some cases they also provide a software application that
gives support to the tasks that the standard implementation entails. Besides that, they help on
the implementation of the standard by preparing training activities. Although the certification
body holds the view that “external consultants practically do everything during the
implementation”. According to the certification body, around 90% of the organisations which
implemented the UNE 166002:2006 standard contracted an external consultant in order to
facilitate this task. But it is important to realize that what these organisations offer most of the
times is a “package” of procedures and records, and this is mentioned in the literature as one
of the common reasons for failure when implementing other management systems (“use of a
rigid program”). In this respect, during the interviews, organizations were asked whether they
had contracted an external advisor, and if so, they were asked if this led to the implementation
of a pre-established set of procedures. Their answers showed that most of the organizations
contracted an external consultant that offered them a set of procedures prepared in advance,
and that thanks to this they achieved implementation and certification of the standard. The
documents provided were very general and complete in order to be suitable for all types of
organizations. However, because of this lack of specificity organizations had to modify and
adjust the documents year after year in order to increase their efficiency when using the UNE
166002:2006 standard. In other words, they needed to reduce the number of documents and
records to fill in, using only those that are actually needed to maintain the certification and at
the same time were useful for increasing the performance of the R&D&I tasks. If
organizations do not adjust these procedures, they end up wasting a lot of time in documents
that are not relevant for the organization. Thus, we can conclude that the use of a rigid
program can be a problem when implementing the UNE 166002:2006 standard.
Finally, respondents were asked to mention if they had faced any other difficulty when
implementing and using the UNE 166002:2006 standard management system. The two most
commonly mentioned difficulties were, first, to understand what the technological watch
system is and how to use; and secondly, to cope with the excessive bureaucracy that the
standards entail.
Noteworthy is also the case of the company that did not renew the UNE 166002:2006
standard certificate. This company, after having achieved certification on the UNE
166002:2006 standard, decided not the renew it. After contacting them, the quality manager
replied that the decision was made not because of a failure during the implementation, but
because the expected benefits from the implementation of the standard were not obtained. In
their case, they argued that, even though they were concerned with innovation, their
organization was too small for the standard, and more importantly, their clients were not
interested at all in new products because of the economic crisis. They refused to be
interviewed, so it was impossible to obtain further details of the implementation process or
the characteristics of the organization. However, from what we can see, the organization did
not have an R&D&I unit per se, but the R&D&I activities were being carried out by the
quality department. This is aligned with the opinion of the consultancy organization, who
stated that small enterprises do not have enough capacity to create an R&D&I unit. However,
it seems that the fact that this company considered the only possible outcome of any R&D&I
activity to be a new product development is more significant. From their point of view, the
UNE 166002:2006 standard was only useful for new product development. This can be seen
as a failure to understand both the scope of the UNE 166002:2006 standard and the fact that
R&D&I is a broader concept in which NPD is integrated. Hence, besides the lack of adequate
organizational structure, the reasons for failure can be due to a poor training and education.
From these results, we can conclude that any implementation strategy has to consider the
design of actions to establish an effective measurement system of the performance of the
R&D&I activities and to deal with a possible lack of top management commitment. Also the
creation of a strong coalition of employees to lead the change needs to be considered.
Moreover, it is important that the organization cultivates activities aiming to train and educate
employees and plans the allocation of resources. Besides this, designing the tactics to achieve
a sound change in the culture and philosophy in the organization aligned with the new
management system is essential. Furthermore, good planning and communication during the
whole implementation process and the use of routines helps to achieve success. Additionally,
the level of suitability of the organizational structure to the standard, and the role of external
consultants should be considered. Finally, excessive bureaucratization of the standard seems
to be an important problem that had not been taken into account during the literature research.
After analysing the results of the interviews, the barriers most likely to be found were: (1)
inadequate structure of the organization, (2) lack of appropriate resources, (3) lack of effective
R&D&I improvement measurement, (4) lack of proper training and education, (5) poor and
not accurate planning and communication of the implementation, (6) lack of real top
management commitment and support, (7) not empowering others to adopt the new
implemented system, (8) failure to change organization culture and philosophy, (9) use of an
external rigid program, and (10) excessive bureaucratization of the management system.
Organizational change
Several different models for implementing change in organisations can be found in the
literature. These models consist of a collection of phases, procedures or stages that need to be
followed in order to successfully achieve the desired state of change. Three change models are
analysed in this section: Lewin’s “3-Step Model”, Kotter’s “8-Step Change Model”, and
Hayes’ “Key steps in the change process”.
The first model analysed, the “3-Step Model” designed by the psychologist Kurt Lewin, was
chosen for this research because it is one of the earliest change models published (BrissonBanks, 2009). Lewin referred in his work, Field Theory in Social Science (Lewin, 1951), to
two relevant concepts for understanding the changing process. The first concept is that any
existing situation or behaviour is the result of the equilibrium between opposite forces. Those
two opposite forces are, on the one hand, driving forces toward the goal; and on the other
hand, blocking or restraining forces towards the goal. The second concept, developed by
Lewin in 1947, is that any planned change must follow a three-phase procedure. The three
phases are: (1) unfreezing, (2) changing, and (3) refreezing (Lewin, 1947). The first phase,
unfreezing of the system, aims to prepare the system for the change by developing the felt
need for change (Lewin, 1947). This is one of the most important phases because change is
more likely to be successful when people are ready and open for the change. Therefore, once
the goal has been established, the driving forces for the change toward that goal needs to be
created and boosted, and the restraining forces for the change toward the goal have to be
decreased or eliminated (Armstrong, 2006). During the second phase, changing, the change is
actually implemented. It means that something new is introduced into the system, for
instance, changes in tasks, people, culture, technology, and/or structure. This phase should
only be started once the unfreezing phase has been properly done (Lewin, 1947). This is
important since there is an increased likelihood of failure when managers try to implement a
change before people feel the need for change (Schermerhorn, 2008). The objective of the last
stage, refreezing the system, is to create the conditions for stabilising the change and assuring
its long-term continuity (Schermerhorn, 2008). The reason behind this is that weak or lax
changes are easily forgotten and abandoned in time (Schermerhorn, 2008). Some of the tactics
to consolidate the change are to grant appropriate rewards for the use of the change, positive
reinforcement, and resource support. Besides this, during this phase the results have to be
carefully evaluated, so feedback can be provided to the stakeholders involved in the change,
and further adjustments or modifications can be made in the original change if required
(Schermerhorn, 2008).
The second model reviewed is the 8-Step Change Model by John P. Kotter (1995). This
model was used because it is considered as one of the most important models for planning and
implementing organizational changes (Brisson-Banks, 2009). Besides this, the steps Kotter
enumerates can be mapped onto the three stages proposed by Lewin (Cummings and Worley,
2008; Brisson-Banks, 2009), and they can be used as a checklist for managing the change
from the leader’s point of view (Hayes, 2010). Kotter (1995) analyzed the 8-most common
errors or reasons for failure when managing change in organization, based on the experiences
of over 100 organisations. From this list of errors, he could derive the 8-steps for changing
organisations. These steps are useful, since they can be seen as the instructions from the
leaders point of view (Hayes, 2010). As we mentioned before, both Cummings and Worley
(2008) and Brisson-Banks (2009) found commonalities between Lewin’s model and Kotter’s
model. According to these authors, the 8 steps enumerated in Kotter’s change model can be
integrated in Lewin’s Change Management Model as shown in Table , adapted from the work
of Brisson-Banks (2009).
Lewin (1947)
Kotter (1995)
1. Establish a sense of urgency
I. Unfreezing
2. Forming a powerful guiding coalition
3. Creating a vision
4. Communicating the vision
II. Changing
5. Empowering others to act on the vision
6. Planning for and creating short-term wins
7. Consolidating improvements and producing still more
III. Refreezing
8. Institutionalizing new approaches
Table 2 – Commonalities between Lewin’s Change Management Model and Kotter's 8steps Change Model (Brisson-Banks, 2009)
In order to include a more recent implementation model in this research, Hayes’ key steps in
the change process is also reviewed. Using the theories of Lewin, John Hayes (2010)
presented a generic model of change management, organized as a process with eight elements.
One of the singularities of this model is that it is not considering change only as a linear
process, but it also considers the possible feedbacks and iterations. The eight elements are: (1)
recognizing the need for change, (2) starting the change process, (3) diagnosis, (4) preparing
and planning for the change, (5) implementing, (6) reviewing, (7) sustaining and (8)
managing the people issues. Besides this, these key steps can be considered as generic, and
they too are based on Lewin’s theory (Hayes, 2010). According to Hayes (2010), any change
starts by recognizing the need for change and starting the process. During these initial stages,
it should be decided upon who is going to be involved, who will have management
responsibility and if the change is going to be made public. Then, a diagnosis of the
organisation should be made, consisting of a review of the present state, and the identification
of the desired future state, including developing a “vision”. This will lead to an identification
of the tasks needed to be carried out in order to go from the present state to the future state.
Once the vision is created, the next stage is planning and preparation of the change. In this
stage, those tasks needed and their particular characteristics, such as lead times and
interdependencies, have to be taken into account to design the implementation plan. Once the
change is planned and prepared, it is time to implement the change. Implementing the change
can be done by following a “blueprint” from A (current state) to B (desired state), when the
nature of B is clearly defined; or to make an iterative process when B is not completely
specified. As part of the implementation, training and development activities should be
organized. Once the change is implemented, the following stage consists of finding the ways
to sustain the change, in order to make the change stick and to spread it. During all these
stages there will be situations in which it is required to manage people issues. These issues
would be related to activities such as management of stakeholders, leadership, communicating
change, motivating others to change, managing personal transitions, and defining modes of
intervening. Finally, the change should be reviewed, not only at the end of the implementation
process, but also during the on-going change, by checking the progress against the plan.
Three models have been reviewed in depth, namely Lewin’s Change Management Model,
Kotter’s 8-step Change Model, and Hayes’ steps in the change process. As we have seen,
both Kotter’s 8-step Change Model and Hayes’ steps in the change process are either based
(Cummings and Worley, 2008) or can be draw on the theories proposed by Lewin (Hayes,
2010). Implementing a management system in an organization involves most of the times
changing old procedures and processes and establishing new ones in order to fulfil the
requirements of the organization. Therefore, from a theoretical point of view, change models
are also useful tools for managing the implementation of a management system in an
Based on the different change models analysed, it is now possible to create a model for the
implementation of change by aligning all the stages and steps in a logical frame. Since
Lewin’s Change Management Model constitutes the foundations of the other two models, the
same structure will be used as basis. The correlations between the three models are shown in
Table 3.
Lewin’s 3-step
Model (1947)
Kotter’s 8-step Change Model (1995)
Hayes’ steps in the change
process (2010)
Establish a sense of urgency
Form a powerful guiding coalition
Communicate the vision
Empower others to act on the vision
Plan for and create short-term wins
Consolidate improvements and
producing still more changes
Institutionalize new approaches
Create a vision
Plan and prepare for
the implementation
Managing people issues
Recognize the need
for change
Start the change
Table 3 - Commonalities between Lewin's Change Management Model, Kotter's 8-step
Change Model and Hayes' steps in the change process (based on the work of BrissonBanks, 2009).
Integrating the potential barriers into the generic model
We now want to combine the barriers which we found by conducting our interviews and the
barriers we found from our literature review and fit them in our earlier developed model for
organisational change. The research-based implementation model resulting from the
combination of the generic implementation model and the potential barriers is presented in
Table .
Testing the research-based UNE 166002:2006 standard implementation model - Case study
In order to verify the overall validity of the model, as established in the third research
question, the model was tested in a case study organization. Once the main guidelines for a
research-based implementation model were determined, as presented in Table , they were
described, detailing the managerial actions in each stage. Then, the model was tested in an
organization as a case study. The case study organization was a research centre specialized on
microbiological analysis and development of new production processes in the food industry.
Five years after their foundation, the research centre decided to implement the UNE
166002:2006 standard for R&D&I management activities in order to align the organization
better with a future in which the importance of having the UNE 166002:2006 standard
implemented in the organization is expected to be greater. In this respect, this represents the
first phase of the model, defined as recognizing the need for the change, in which this need
for the change was detected in advance in order to anticipate the future organizational scene.
Then, once the need for implementing the UNE 166002:2006 standard was detected, contacts
between the organization and the authors started, leading to a contract for implementing the
management system. After this, a kick-off meeting was organized, in which the objective of
the project was explained and an approximate deadline for obtaining the certificate (half a
year beyond the six months contract) was estimated among the research centre managers.
Hence, no guiding coalition was formed, but the implementation was assigned to one of the
authors, who had no previous contact with the organization nor was familiarized with the
processes that were currently being done in it. Therefore, during the subsequent months after
the kick-off meeting, the author had to identify the processes that were currently being done
within the organization, and analyze which processes needed to be implemented in order to
achieve the certification. This was the diagnose phase, which was done by holding regular
interviews, making consultations and studying thoroughly the UNE 166002:2006 standard
requirements. At this point, it was detected that some of the requirements demanded by the
UNE 166002:2006 standard were already being carried out by the research centre. One of the
reasons for this is because the research centre is certified on ISO 9001:2008 standard, which
bears some similarities in terms of requirements with the UNE 166002:2006 standard. Once
both the missing processes and the ones that need to be adjusted for obtaining the certificate
were identified, the author started to write the appropriate documentation, such as standard
operating procedures, describing those processes missing; together with the records needed to
provide written evidence of the management system, and other documents. This was part of
the preparation for the implementation. Before the in-depth planning for the implementation
could be made, the contract expired, and the implementation process was stopped.
Kotter’s 8-step Change Model
Hayes’ steps in the change process
Potential barriers and difficulties
Establish a sense of urgency
Form a powerful guiding
Recognize the need for
 Lack of real top management commitment and
Start the change process
 Not empowering employees to adopt the new
implemented system
 Inadequate structure of the organization
 Use of an external rigid program
 Excessive bureaucratization of the
management system
 Poor and not accurate planning
 Lack of appropriate resources
 Poor communication of the implementation
Empower others to act on the
Plan and prepare for the
Communicate the vision
Managing people issues
Create a vision
 Not empowering employees to adopt the new
implemented system
 Lack of proper training and education
Plan for and create short-term
Consolidate improvements
 Lack of effective R&D&I improvement
and producing still more
 Use of an external rigid program
Refreezing changes
Institutionalize new
 Failure to change organization culture and
Table 4 - Integration of the potential barriers and difficulties with the generic implementation model
5. Conclusions and recommendations
Management systems can help organizations to systematise their operations, and consequently,
to plan, design, organise and develop their processes and activities better, and, ultimately,
improve their performance. However, the implementation of certain management systems can
be complex or difficult for some organisations. Several factors might be the reason for these
difficulties: the nature of the management system intended to be implemented, the
organisational structure, the perception of the employees, etc. In most cases, these difficulties,
also called barriers, are identified, analysed and reported. Therefore, organisations willing to
implement the management systems are able to know, in advance, which difficulties they might
encounter. For example, literature can be found regarding barriers when implementing the ISO
9001:2008 standard for Quality Management System or the ISO 14001:2004 standard for
Environmental Management System. However, there are no general analyses concerning the
barriers when implementing the UNE 166002:2006 standard for R&D&I management system
(except for small service firms). For this reason, this research aims to shed light on the potential
barriers when implementing the UNE 166002:2006-based management system for R&D&I
We can conclude that the likely barriers to be found when implementing the UNE 166002:2006
standard are similar to those faced when implementing ISO 9000 or TQM management
systems. Therefore, besides the requirements such as gain top management commitment,
allocate resources and empower the guiding coalition; it is important to create a climate of open
communication, to train and educate employees, to plan and prepare the implementation, to
thoroughly analyse what processes are already being carried out within the organization, and to
analyze how innovation performance can be measured; and as the process goes on, to take the
necessary steps to achieve the change of the culture and philosophy of the organization. In any
case, it is important to remember that the implementation might take one year when there is no
external help, and in case they contract an external advisor, the company will have to carefully
review all the procedures in order to tailor them to the organization. In this respect, it is
important to carefully decide if it is convenient to contract UNE 166002:2006 standard experts,
such as external advisors or consultants, to lead and take the responsibility of the
implementation of the management system. This would include preparation of procedures and
related documentation, organisation of training activities, etc. It is advisable that organisations
opt for contracting the external consultant when they do not have enough expertise on the UNE
166002:2006 standard or any other standard, and/or they do not have enough resources, such as
time, for implementing it by themselves. In any case, it is important to consider that this entails
an additional cost, and that in any case the burden of responsibility of keeping the management
system updated falls on the organization. In the case of the case study organisation, the
implementation can be finished by their own, as at this moment there is already enough
expertise on the field.
In relation to this, it can be relevant that most of the barriers seem to be connected. Taking as
the starting point a lack of top management commitment and support, this attitude can prevent
companies from obtaining the necessary resources for the implementation. If resources, such as
money, are not allocated, it might be more difficult to buy software applications that simplify
the maintenance of the management system and save time. Hence, employees might not be able
to dedicate as much time as is required for the implementation of the new management system,
and hence any planning and preparation for the change might be unfeasible. Also related is the
fact that if the guiding coalition does not have at their disposal enough resources, such as time
and money, it might be more difficult for them to both attend or organize training activities that
increase the level of expertise on the management system and on the R&D&I field of the
employees and of themselves. Without this command of the management system and of
R&D&I field in general, it is more unlikely that the employees understand how to measure and
improve the performance of the R&D&I activities. Besides that, the lack of top management
support might lead to a situation where employees belonging to the guiding coalition are not
empowered for leading the change, which in turn might have a negative influence on their
capacity to communicate and persuade the rest of the organization, and also on their level of
authority to make any significant required change, such as organizational structure changes. All
these aspects might consequently hinder any change in the culture or in the philosophy or the
Finally, we should remember that because of time constraints, it was not possible to complete
the implementation of the standard. As a result, only the unfreezing stage was carried out.
Taking into account this limitation, we can confirm that the first stages proposed in the
implementation model are appropriate for the implementation of the UNE 166002:2006
standard. Besides this, it was also possible to confirm that the model is useful to anticipate the
most important barriers that are likely to be faced when implementing it. For instance, lack of
time was detected as a barrier, and it was found to be the main reason for not finishing the
implementation. In fact, from the interview results we found out that the implementation of the
standard can take 12 months, although the time available for the implementation was 6 months.
Furthermore, the fact that the change guiding coalition did not have enough authority and was
not familiarized with the processes of the organization turned out to be another important
reason for the failure of the implementation.
Recommendations for further research
In this research, we have focused on analysing which are the best ways to implement an UNE
166002:2006-based management system for the R&D&I activities. Our research is the first in
this area, and for this reason, it is more directional or qualitative rather than quantitative.
However, based on the results from this analysis, it might be possible to initiate research
projects in the same field, but from a quantitative approach. As we found out during the
research, at this moment there are more than 364 organizations certificated on the UNE
166002:2006 standard, so it might be easier to get a sufficient amount of information for
obtaining statistically significant results. This would be the case of a research based on
questionnaires. However, if new research projects involving face-to-face interviews are to be
made, it can be a good idea to focus on how other authors working with similar standards
conducted their interviews. For instance, Boiral (2003) held more than 50 interviews outside
the workplace, because in this way, it will be possible to avoid bias related to the idealised view
of the standards, which often leads to uncritical statements. Besides this, it would be very
interesting to complete, at least, one entire UNE 166002:2006 standard implementation based
on the implementation model guidelines. Needless to say that, the more times to test the model,
the more reliable information about its validity will be obtained.
6. Bibliography
Adebanjo, D. and Kehoe, D. (1998). "An evaluation of quality culture problems in UK companies"
International Journal of Quality Science 3(3): 275 - 286.
AENOR (2006a). UNE 166002:2006 - R&D&I management: R&D&i management system
requirements. Spain, AENOR. UNE 166002:2006.
AENOR (2006b). UNE 166006:2006 EX - R&D&I management: Technological watch system. Spain,
AENOR. UNE 166006:2006 EX.
AENOR (2010). "Certificación de proyectos y sistemas de gestión de I+D+I." Retrieved 5th
November 2010, from
AENOR (2011a). "Certificación ISO 14001 Sistemas de Gestión Ambiental." Retrieved 31st august
2011, from
AENOR (2011b). "Certification of R&D&I Projects." Retrieved 31st august 2011, from
AENOR (2011c). "Certification of R&D&I Projects." Retrieved 30th august 2011, from
Armstrong, M. (2006). A handbook of human resource management practice.10th Edition Kogan.London
Boiral, O. (2003). "ISO 9000: Outside the Iron Cage" Organization Science 14(6): 720 - 737.
Bossink, B. A. G. (2002). "The strategic function of quality in the management of innovation" Total
quality management 13(2): 195 - 205.
Brisson-Banks, C. V. (2009). "Managing change and transitions: a comparison of different models
and their commonalities" Library Management 31(4/5): 241 - 252.
Bushe, G. R. (1988). "Cultural contradictions of statistical process control in American manufacturing
organizations" Journal of Management 14: 19 - 31.
Cagnazzo, L.; Taticchi, P. and Fuiano, F. (2010). "Benefits, barriers and pitfalls coming from the ISO
9000 implementation: the impact on business performances." WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on
BUSINESS and ECONOMICS 7(4): 311-321.
Carlsson, M. and Carlsson, D. (1996). "Experiences of implementing ISO 9000 in Swedish industry"
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 13(7): 36 - 47.
CEN (2008). "BT N 8055." Retrieved 5th November 2010, from
Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (2008). Organization development & change.9th Edition - SouthWestern, CENGAGE Learning.Mason, USA
Czarnitzki, D. and Fier, A. (2002). "Do innovation subsidies crowd out private investment? Evidence
from the German Service Sector" Applied Economics Quaterly 48(1): 1-25.
Chin, K. W.; Poon, G. K. K. and Pun, K. F. (2000). "The critical maintenance issues of the ISO 9000
system: Hong Kong manufacturing industries' perspectives" Work study 49(3): 89 - 96.
ENAC (2011). "About ENAC." from
Erel, E. and Ghosh, J. B. (1997). "ISO 9000 implementation in turkish industry" International Journal
of Operations & Production Management 17(12).
Gotzamani, K. D. (2005). "The implications of the new ISO 9000:2000 standards for certified
organizations. A review of anticipated benefits and implementation pitfalls" International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 54(8): 645 - 657.
Gotzamani, K. D. and Tsiotras, G. D. (2001). "An empirical study of the ISO 9000 standards'
contribution towards total quality management" International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 21(10): 1326 - 1342.
Grossman, G. M. and Helpman, E. (1994). "Endogenous innovation in the theory of growth" Journal of
Economic Perspectives 8(1): 23 - 44.
Hackman, J. R. and Wageman, R. (1995). "Total quality management: empirical, conceptual and
practical issues" Administrative Science Quarterly 40(309 - 342).
Hayes, J. (2010). The theory and practice of change management - Palgrave Macmillan,
Iseri-Say, A.; Toker, A. and Kantur, D. (2008). "Do popular management techniques improve
performance?: Evidence from large businesses in Turkey" Journal of Management Economics 27(7):
Jayawarna, D. and Pearson, A. W. (2001). "The role of ISO 9001 in managing the quality of R&D
activities" The TQM Magazine 13(2): 120-128.
Jun, M.; Cai, S. and Peterson, R. T. (2004). "Obstacles to TQM implementation in Mexico's
Maquiladora industry" Total quality management 15(1): 59 - 72.
Klein, K. J. and Ralls, R. S. (1995). The organizational dynamics of computerized technology
implementation: A review of the empirical literature. In L.R. Gomez-Mejia & M.W. Lawless (Eds.).
Implementation management of high technology. -. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press.
Klein, K. J. and Sorra, J. S. (1996). "The challenge of innovation implementation" Academy of
Management Review 21(4): 1055 - 1080.
Kotter, J. P. (1995). "Leading Change: Why transformation efforts fail" Harward Business Review
March - April 1995: 59 - 68.
Kotter, J. P. and Schlesinger, L. A. (1979). "Six Change Approaches." Retrieved 4th February 2011,
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics 1. Human Relations 1. Lewin, K. (1951). Field Theory in Social Science Lucas, R. E. (1988). "On the mechanics of economic development" Journal of Monetary Economics
22: 3 - 42.
Martínez Fuentes, C.; Balbastre Benavent, F.; Escribá Moreno, M. A.; González Cruz, T. and Pardo
del Val, M. (2000). "Analysis of the implementation of ISO 9000 quality assurance systems" Work
Study 49(6): 229 - 241.
Masters, R. J. (1996). "Overcoming barriers to TQM's success" Quality Progress 29(5): 53-33.
Mir, M. and Casadesús, M. (2011). "Standardized innovation management systems: A case study of the
Spanish Standard UNE 166002:2006" INNOVAR 21(40): 171-187.
Nutt, P. C. (1986). "Tactics of implementation" Academy of Management Journal 29(2): 230 - 261.
Pellicer, E.; Yepes, V.; Correa, C. and Martínez, G. (2008). "Enhancing R&D&i through
standardization and certification: the case of the spanish construction industry" Revista Ingeniería de
Construcción 23(2): 112-121.
Prajogo, D. I. and Sohal, A. S. (2006). "The relationship between organization strategy, total quality
management (TQM), and organization performance: the mediating role of TQM" European Journal of
Operational Research(168): 35 - 50.
Rahim, M. A. and Whalen, M. J. (1994). "Common barriers to implementation and development of a
TQM program" Industrial Management 36(2): 19 - 24.
Reger, R. K.; Gustafson, L. T.; DeMarie, S. L. and Mullane, J. V. (1994). "Reframing the
organization: Why implementing total quality is easier said that done" Academy of Management
Review 19: 565 - 584.
Romer, P. M. (1986). "Increasing returns and long-run growth" Journal of Political Economy 94(5):
1001 - 1037.
Rumelt, R. P. (1995). Inertia and Transformation. Resources in an evolutionary perspective: Towards
a systhesis of evolutionary and resource-based approaches to strategy. - M. Norwell, Kluwer
Academic Publishers: 101 - 132.
Salegna, G. and Fazel, F. (2000). "Obstacles to implementing TQM" Quality Progress 33(7): 53 - 64.
Santos-Vijande, M. L. and Álvarez-González, L. I. (2007). "Innovativeness and organizational
innovation in total quality oriented firms: The moderating role of market turbulence" Technovation
27: 514 - 532.
Schermerhorn, J. R. (2008). Management.9th Edition - John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Schumpeter, J. A. (1932). Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy - Harper and Brothers.New York
Smith, D. (2006). Exploring innovation.2nd Edition Solow, R. M. (1957). "Technical change and the aggregate production function" The review of
economics and statistics 39(3): 312 - 320.
Tamimi, N. and Sebastianelli, R. (1998). "The barriers to total quality management" Quality Progress
31(6): 57 - 60.
Varas, M.; Caamaño, J. and Morales, A. (2007). R&D&I Management Systems: The Spanish case.
IRNOP Conference 2007. Brighton, UK.
Zeng, S. X.; Tian, P. and Tam, C. M. (2007). "Overcoming barriers to sustainable implementation of
ISO 9001 system" Managerial Auditing Journal 22(3): 244 - 254.
7. Appendixes
Appendix 1: Information about the interviewed companies.
Depending on the connection to the UNE 166002:2006 standard, three types of organisations can be
distinguished. The first group of organizations would be those that grant certificates to those
companies that have implemented the UNE 166002:2006 standard. These organizations, called
certification bodies, are authorized and accredited by another organization, called Entidad Nacional de
Acreditación (ENAC, 2011). So far, six organizations are authorized by ENAC to grant certificates to
organizations or companies that fulfil the requirements of the UNE 166002:2006 standard.
The second group includes those organizations that have implemented the UNE 166002:2006 Standard
and that are certified. It is difficult to determine the total amount of organizations currently certified in
the UNE 166002:2006 standard. However, after contacting the six certification bodies, we have
obtained answer from five of them. The number of certificates based on the available data is shown in
Table .
Number of organizations certified on UNE 166002:2006 (updated on March 2011)
Certified organizations
Organizations whose
Certifying organization
(certificate is currently in
certificate has expired
European Quality Assurance
No data
No data
Total (from the available
Table 5 - Number of organizations certified on UNE 166002:2006 Standard by each certification
body (Source: own elaboration)
As can be seen in Table , at least 9 out of approximately 364 organizations that were certified from
2006 to 2011 did not renew the certificate after it expired. This represents less than 3 % of the
organizations. It is difficult to explain the reasons why these organizations did not renew the
certification. However, after doing some research in this field, we found out that at least one certified
organization was merged with another organization, and hence, did not exist as a company anymore.
The remaining eight organizations were contacted by e-mail in order to analyze the reasons for not
renewing the certificate. Only one of these organizations replied briefly. The reasons for not renewing
the certificate, but refused to hold an interview.
Third group includes organizations that, given their expertise, offer consultancy services to
organizations that want to implement the Standard. In this case, it is very difficult to quantify how
many businesses are dedicated to give professional advice for implementing the UNE 166002:2006
The invitations to participate in the research were sent to a sample of organizations belonging to the
three groups selected from the population. Invitations were sent in May 2011, and they consisted of a
cover letter that included an explanation of the objective of the project, the type of interview to be
carried out and the formal request for a 30 min face-to-face interview. A total of 6 organizations
accepted to be interviewed. One of them belonged to the first group, four belonged to the second group
and one to the third group. See Table 6 for a schematic view of the sample interviewed.
1 – Certifying bodies for the UNE 166002:2006 Standard.
2 – Organizations certified on UNE 166002:2006 Standard (total)
Organizations with certificate currently in force.
- Organizations with expired certificate and not renewed certificate
3 – Consultancy service organizations specialized on implementing the UNE
166002:2006 Standard in other organizations
Total amount of interviewed organizations
Table 6 - Classification of the organizations interviewed. (* - It was not possible to hold a full
interview with one organization belonging to this group, although a brief reply was obtained from
Interviews were held in June 2011. The selected interviewees were always those persons that had
worked the most with the UNE 166002:2006 standard within their respective organizations. It means
that it included directors of R&D&I departments, auditors for the UNE 166002:2006 standard, or
expert consultants. Prior to the interviews, a list of 21 questions was prepared. These questions were
designed in order to address one by one, the eleven implementation barriers found when implementing
the ISO 9000-based management systems and TQM management system that were adapted to the
UNE 166002:2006 standard implementation. Besides the questions referring to the barriers, additional
questions addressing general aspects of the standard were prepared.