Roxane,
I could not have said it better! I could not vote (even to say "I'm staying out of this one"), because none of the choices precisely describe my situation.
All,
We have made many measureable improvements, at every place I've worked (that have been registered to one standard or another). One example is: performing field R&M studies. We began a program to send technicians to customer sites (where our equipment was sold) and monitored and recorded every instance of down time (with reasons) for one or two weeks straight. We did it because we were attempting to be registered to QS/TE, and it stated that we must collect "field service" data and perform "R&M predictions". However, the practice made good business sense, and we may have done it anyway. Certainly, ISO (QS or TE) was a motivating factor.
Other practices cited in the standards, but that we would do anyway, are similar to Roxane's (improvement projects, performance measures, document control, calibration, etc.).
The standards DO force a framework that helps you consider all of those sensible business practices, some of which you might neglect otherwise, so I guess that's a good point.
So I guess I don't know what to think, therefore I don't know what poll option to choose. It's like a company that changes its name and the next three years sees growth in sales, profitability, and/or efficiency. What proportion of that improvement is due solely to the name change? Or were there other strategic plans enacted around the same time that also contributed? Every company looks to improve. One choice may be to get ISO registered. But other improvements are being worked on simultaneously, many intersect and interact with ISO initiatives. How do you know what ROI goes with what?
I've gone on long enough. I'll stop here.