Technical ReportPDF Available

GLOBAL QUALITY INFRASTRUCTURE INDEX REPORT 2020 TITLE: Global Quality Infrastructure Index Report 2020

Abstract and Figures

The Global Quality Infrastructure Index (GQII) gives those responsible for QI and international development cooperation an overview of the development of QI worldwide. The index and the underlying database also offer valuable information to researchers in trade and development. The index allows the QI data of an economy to be seen in context and also to compare it with that of other economies. At the same time, the GQII makes it possible to compare QI data with other global rankings such as the Economic Complexity Index (ECI). This GQII 2020 Report is divided into six chapters. The introduction (Chapter 1) is followed by introducing the concept of quality infrastructure, its evolution and its importance for economic development (Chapter 2). Next in Chapter 3, the authors explain the methodological foundations of the GQII, including its data base. They present the empirical results of the GQII in the form of rankings and maps (Chapter 4). They analyse the performance of QI in the economies in comparison to other well-known measures and rankings such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), exports of goods and services and the Economic Complexity Index (ECI) (Chapter 5). Finally, the authors review the essential findings and provide an outlook for the further development of QI measurement worldwide.
Content may be subject to copyright.
TITLE: Global Quality Infrastructure Index Report 2020
AUTHORS: Dr Ulrich Harmes-Liedtke and Juan José Oteiza Di Matteo
PLACE: Bad Homburg/ Germany and Buenos Aires/ Argentina, March 2021
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share
Alike 3.0 Unported License
Share - to copy, distribute and pass on the work
Remix - to adapt the work
Make commercial use of the work
Attribution - You must attribute the work in the manner specied by the author or licensor (but not in any
way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Share alike - If you alter, transform or
build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same licence or a licence similar
to this.
Waiver - Any of the above conditions can be waived if you obtain permission from the copyright
Public domain - Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable
law, that status is in no way affected by the licence.
Other rights - In no way are any of the following rights affected by the licence:
o Your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations
o The author's moral rights
o Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or how the work is used, such as publicity
or privacy rights.
Notice - For any reuse or distribution, you must make the licence terms of this work clear. The best way
to do this is via the following web page:
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27782.50249
ISSN 2748-4866
1 GQII Website
- Denition 5
- QI in evolution 8
- QI and development 13
- QI and data 16
- The methodology of the GQII 18
- Geographical coverage 21
- Data sources 24
- Formula 28
Figure 1: Correlation of the GQII and ECI 4
Figure 2: National Quality Infrastructure System 6
Figure 3: Four industrial revolutions 10
Figure 4: Cross-border accreditation 22
Figure 5: Total Number of CABs accredited by ILAC 25
Figure 6: IAF infographic on accreditation data. Reference 26
Figure 7: The GQII formula 28
Figure 8: GQII map 32
Figure 9: GQII and GDP per capita 39
Figure 10: GQII and exports 40
Figure 11: GQII and Economic Complexity Index 41
Table 1: Pros and cons of composite indicators 19
Table 2: Membership of international organizations and coverage of the GQII 21
Table 3: Donors and receivers of ofcial development assistance (ODA) 23
Table 4: Overview of the data used for the GQII 24
Table 5: Accreditation arrangements and levels 27
AFNOR French National Association for Standardization
AFRAC African Accreditation Cooperation
AFRIMETS Intra-Africa Metrology System
APAC Asia Pacic Accreditation Cooperation
APMP Asia Pacic Metrology Programme
ARAC Arab Accreditation Cooperation
BIPM International Bureau of Weights and Measures
BRICS Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa
BMZ Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation
and Development (Germany)
BSI British Standards Institution
CAB Conformity Assessment Body
CI Composite Indicators
CIPM International Committee for Weights and Measures
CMC Calibration and Measurement Capabilities
COOMET Euro-Asian Cooperation of National Metrological
CROSQ CARICOM Regional Organization for Standards
and Quality
CSR Corporate Social Responsibility
DAC Development Assistance Committee
DIN German Institute for Standardization
DRC Democratic Republic of Congo
EA European Cooperation for Accreditation
ECA National Accreditation Body of Costa Rica
ECI Economic Complexity Index
EURAMET European Association of National Metrology
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
GCI Global Competitiveness Index
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GS Global South
GQII Global Quality Infrastructure Index
GULFMET Gulf Association for Metrology
IAAC Inter-American Accreditation Cooperation
IAF International Accreditation Forum
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
ILAC International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation
INMETRO Brazilian National Institute of Metrology, Standardization
and Industrial Quality
ISA International Federation of the National Standardizing
ISO International Organization for Standardization
INetQI International Network on Quality Infrastructure
INTI National Institute for Industrial Technology (Argentina)
ITC International Trade Centre
ITU International Telecommunication Union
JRC Joint Research Centre of the European Commission
K&SC Key and Supplementary Comparisons
KCDB Key Comparison DataBase
KRISS Korea Research Institute of Standards and Science
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology
MLA Multi-Lateral Recognition Arrangement (the term
used by the IAF)
MRA Mutual Recognition Arrangement (the term used
by BIPM and ILAC)
MSTQ Metrology, Standards, Testing and Quality
NAB National Accreditation Body
NATA Australian National Association of Testing Authorities
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NMI National Metrology Institute
NMISA National Metrology Institute of South Africa
NQI National Quality Infrastructure
NQS National Quality System
NSB National Standards Body
ODA Ofcial Development Aid
OECD Organization for Economic Co-operation and
OIML International Organization of Legal Metrology
OUA National Accreditation Body of Uruguay
PAQI Pan-African Quality Infrastructure
PTB German Federal Metrology Institute
RAC Regional Accreditation Cooperation
SGG Sustainable Development Goals
SIM Interamerican Metrology System
QI Quality Infrastructure
SADCA Southern African Development Cooperation
in Accreditation
SADCAS Southern African Development Community
Accreditation Service
SMCC Smart Manufacturing Coordinating Committee
SQAM Standards, Quality Assurance, Accreditation and
TC Technical Committee
TIC Testing, Inspection and Certication
TÜV Technical Inspection Association (Germany)
UKAS United Kingdom Accreditation Service
UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
UNIDO United Nations Industrial Development Organization
USA United States of America
WBG World Bank Group
WTO World Trade Organization
The Global Quality Infrastructure Index (GQII)
programme is an initiative aimed at compiling
and analyzing reliable QI information and
making it freely available to an interested
public. The 2020 edition is the product of
research stimuli and discussions over the
past ten years. The authors of this report, Dr
Ulrich Harmes-Liedtke and Juan José Oteiza
Di Matteo, beneted from the exchange with
numerous experts within QI organizations
and international development cooperation.
Without claiming completeness, the authors
would like to thank Anett Matbadal, Annelien
Cunningham, Christian Schoen and Manfred
Kindler for their continuous support,
especially for their assistance in collecting
data from the accreditation bodies. Our
thanks also go to the many experts and
researchers who commented on the draft
publications: Andreas Stamm, Andy Henson,
Cesar Parga, Claudio Maggi, Daniel Masso
Aguado, Elsie Meintjies, Emanuel Rivera,
Fahim Khanzada, Francisco García, Gabriela
de la Guardia, Georgeta Auktor, Hanspeter
Ischi, Hao Zhang, Ileana Martinez, Javier
Arias, Jörn Stenger, Juan Pablo Davila, Knut
Blind, Kory Eguino, Martha Lucia Castro,
Martin Kaiser, Ramón Madriñán, Ron Josias,
Sebastian Bustos, Shawn Cunningham,
Tilman Altenburg, Victor Gandi and Yolanda
Finally, special thanks are due to the
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt,
whose International Cooperation under
Marion Stoldt's leadership has supported the
development of the GQII over the years.
The authors would like to thank the
participants of the metrology focus group
for their valuable comments, namely Anett
Matbadal (Germany), Byounghoon Jeon
(KRISS, Korea), Claudio Santo (Uruguay, SIM),
David Tomlinson (Barbados, CROSQ), Héctor
Laiz (INTI, Argentina), Ndwakhulu Mukhufhi
(NMISA, South Africa), Peter Ulbig (PTB,
Germany), Tobias Diergardt (PTB, Germany),
Valnei Cunha (INMETRO, Brazil) and the
members of the accreditation focus group
Alessandro Nisi (Accredia, Italy), Beatriz
Paniagua (Costa Rica), Cora Roos (PTB),
Graham Talbot (UK, Taiwan), Hanspeter Ischi
(Switzerland), Liane Somma (Uruguay, OUA,
IAAC), Manfred Kindler (Germany), Ron
Josias (South Africa, AFRAC), Seidy Alfaro
Gutiérrez (ECA, Costa Rica), Verónica García
Malo (México) and Xavier Mugari (SADCAS).
Suggestions and critiques have enabled
us to improve the informative power of the
GQII. At the same time, the authors are
aware that they could not entirely refute
all the points of criticism. The ranking of
economies remains a sensitive issue and
needs to be communicated. The GQII aims
to contribute to a reliable information base
for the development of QI worldwide. The
authors hope that the information provided
by the GQII will be a helpful reference for
many actors inside and outside QI.
Interest in Quality Infrastructure (QI) has grown enormously during the past decade, especially in
international development cooperation circles. At the same time, there has been an increasing
need for reliable data that informs about the development of QI in developing and emerging
1 For more information see
Quality Infrastructure provides a foundation for economic development
Quality Infrastructure (QI) provides the necessary foundation for the economic development of any country. This
applies to countries that have been industrialized early as well as emerging, transitional and developing countries.
For this reason, international development cooperation is increasingly involved in promoting QI in the Global South.
The Global Quality Infrastructure Index (GQII) gives those responsible for QI and internation-al development
cooperation an overview of the development of QI worldwide. The index and the underlying database also offer
valuable information to researchers in trade and development. The index allows the QI data of an economy to be
seen in context and also to compare it with that of other economies. At the same time, the GQII makes it possible to
compare QI data with other global rankings such as the Economic Complexity Index (ECI).
Regardless of its importance for developing countries,
the concept of QI is still a very technical niche topic
that is often not well understood outside QI expert
circles. Leading international organizations from the
elds of metrology, standards and accreditation have
only recently agreed on a denition of QI and, with
the support of development organizations such as the
World Bank Group and the United Nations Industrial
Development Organization (UNIDO), they are promoting
the establishment and expansion of National Quality
Infrastructure (NQI) worldwide.
Additionally, there are various international development
organizations support programmes and projects to
promote QI (see Section 2.4). One such organization is the
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), the German
Federal Metrology Institute. On behalf of the Federal
Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development
(BMZ), the PTB promotes QI projects in partner countries
of German development cooperation. Within this
framework, the PTB has supported the preparation of the
2020 edition of the GQII.
The GQII is a collaborative and open-data platform for
evidence-based quality infrastructure development.1
The consulting rms Mesopartner (Germany) and
Analyticar (Argentina) initiat-ed and hosted the GQII
programme. It is a non-prot initiative that is open to
anyone interested in the further development of QI –
especially in developing and emerging countries. Experts
from national, regional and international QI institutions
worldwide, and consultants and repre-sentatives of
development cooperation organisations with a focus on
QI promotion are invited to participate.
Our idea is to promote QI data demo-cratisation access
but also to boost data-driven decisions that empower QI
worldwide. The GQII aims to unite people into actionable
collective actors to achieve huge improvements in living
conditions and to change entrenched power structures.
The GQII is becoming a platform of open and
independent dialogue to critically accompany and
support QI’s continuous change. One focus will be on
the quality and transparency of data and information on
the quality infrastructure. At the same time, the authors
wish to address questions about the future and strategic
development of the quality infrastructure. In analogy to
business intelligence (BI) (Chugh and Grandhi, 2013),
the authors are looking to develop a concept of QI
QI is mostly known only to experts
1 For more information see
The authors have intimate knowledge of QI in many
countries on ve continents gained through more than
a decade of consultancy work. Moreover, the authors
are in constant contact with the representatives of QI
institutions, their international and regional associations,
and the specialized funding agencies of international
development cooperation. At he same time, as ex-ternal
experts, the authors have the necessary distance and
global perspective to describe the development of QI
The GQII underpins the concept of QI with reliable data.
The unique feature of the GQII is that the index exclusively
uses publicly accessible data from the institutions of the
national quality infrastructure and their regional and
international associations. The research team of Mesopart-
ner and Analyticar has compiled the different institutions’
data, curated them and made them comparable. Special
thanks are due to accreditation, metrology and standards
experts and those who participated in collecting and
interpreting the data.
QI development correlates strongly with economic performance
Following the common understanding, the GQII formula includes the central component of a QI system, i.e.
metrology, standards and accreditation. Representing the user, the conformity assessment services are included in
each component. For each component, the authors have identied key indicators to assess the state of the country’s
QI development. Consequently, the GQII provides metrics on QI and its components for 184 economies around the
world. This allows us to assess and rank the development of the different QI elements of a country.
The authors’ research on an index of international QI goes back to 2011. In that year, Ulrich Harmes-Liedtke and Juan
José Oteiza Di Matteo published the rst working paper on the measurement of QI. A key nding of the report was
that a country’s QI development status correlates strongly with its economic performance (GDP per capita), export
performance and competitiveness. In a further publication (Harmes-Liedtke and Oteiza Di Mateo, 2019), the authors
conrmed this correlation for the indicator of economic complexity. Again, this edition of the GQII 2020 clearly shows
the strong correlation between economic development and QI.
Figure 1 shows the correlation between the development of quality infrastructure and the eco-nomic complexity of a
country. The Economic Complexity Index (ECI) relies on trade data and measures the intensity of an economy in terms
of the knowledge it incorporates in the products it exports. This indicator predicts economic growth (Hausmann et al,
2013) and explains inter-national variations in income inequality (Hartmann and Hidalgo, 2017). The linear correlation
between GQII and ECI is signicantly positive (r = 0.79; p = 0.0001). This nding supports the well-known relationship
between a country’s export activity and its QI.
Not only is QI more developed in economies that aggregate more knowledge in their exports, but these economies
account for most of the world’s export trade, which can be seen in
Figure 1 in the increasing size of the bubbles representing each economy when one looks at the cloud of dots
ascending from left to right. In short, the higher the development of QI, the higher the export capacity and the higher
the value-added of these products and services in terms of knowledge.
2 See
QI actors need to cooperate
GQII data and information is helpful for QI actors themselves as well as for international de-velopment cooperation.
The strong correlation between technical QI interventions and trade promotion calls for cross-functional collaboration
between actors, while so far QI interventions have been considered predominantly technical and are often implemented
in isolation from each other. The report ndings point to the reinforcing mechanisms between economic development
interventions. A systematic embedding of QI in comprehensive development programmes is needed.
This report is divided into six chapters. The introduction (Chapter 1) is followed by introducing the concept of quality
infrastructure, its evolution and its importance for economic development (Chapter 2). Next in Chapter 3, the authors
explain the methodological foundations of the GQII, including its data base. They present the empirical results of
the GQII in the form of rankings and maps (Chapter 4). They analyse the performance of QI in the economies in
comparison to other well-known measures and rankings such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), exports of goods and
services and the Economic Complexity Index (ECI) (Chapter 5). Finally, the authors review the essential ndings and
provide an outlook for the further development of QI measurement worldwide.
A new feature of the GQII 2020 is the visual presentation of eight QI country proles (Brazil, Colombia, India, Indonesia,
Kenya, Morocco, Sri Lanka and Ukraine) (see Annexure). The publication of other country proles is in progress. More
information on the databases and the country proles can be found in the GQII Programme.2
Figure 1: Correlation of the GQII and ECI
2 See
The term Quality Infrastructure (QI) is relatively new and has so far been familiar mostly to experts working in this
sector. Therefore it is crucial to explain that the term does not mean the quality of infrastructures such as roads, ports
or power grids. There is no doubt that QI services are used for the quality assurance of pieces of physical infrastructure,
but the meaning of the term goes much further. The term refers to the hardware and software required to assure the
quality of products and services.
Quality Infrastructure describes a system that guarantees quality
QI describes a system of institutions that guarantees the denition and control of quality
criteria. The main technical components of an NQI system are:
Standardisation is the activity of establishing, regarding actual or potential problems,
provisions for common and repeated use aimed at the achievement of the optimum
degree in each context. The activity consists of the processes needed to formulate,
issue and implement standards to improve the suitability of products, processes
and services for the intended purpose: prevention of barriers to trade and facilitation of
technological cooperation (Kellermann, 2019).
In general, each country or economy has a single recognized national standards body
(NSB) which represents the economy in ISO.
Metrology is the science of measurement and its application, embracing both
experimental and theoretical determination of any level of uncertainty in any eld of
science and technology. Metrology consists of the denition of internationally accepted
units of measurement, the realization of measurement standards and the guarantee of
international traceability of measurements.
A national metrology institute’s (NMI) role in a country’s measurement system is to
conduct scientic metrology, realise base units, and maintain primary national standards.
Not all countries and economies have a centralised metrology institute; some have a lead
NMI and several decentralised institutes specialising in specic national standards.
Accreditation is the formal attestation or statement by an independent third party
(accreditation body) that a conformity assessment body is competent to carry out specic
A national accreditation body (NAB) is an institution which attests to the competence
and impartiality of conformity assessment bodies, according to international standards
such as ISO/IEC. Some countries do have more than one accreditation body.
Conformity assessment demonstrates that specied requirements of products,
processes, systems, persons, or bodies are fullled the standards and requirements covered
in the ISO/IEC 17000 conformity assessment activities. The requirements are typically stated
in standards and technical regulations. The elements of conformity assessment include
inspection, testing, certication, validation and verication.3 (Kellermann, 2019).
Different types of conformity assessment bodies (CABs) can undertake conformity
assessment activities. They can come in different organisational form and ownership
and can be commercial or not-for-prot entities. CABs can be government agencies,
national standards bodies, trade associations, consumer organisations, or private or
publicly owned companies.4
Figure 2: National Quality Infrastructure System6
3 Sometimes calibration is considered a conformity assessment, but it is not. Calibration belongs within the metrology environment.
5 In contrast to the broad denition of QI by the INetQI,
6 Reference: Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB).
7nition.pdf (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
Figure 2, as well as the GQII, does not include market surveillance. Nevertheless, the GQII includes the legally regulated area through
the counting of conformity assessment bodies.
Quality Infrastructure. A Complex Network.
Figure 2 shows in the centre the main components of a NQI system (accreditation, standardization and metrology,
certication, testing and inspection)5. The individual components exchange services and form an overall system. On
the right-hand side, international recognition is represented by membership in international professional organizations.
On the left-hand side, the users of the system emerge in the form of a value chain. QI thus creates trust between
trading partners and promotes cooperation between enterprises and support organisations.
QI is a critical element for sustainable development and wellbeing
QI institutions can be seen as the underlying foundation of international trade. Developed quality infrastructure is a
prerequisite for developing countries to access international markets according to modern principles. Even though
many products and services produced in developing countries may be of high quality, it is still difcult for developing
countries to market their products and services internationally if the national quality infrastructure does not function
satisfactorily and according to international best practice. Similar to the physical infrastructure, the provision of QI
is considered a public task. In many countries, however, various QI services are provided by private and non-prot
The leading international institutions and promoters of
QI have recently developed a formal denition of this
concept. In 2017, this denition was endorsed by the
international organizations for metrology (the BIPM and
the OIML), standards (ISO, IEC and ITU) and accreditation
(IAF and ILAC), and by the International Trade Centre
(ITC), the United Nations Industrial Development
Organization (UNIDO), the United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE) and the World Bank
within the framework of the International Network on
Quality Infrastructure (INetQI) cooperation network. Here
QI is dened as:
“the system comprising the organizations (public and
private) together with the policies, relevant legal and
regulatory framework, and practices needed to support
and enhance the quality, safety and environmental
soundness of goods, services and processes. The Quality
Infrastructure is required for the effective operation
of domestic markets, and its international recognition
is essential to enable access to foreign markets. It is a
critical element in promoting and sustaining economic
development and environmental and social wellbeing.
It relies on metrology, standardization, accreditation,
conformity assessment, and market surveillance (in
regulated areas)7“.
QI replaces the previously used acronym MSTQ
(Metrology, Standards, Testing and Quality) with SQAM
(Standards, Quality Assurance, Accreditation and
The new denition from 2017 represents an extension of
the scope of QI. In the past, QI was mainly seen as an
instrument of trade facilitation. Today’s understanding of
QI relates strongly to health, environmental and consumer
protection. QI aims to contribute to a comprehensive
culture of quality and general wellbeing.
The origins of metrology and standardisation go back
to the beginnings of global historiog-raphy. Standard
weights and measures were developed as early as the
Bronze Age by the Indus civilisation in the north-west
of the Indian subcontinent. The centralised system of
weights and measures served the commercial interests
of Indus Valley traders, as smaller weight measures were
used to measure luxury goods, whereas larger weights
were used to purchase bulkier items, such as food grains.
Technical standardisation enabled the effective use of
measuring instruments for measuring angles and taking
measurements in construction.8
Beginning of modern metrology and standardisation
Today’s QI origins go back to the Industrial Revolution in the second half of the 18th century. During this time, economic
and social conditions, and working and living conditions changed profoundly and permanently, starting in England,
expanding to Western Europe and the United States (US). Since the 19th century, also in Japan and other parts of
Europe and Asia, the Industrial Revolution led to the transition from agricultural to industrial societies.
The new, more complex production methods brought with them specic risks. Exploding steam boilers, for example,
led industrialists in Germany to set up technical inspection associations (TÜV),12 which have established themselves as
internationally active conformity assessment providers to this day. Here the reader can see the origins of today’s use
called QI services to guarantee safety and occupational health.
At the beginning of the 20th century, the lack of harmonisation of standards hindered emerging international trade. In
response, engineers started to form national standardization bodies. The rst national standardization body was the
British Standards Institution (BSI) in England (1901),13 followed by the American National Standards Institute (NIST)
in 1901, the German Institute for Standardization (today DIN) in 1917, and the French Commission Permanente de
Standardization (today AFNOR) in 1926.
Already at the beginning of the 20th century, the need for international harmonization of standards became apparent.
In 1906, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) was founded as the rst international standards
organization. This was followed in 1926 by the International Federation of the National Standardizing Associations
(ISA) to promote international cooperation for all technical standards and specications, the predecessor of today’s
International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
Prehistory of measurements and standards
Independently, other advanced civilisations in different
parts of the world developed their sys-tems of
measurement and standardisation. The ancient Egyptians
based their measurements on the royal cubit Meh, for
which the pharaoh provided a prototype made of granite.9
In ancient China, the Shi was considered the basic unit of
weight. Shi Huang Di, China’s rst emperor, standardised
the rules for determining the basic units in 221 BC and
created the shi.10 In what is now Mexico, the Maya used
a measurement system, the Zapal, to build their cultural
cities of Uxmal, Kabah and Chichén Itzáetwa.11 Other
civilised peoples also developed comparable methods of
measurement to facilitate trade.
8 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
9 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
10 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
(Retrieved 13/03/2021)
12 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
13 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
Accreditation is the youngest type of institution of the
QI system. The origins of accreditation go back to the
period after World War II. In 1947, the Australian National
Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) was founded to
ensure that ammunition in Australia met high standards.18
Therefore NATA is often referred to as the oldest national
accreditation body, although this role was not formalized
until 1988 through a Memorandum of Understanding
(MoU) with the Australian Government. In the 1960s and
1970s, other countries also established accreditation
bodies. These countries convened in 1977 at a conference
in Copenhagen, and founded the International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC). Since then,
the international accreditation community has followed
the slogan “Accredited once, accepted everywhere”.
With accreditation, test and other conformity assessment
results are comparable, and multiple assessments are
avoided. Thus the costs of conformity assessment are
reduced. Today, the accreditation bodies of more than
a hundred countries are internationally recognized. Two
international organizations are responsible for multilateral
recognition of the accreditation of conformity assessment
(1) The International Laboratory Accreditation
Cooperation (ILAC) is the international organization for
accreditation bodies responsible for the accreditation of
calibration and testing laboratories, medical laboratories,
Accreditation connects the quality infrastructure system
An international quality system requires comparable measurements. Consequently, on 20 May 1875, seventeen
countries agreed on a metric system of measurement and set up their own insti-tution, the International Bureau of
Weights and Measures (Bureau International des Poids et Mesures, or BIPM).14 This was the rst international scientic
institution ever, and it has been coordinated since than by the International System (IS). In the following years, signatory
states of the Metre Convention established national metrology institutes. Today’s PTB (founded as the PTR in 1887)15
in Germany and the NIST (1901)16 in the United States were among the pio-neers. Other countries followed. Today, the
BIPM has sixty-three Member States and forty Associate States and Economies.17
inspection bodies, prociency testing providers and
reference material producers.
(2) The International Accreditation Forum, Inc. (IAF)
is the world association for accredita-tion bodies in
management systems, products, services, personnel,
and other similar certication programmes as well as
verication and validation programmes.
Both organizations cooperate closely, and at the Joint
General Assembly in Frankfurt/Main in October 2019
they decided to merge.19 The result will be a worldwide
uniform and more efcient system for managing the
accreditation global recognition arrangement.
Part of the international cooperations are the regional
accreditation cooperations (APLAC, ARAC, AFRAC,
IAAC, EA and SADCA), which bring together all ABs are
MLA signatories in differents accreditations schemes.
These regional groups offer discussion space, harmonize
concepts, give guidelines to the correct operation of the
AB, and ensures they accomplished all the requirements
established in ISO/IEC 17001 for the accreditation process
development. The recognition by these regional groups
is the rst step to achieve the MLA with IAF or ILAC.
The authors see accreditation as a catalyst for the QI
14 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
15leadmin/internet/presse_aktuelles/broschueren/geschichte_ptb/PTR_and_PTB_History_of_an_Institution.pdf (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
16 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
17 See (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
18 NATA (2017). Celebrating 70 years, Sydney.
19 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
Regarding the components of QI as a system is more
recent. In the 1990s, experts began to use combinations
of letters such as MSTQ (metrology, standards, testing,
quality assurance) or SQAM (standards, quality assurance,
accreditation and measurement) to describe the system
(BMZ, 2004; NEDLAC, 2001). Others favoured the term
National Quality System (Guasch et al., 2007; Frota et al.,
2010). Only later, as described above, did the current term
Quality Infra-structure emerge and gain international
The development of the QI concept is closely related
to the institutionalization of global trade within the
framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO).
For barrier-free trade, it is nec-essary that trading
The technological development of the last hundred-
and-fty years has signicantly shaped QI. Its beginnings
lie, as described, in the rst Industrial Revolution from
today’s perspective. Its focus was on the mastery of steam
engines and mechanics.
The second industrial revolution with is mass production
demanded metrics, standards and con-formity
assessment for electrication and chemistry. Biological
and chemical test laboratories were needed, and a whole
Integration of a system
Accompanying four industrial revolutions
partners mutually recognize the procedures and results
of conformity assessment. In 1995, during the Uruguay
Round, WTO members agreed on the elimination of
technical trade barriers. The Agreement on Technical
Barriers to Trade (TBT) calls on countries to actively
recognize the results of other countries’ conformity
assessments such as testing, examination, inspection,
calibration, verication and certication. Crucial here is
accred-itation bodies’ role in establishing trust between
trading partners and thus offering a passport to global
trade. The international associations for accreditation
provide the appropriate framework with the Mutual
Recognition Arrangements (ILAC-MRA) and the
Multilateral Recognition Arrangements (IAF-MLA) (de
Brito et al., 2016).
new metrology eld emerged with chemical metrology
(Sargent et al., 2019).
Computer technology triggered the automation of
production processes and with it the third industrial
revolution. During this time management demands
increased, to which the standardization institutes
responded with the development of quality management
Figure 3: Four industrial revolutions20
20 TÜV Rheinland/ Techvision,
21 Thiel, 2018. Opens external link in new window - Digital transformation of legal metrology - The European Metrology Cloud, OIML Bulletin, vol. LIX, 2018(1), pp. 10-21, (Retrieved 13/03/2021).
22 ISO 2018. The new Industrial Revolution, ISO focus, November-December 2018, Number 131,les/live/sites/isoorg/les/news/magazine/ISOfocus%20
(2013-NOW)/en/2018/ISOfocus_131/ISOfocus_131_en.pdf. (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
Quality Infrastructure 4.0
Today we are in the midst of a fundamental transformation that will radically change how we live, work and interact with
each other. This transformation began before COVID-19 but has accelerated through the pandemic. Klaus Schwab,
the founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, speaks in this context of a “Fourth Industrial
Revolution” (Schwab, 2017), which will be in its scale, scope and complexity a transformation unlike anything humanity
has ever experienced. Although we do not know yet precisely how it will unfold, the expected changes must be
integrated comprehensively and inclusively.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution differs from its predecessors in speed, scope and impact on systems. Moreover,
this revolution will affect almost every industry in every country. The breadth and depth of these changes mark the
transformation of the entire production, management and leadership systems.
The Fourth Industrial Revolution in turn requires Quality Infrastructure (QI) to adapt in all its areas:
Metrology 4.0: Researchers and technicians are working on various projects for
the digitalization of metrology. Industrial metrology is developing a machine-
readable calibration certicate and the corresponding infrastructure, which will
enable calibration labor-atories and companies to exchange related certicates
digitally (Hackel et al., 2017). In legal metrology, metrology supports industry and
market surveillance authorities in smart metering and the measurement of
e-mobility. At the same time, European Metrology Institutes are working to create
a metrology cloud that supports traceability and verication of measurements.21
Standardization 4.0: Equally, standardization focuses on digitization. The networking
of devices, machines and people via the Internet is causing dynamically growing data
trafc. Therefore an internationally agreed standard that allows intelligent
integration of systems across all domains and hierarchies is needed. Industry 4.0
can only become a reality if digitalization and standardization go hand in hand.
The International Standards Organization (ISO) and the International Electro-
technical Commission (IEC) have established the Smart Manufacturing
Coordinating Committee (SMCC). The Committee promotes the international
exchange of information and works on the mapping of smart manufacturing
standards. Other standards committees deal with automation systems and
integration (ISO/TC 184), articial intelligence (ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 42) and robotics
(ISO/TC 299). Together the various standard initiatives provide the framework for
global digital value chains. Strategic elds of action are the autonomy,
interoperability and sustainability of the industrial ecosystem of the future.22
Accreditation 4.0: The opportunities for Industry 4.0 employment matter also for
conformity assessment and accreditation.23 For example, the accreditation body
in the UK (UKAS) sees opportunities to strengthen their role and that of the testing,
inspection and certication (TIC) industry as a “trusted partner” in the networking
of value chains and at the same time to be a driving force for new technologies.
Accreditation underpins condence in systems and software for automation, mobile
payments or driverless cars and contributes to the responsible handling of
23 Bohun, 2019. Accreditation 4.0: Adapting to a new revolution, Blog post
24 Deshpande, Stewart, Lepetit, Gunashekar, 2017. Distributed Ledger Technologies/Blockchain: Challenges, opportunities and the prospects for standards, May 2017.
Prepared for the British Standards Institution (BSI), London,
(Retrieved 13/03/2021)
The examples from metrology, standardization and accreditation show that all areas of QI are intensively integrating
the concept of Industry 4.0 and are participating in the digital transfor-mation.
Digitalization requires that the QI institutions restructure themselves internally and change their services and how they
are fundamentally delivered. As a result, QI will gain exibility, interop-erability and speed. The next challenge is to
relate and integrate the activities in the different components more closely. QI 4.0 would have to focus precisely on the
system’s integration, integrity and interoperability.
condential information and data protection. Conformity assessment bodies are
already active in information and cybersecurity, eGaming, digital forensics and
software testing. Some accredited certication and inspection bodies have
already developed cloud-based systems to provide better insight into customers
and their supply chains.24
Unintended effects are part of technological
development. During the rst Industrial Revolution,
industrial accidents were rapidly increasing, as illustrated
by exploding steam boilers. In the course of the second
Industrial Revolution, catastrophes such as the dioxin
accident in Seveso (1976) or the fatal toxic gas cloud
in Bhopal (1984) or the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl
(1986) remain in sad memory. As a reaction to these
catastrophes, an environmental movement rst emerged
in the industrialized countries, which sought to persuade
the chemical industry and society to act sustainably
without polluting the environment.
As a result of this social pressure, governments of
industrialized countries began to tighten environmental
and occupational health and safety regulations.
Consequently, QI facilities were challenged to use their
services more for clean and environmentally friendly
production. Moreover, companies were becoming more
aware of their social and environmental responsibilities
through self-regulation. Standards for Corporate
Social Responsibility (CSR) such as ISO 26000 and the
emergence of private sustainability standards (Potts et
al., 2014) express this trend.
Technology impacts, environmental movements and rebooting of QI
In today’s time of the Covid-19 pandemic and climate
change, many are questioning our current economic
model, including global trade. In the face of planetary
boundaries, global social issues and the current COVID
crisis, it is not enough for companies to strive for quality
and competitiveness alone. The challenge is to establish
a socially, ecologically and economically sustainable
model. Paradigms of CO2 neutrality or the Circular
Economy are the new guiding principles.
This means that the QI institutions must realign their
understanding and service offerings. Institutions such as
the United Nations Industrial Development Organization
(UNIDO) are therefore calling for a rebooting of QI: “QI is
a marvellous tool for improving economic develop-ment.
QI needs to evolve - and swiftly - to be relevant in the face
of ever more rapid techno-logical innovations and the
threats posed by climate change pollution, diminution
of resources and destruction of the biosphere.” (UNIDO,
2020). Today, QI needs to and can contribute to the three
pillars - people, prosperity and planet - of the United
Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by
reorientating its knowledge and tools to the broader
development ap-proach.
26 BIPM, The rst 17, Sèvres/ France, (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
The development of QI is closely linked to the development
of trade relations between different countries. Economies
of the Northern Hemisphere started to develop
metrology, standards and conformity assessment even
during the early phase of industrialization. Due to the
dynamically growing trade links, these countries were
required to harmonize their respective systems.
In the Southern Hemisphere, QI started to develop much
later, mainly from the second half of the 20th century.
The main reason for their lagging behind was due to
colonial trade structures. The countries of the Northern
Hemisphere dominated the trade ows using their
domestic standards and measurement procedures. The
colonial powers only built up, if it did so at all, rudimentary
institutions for food and drug control in their colonies.
However, it is striking that some Global South (GS)
countries, specically in South America (Argentina, Brazil,
Peru and Venezuela), were among the rst signatories
to the 1875 Metre Convention.26 However, the early
industrialization of these countries failed, which was
reected in a discontinuity in establishing a national QI.
It was only in the second half of the 20th century that
Today although there is still considerable asymmetry
between countries in the Northern and Southern
hemispheres, both have equal technical competence.
In the National Metrology Institutes (NMI) eld, the
Global South has reached world-class competence
in metrology. It is represented on the Consultative
Committees of the International Committee for Weights
and Measures (CIPM). These committees bring together
the world’s experts in their specied elds as advisers
on scientic and technical matters. Among the tasks
of these committees is the detailed consideration of
advances in physics that directly inuence metrology,
the preparation of recommendations for discussion at
the International Committee for Weights and Measures
(CIPM), the identication, planning and execution of key
comparisons of national measurement standards, and the
provision of advice to the CIPM on the scientic work in
the laboratories of the BIPM.27
Modern QI originated in the Northern Hemisphere
The asymmetry between countries of the Global North and South
An outstanding example is the Korea Research Institute
of Standards and Science (KRISS) in South Korea,28 which
today stands for international excellence at a similar level
as its tutors from the US and Germany (Choi, 2013, Choi
et al., 2014). NMIs from other larger economies such
as Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South
Africa are also represented on the CIPM’s Consultative
Concerning the current debates on post-colonialism
(Young, 2020), we can ask to what extent the development
of QI in the countries of the Global South differs or should
differ from that of the North. Is the development of QI
in the countries of the Global South solely a matter of
catching up, or does it require unique strategies geared to
the specic characteristics of the Global South countries?
Southern Hemisphere countries started to establish
their own National Metrology Institutes (NMIs), National
Standards Bodies (NSB) and much later National
Accreditation Bodies (NAB). This was in response to the
increasing political independence and diversication of
trade relations of the Southern Hemisphere countries.
The Northern Hemisphere countries supported this
institution building, as they were interested in establishing
an equivalent quality system with their emerging trading
Today the existence of a national QI is a necessary
condition for participation in international trade. More
and more countries of the Global South are now becoming
members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Their
QI institutions are members of international professional
organizations and signatories of mutual recognition
agreements (de Brito et al., 2016). At the same time, many
countries of the Global South faced with the decision as
to whether to align their trading systems with the high
standards of the North or whether to benet from cheap
imports from China and Southeast Asia. The question
arises as to whether the high standards for exports should
also apply to the local market.
27 BIPM, The role of the Consultative Committees, Webpage [Retrieved 07/12/2020], (Retrieved
28 Like other East Asian countries, South Korea has shifted its development from a country of the global South to the North, see
sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/north-and-south-global (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
29 Kellermann, M. (2019). QI Toolkit Case Studies. Case Brazil, Washington D.C.
Quality Infrastructure in the countries of the Global South often faces unique challenges:
Funds for research and development are scarce, so that QI bodies must nance them-selves or depend on
international development cooperation support.
QI is geared primarily to the export of the industry’s needs, so there is a duality between high standards for
exports and low standards for domestic consumers.
The private sector is weakly organized so that the state is more prone to intervene in the market. In this respect,
there is often a preference for technical regulations, whereas in-dustry self-regulation is weaker.
The dominant micro and small enterprise sectors and the usually large informal sector hardly benet from the
services provided by the country’s quality infrastructure.
International service providers dominate the eld of conformity assessment.
These structural characteristics limit the possibility of merely transferring best practices from the industrialized countries
of the North to those of the South. Besides, QI in countries of the Global North has developed considerably over the
past decades, and the development gap between the North and South has grown signicantly. This often creates
additional difculties for the transfer of experience. For example, in the 1970s and 1980s, it was easy for researchers
and technical experts of National Metrology Institutes (NMIs) from developing countries to acquire their skills in
laboratories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) or the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt
(PTB) and to implement them in their countries’ laboratories after returning home.29 Today, however, the laboratories
of the North have achieved a technical sophistication that makes it nearly impossible for newcomer countries to catch
up quickly.
There is a saying that “one should not measure with the maximum accuracy, but with the necessary accuracy”. This
means that NMIs must have the capacity to meet the level of accuracy required by their industry and trade. For
example, to measure time with today’s possible highest accuracy of 1015, or 1 second in about 30 million years,30 is not
necessary for countries that lack a defence or space industry.
Unique challenges for QI in the Global South
30 Bauch, A. (2012). Time – the SI Base Unit “Second”, In: Special Issue/PTB-Mitteilungen 122 (2012), No. 1 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
31 Pace Alves, L. (2013). Triangular Technical Cooperation and the role of INMETRO; In: Austral: Brazilian Journal of Strategy & International Relations, v.2, n.4, Jul-Dec. 2013,
32 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
South-South cooperation is taking on a new function
in technology transfer. The developing countries of the
Southern Hemisphere are now able to pass on their
experience to their neigh-bours and even to countries on
other continents (see, for example, the cooperation of the
Brazilian National Institute of Metrology, Standardization
and Industrial Quality (INMETRO) with Portuguese-
speaking countries in Africa).31 Many countries of the
South now operate their own international cooperation
departments and programmes. At the same time, the
countries of the North support South-South cooperation
in the eld of QI in the context of so-called Triangular
QI is an emerging theme for international development
cooperation. A study by the World Bank Group (WBG)
shows the growing interest in international development
cooperation in QI.32
The WBG surveyed fourteen international bilateral and
multilateral development partners be-tween December
2019 and March 2020, seven of which responded. The
total annual funding of all respondents is US$253 million.
The respondents have supported QI programmes in 143
countries. Regions beneting from QI programmes are
South Asia (86%), Africa (79%), East Asia-Pacic (71%),
Latin America and the Caribbean (57%), Middle East-
North Africa (50%) and East Central Asia (50%).
Standards reform is the dominant QI area for development
work (79%), followed by metrology (64%), accreditation
(64%), technical regulations (64%), TBT agreement
implementation (64%), inspection (57%), certication
(57%), testing (50%) and market surveillance (43%).
Capacity-building and training programmes account
for most support (93%), while technical assistance and
advisory services receive 86% support. Other types of
support include nancial aid (loans or grants, 57%),
South-South and Triangular Cooperation
Development cooperation for QI in developing economies
Finally, there are also areas which are new to all countries.
The application of the knowledge and tools of QI to
combat climate change, preserve biodiversity and digitize
the economy and society are all relatively new topics for
the actors in QI. Here countries of the Global South could
be among the pioneers and leapfrog development. At
the same time, new developments affect the South
differently and require solution strategies adapted to
their respective conditions.
knowledge, analysis and diagnostic studies (57%) and
hard infra-structure (29%).
There are increasing opportunities to support QI
development in middle and low-income countries. In
implementing the WBG’s QI programmes, it was noted
that governments had recognized the importance
of developing practical, efcient and internationally
recognized QI services: for governments, a QI system
strengthens relevant trade and industrial policies and
ensures compliance with mandatory technical regulations
and sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures; for
businesses, a modern, efcient QI system helps contain
production costs, increases productivity and technology
transfer, and enables rms to be more competitive in
domestic and foreign markets; for consumers, a QI system
ensures public health and safety and environmental and
consumer protection.
During the Covid-19 pandemic, the authors observed a
particular focus on QI promotion in products and services
in the medical sector. Advanced QI services and mutual
recognition ar-rangements between trading partners are
fundamental to governments’ efforts to provide needed
medical products and ensure food safety in the most
efcient, effective and sustainable way.
Statistical data on the development status of QI is still lacking
The GQII provides curated data on the development of quality infrastructure in 184 economies. The index thus includes
all industrialized and developing countries. This information platform is intended to serve quality infrastructure
managers, policymakers and users of QI services. At the same time, the authors see the GQII as a source of information
for donors and international development cooperation programmes that want to monitor the impact of their support
and the development progress of QI in partner countries.
Today QI facilities are part of the necessary institutional landscape of sovereign states. In recent decades, developing
and emerging countries have established metrology and standardization institutes and often accreditation bodies
or focal points. There is anecdotal evidence but not suf-cient statistical data to prove this development. The GQII
programme aims to close this infor-mation gap, but the accreditation community needs to improve the transparency
and comparabil-ity of their statistical data.
Despite this progress in the institutional eld, a reliable database and indicators to illustrate or compare a country’s QI
development status are still lacking. Although international, regional and national QI institutions provide data, these
only refer to the individual components and never to QI as a whole. Moreover, as will be seen in the following chapters
of this report, data quality varies widely as does its availability, and is not always user-friendly.
The authors systematically validated the information during data collection and analysis by comparing the data with
their previous publications. If there were signicant discrepancies in the data in one area, the authors rst checked
their count or consulted the institution in question. Studying publications or consulting QI experts helped them to
interpret the data in the best pos-sible way.
The reservoir for QI intelligence remains untapped
At the dawn of the digital age with articial intelligence (AI), Big Data, Blockchain-based de-velopments and the
Internet of Things (IoT), QI institutions are challenged in many ways. Covid-19 has already been a catalyst for remote
auditing and virtual meetings of the standards committees. However, the challenges are certainly greater and require
a systematic approach to collecting and strategically using data.
So far, accreditation bodies have mainly used their data to prove that conformity assessment bodies are competent in
their scope of the accreditation they award. At the same time, this in-formation remains unused mainly for prospective
purposes. There is even less exchange of data and information between QI institutions, so it remains neglected for
the purpose of joint strate-gizing. Like business intelligence (Chugh and Grandhi, 2013), the authors see an untapped
res-ervoir of QI intelligence, i.e. a technology-driven process for analysing data and presenting actionable information
to QI leaders and users.
The GQII is a composite indicator
The Joint Research Centre of the European Commission (JRG) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) see composite indicators (CIs) that compare the performance of countries as increasingly useful
tools in policy analysis and public communication (Joint Research Centre-European Commission and OECD, 2008).
Composite indicators are now attracting considerable interest in comparing and ranking countries’ performance in
areas such as industrial competitiveness, sustainable development, globalisation and innovation.
It often seems easier for the public to interpret composite indicators than to identify common trends across many
separate indicators. They have also proven useful for benchmarking country performance. Allergens Composite
indicators can also send misleading policy messages if they are poorly constructed or misinterpreted. In particular,
their “big picture” results can mislead policymakers into drawing simplistic analytical or policy conclusions. In this
respect, composite indicators should be seen as a means to stimulate discussion and arouse public interest. Their
relevance should be assessed in terms of the groups and organisations affected by the composite index.
The GQII provides a composite indicator for the QI domain. In constructing the GQII, the authors were inspired by the
Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators (Joint Research Centre-European Commission and OECD, 2008).
The GQII measures the relative level of QI development in an economy
The GQII follows a systemic approach illustrated above in Figure 2, and measures the level of QI development in
developed and developing economies. For this purpose, the authors collect and analyse data from national and
international organizations for metrology, standardization, accreditation and conformity assessment.
The authors have identied indicators for each component and for the connections between the components of the
NQP. Some indicators refer to the international recognition of the QI bodies. Others refer to the service supplier’s
scope or the demand for accredited conformity assessment bodies of the numbers of enterprises with a certied
management system. Together the indicators provide a measure of the level of QI development in a given economy.
The GQII uses only published data from QI institutions
According to the Handbook on Constructing Composite Indicators, “… overall quality of composite indicators
depends on two aspects: the quality of basic data, and the quality of procedures used to build and disseminate the
composite indicator” (Joint Research Centre-European Commission and OECD, 2008).
The GQII builds on data published on international and national QI organizations’ websites. Therefore the validity of
the GQII is limited to the availability and quality of the data provided by the QI organizations. The cured raw data is
freely available and downloadable on the GQII website.33
33 See
34 (Retrieved 13/03/2021)
The attractiveness of the GQII undoubtedly lies in its global reach. In this context, the authors would like to mention
a parallel project to measure the development of quality infrastructure in Africa.34 The regional organization of Pan-
African Quality Infrastructure (PAQI) produced a so-called stocktaking instrument for the development of QI in
55 African countries in 2014, 2017 and 2020. Using the trafc light colours (green, yellow and red), the document
illustrates the development status of QI in the countries in general and in the different QI components. The strengths
of this approach are the validation of the information by representatives of the regional organizations for metrology,
standardization and accreditation, and the presentation of the development over time. In contrast to the GQII,
however, the PAQI method is only indi-rectly based on published data. Both ways are complementary, and the results
are highly comparable.
The GQII is based on earlier versions from 2011 and 2019 when the authors began to evaluate and compare the data
on QI development (Harmes-Liedtke and Oteiza Di Matteo, 2011; Harmes-Liedtke and Oteiza Di Mateo, 2019). Our
approach was widely received in the following years, discussed and cited by QI experts and researchers.35 Overall,
feedback from the preliminary studies was encouraging, and the critique helped the authors to substantially improve
the validity and scope of the GQII. Their aim in this report is also to explain the context and the method in detail and
in a generally understandable way.
Critique and limitations of GQII
The authors would like to mention that some experts have expressed some fundamental criticisms and concerns about
the GQII: One criticism relates to the ranking of economies per se. Table 1 gives an overview of the gen-eral debate
on the pros and cons of composite indicators. Basically, there are two views of whether it makes sense to combine
indicators in some way to produce aggregate statistics. One view is that such summary statistics can indeed capture
reality and are meaningful, and that em-phasising the bottom line is extremely useful in attracting media interest
and policymakers’ attention. Critics see the combination of weighting variables as arbitrary and prefer the use of
individual data sources. Ultimately, however, the appeal of composite indicators and rankings summarises complex
and sometimes elusive processes into a single number to assess a country’s performance for policy use.
Table 1: Pros and cons of composite indicators
35 See Acknowledgements.
Can summarise complex, multi-dimensional realities
to support decision-makers.
Are easier to interpret than a battery of many separate
Can assess the progress of countries over time.
Reduce the visible size of a set of indicators without
dropping the underlying information base.
Thus make it possible to include more information within
the existing size limit.
Place issues of country performance and progress at the
centre of the policy arena.
Facilitate communication with the general public (i.e.
citizens, media, etc.) and promote accountability.
Help to construct/underpin narratives for lay and literate
Enable users to compare complex dimen-sions effectively.
May send misleading policy messages if poorly
constructed or misinterpreted.
May invite simplistic policy conclusions.
May be misused, e.g. to support the desired policy,
if the construction process is not transparent and lacks
sound statistical or conceptual principles.
The selection of indicators and weights could be the
subject of political dispute.
May disguise severe failings in some di-mensions and
increase the difculty of iden-tifying proper remedial
action if the con-struction process is not transparent.
May lead to inappropriate policies if dimensions of
performance that are difcult to measure are ignored.
Source: JRC and OECD, 2008, p 13f.
In the case of the GQII, the ranking could be misunderstood to mean that all countries should aim for the highest
possible level of QI. At the same time, there could be incentives to inuence certain indicators in order to achieve a
better ranking (gaming). This criticism is undoubtedly justied, but in principle it can be applied to any ranking. Due to
the selection of different data sources, the authors see the possibilities of gaming as very difcult. Even if an economy
strengthens only one component of its QI, this is reected in the strengthening of the entire QI system.
Other points of criticism relate to the signicance of the data itself. For example, the number of calibration and
measurement capabilities (CMC) alone is only a limited reection of a country’s metrology performance. Experts
also doubted that the number of accredited conformity assess-ment bodies is an essential indicator of a national
accreditation body’s performance. When read-ing the GQII, readers should not interpret higher values as fundamentally
“better” but instead see the ranking in the context of the respective economy’s development.
Another point relates to the signicance of the index. The index shows the relative development status of the QI
in a specic economy. This says nothing about whether the provision of QI services is appropriate to the level of
development of the economy or the demand of local busi-nesses. However, the strong correlations with exports and
economic complexity (see Chapter 5) show that the QI development of a country usually corresponds to its economic
Although all these points of criticism are justied, the authors would like to point out that inter-national and national
QI organisations do use some of the GQII data, e.g. to prove the increas-ing importance of certain QI services.
The advantage of the present study is that the different data are placed in an international context and are made
comparable with each other. The alloca-tion of QI data to the unit of a (national) economy is also signicant because
this level contin-ues to be the central reference for all studies on trade and development.
At the same time, the numbers of the GQII must be interpreted in each specic context and need to be combined with
qualitative information. The GQII does not claim to map QI world-wide precisely, but serves as the best proxy to map
the development of the National Quality Infrastructure system.
Beyond the debate on ranking, all experts consulted agreed that more systematic use of data is of great importance
for further developing QI. The GQII database offers the possibility for spe-cic analyses, e.g. looking at the global
distribution of new accreditation schemes. Here the authors see substantial input for what they call QI Intelligence
in the future. Here the authors are referring to the concept of business intelligence used in a corporate context,
which supports the systematic collection and processing of acquired information. Thus QI Intelligence means that QI
institutions share their data for the purpose of prospecting and for the evidence-based underpinning of their joint
strategic planning. Concrete tools could be QI development dash-boards or market research studies. Basically it is
about QI bodies being able to identify future trends and needs at an early stage and to proactively support economic
and social development.
The GQII covers almost all economies in the world
In line with the practice of the accreditation community, the authors use the term economies because the GQII counts
data not only from sovereign states but also from territorial entities without recognized statehood (such as Kosovo,
Palestine or Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, the last three being counted as part of “One China” ).
In naming the economies, the authors use the country code ISO 3166 and use the standardized abbreviations. Since
the BIPM, among others, calls the economies by different names in some cases, the authors have harmonized the
names based on the ISO standard.
The number of economies included goes far beyond the members of the international QI organizations (see Table
2). In previous studies, the authors essentially limited themselves to the signatories of the IAF’s MRA (currently 85
economies). This delimitation had the advantage that the countries analyzed all had an internationally recognized
system. The disadvantage of this selection, on the other hand, was that a large part of the developing countries could
not be included. To account for the differences between the IAF’s MRA signatories and the other economies, the
authors weighted the accreditations accordingly (see 3.4 Formula).
The GQII considers cross-border accreditation
The expansion of the number of countries poses particular challenges for data comparison. In order to distinguish
the level of QI development in smaller countries, the authors looked for indicators other than internationally
recognized accreditation. Therefore in countries without their own accreditation body, the authors measured the
number of conformity assessment bod-ies accredited abroad. For this purpose, the authors systematically collected
and considered data on cross-border accreditation for the rst time. A detailed study on the topic of cross-border
accreditation will be published shortly (Harmes-Liedtke/ Matta, 2021).
Table 2: Membership of international organizations and coverage of the GQII
Sources: Website of organizations
Members/Economies 193 184 165 164 102 85 63
Figure 4: Cross-border accreditation37
Figure 4 visualizes the phenomenon of cross-border accreditation.
The circles represent the economies whose accreditation bodies accredit conformity assessment bodies abroad or
economies whose conformity assessment bodies have been accredited by a foreign accreditation body. The size of
the circles indicates the number of exported or imported accreditations. The circles are arranged according to the
world map. The large circle in the northwest represents the US, the circles in the centre above represent Europe and
southeast Australia. In terms of colour, the map shows different clusters representing one global and several regional
cross-border accreditations.
From a development perspective, one strength of the GQII is that it covers all members of the OECD Development
Aid Committee (DAC) and almost all ODA recipients. The only exceptions are small states such as Kiribati, Niue, Palau,
São Tomé and Principe, Tuvalu, Tokelau and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. These countries do not yet
have any relevant QI or are beneciaries of development cooperation.
37 Authors’ elaboration in separate study by Harmes-Liedtke/Matta (2021) in progress.
Table 3: Donors and receivers of ofcial development assistance (ODA)
Reference OECD38,39; * Countries and territories not classied in World Bank income groups. Economies given in Italics are not part of the GQII.
Czech Republic
European Union
The Nether-lands
New Zealand
Slovak Republic
United Kingdom
United States
Burkina Faso
Central African
Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea
Democratic Republic of
the Congo
Lao People’s
Democratic Republic
São Tomé and Principe1
Sierra Leone
Solomon Islands1
South Sudan
Cabo Verde
Côte d’Ivoire
El Salvador
Papua New Guinea
Sri Lanka
Syrian Arab Republic
Viet Nam
West Bank and Gaza
Strip (Palestine)
Algeria (LM)
Antigua and Barbuda2
Bosnia and
China (People’s
Republic of)
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Equatorial Guinea
Marshall Islands
Mauritius3 (H)
Nauru3 (H)
North Macedonia
Saint Helena*
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the
Grenadines Samoa
South Africa
Wallis and Futuna*
Antigua y Barbuda
Russian Federation
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saudi Arabia
Trinidad y Tobago
38 (Retrieved 15/02/21)
39nancing-sustainable-development/development-nance-standards/DAC-List-ODA-Recipients-for-reporting-2021-ows.pdf (Retrieved
40 The data collection period was from May to July 2020.
GQII uses only publicly available data
The central data sources are:
The Key Comparison Data Base and the BIPM website
The ISO Survey (2020) and the ISO and IEC websites
The IAF and ILAC websites, as well as the databases on accredited conformity assessment bodies
of the websites of one hundred and sixty-four (164) accreditation bodies worldwide40
In recent years, the BIPM in particular has been active in renewing the Key Comparison Data Base (KCDB). The new
KCDB 2.0 makes data export easy and provides statistical comparisons by metrology areas and economy. However,
the KCDB only provides current data and no time series. Since the counting of Calibration Measurement Capabilities
(CMCs) has also been modied and is to be reduced overall in the future, the authors have refrained from using the
number of CMCs as an indicator of an economy’s metrological competence. Instead, the authors have developed
an indicator of CMC coverage, which expresses how many metrological disciplines a national metrology institute
(possibly together with the designated institutes) covers through CMCs. In the opinion of the metrology experts
interviewed, this indicator better expresses the metrological competence of an NMI.
The ISO website provides up-to-date information on members and participation in technical committees. The ISO
Survey also provides information on the use of ISO management stand-ards. The data is based on an annual survey in
which IAF-MLA-accredited certication bodies participate. The validity of the survey depends on the participation of
the certication bodies and is therefore limited. Nevertheless, the ISO Survey remains the best source of data available
worldwide on formal standards.
References: Authors’ elaboration
Table 4: Overview of the data used for the GQII
QI System Inputs Outputs
Accreditation Membership/ signatories of IAF, ILAC
or Regional Accreditation Cooperation
Coverage of all accreditation scopes
Accredited CABs for Products Certica-
tion (ISO 17065)
Accredited CABs for Management
Systems (ISO 17021)
Accredited CABs for Testing Labs (ISO/
IEC 17025)
Metrology Membership/ signatory of BIPM/CIPM
and OMIL and/or Regional Metrology
Organiza-tions (RMOs)
Key and Supplementary Comparisons
Calibration and Measurement
Capabilities (CMC) coverage
Accredited Calibration Laboratories (ISO/
IEC 17025)
Standardisation Membership in International Standard
Organizations ISO and IEC
Participation in Technical Committees
Companies with Certied Management
System (ISO Survey)
The biggest challenge was the collection of the accreditation data
The biggest challenge in the data collection of the GQII was in the area of accreditation. Accreditations can be
counted by a body or by a site. Following the counting practice of the IAF, the authors chose to count the bodies. They
recorded the number of bodies for each accreditation scheme at level 3 (see Table 5). In the management systems
under ISO/IEC 17021, the authors always recorded the highest value of the systems counted at level 4 and noted it as
the value for level 3. This procedure made it possible to harmonize all data at level 3.
The institutional framework for accreditation is set by the international organizations IAF and ILAC as well as the RACs.
The signatories to the MLA and MRA are regarded as international competence certicates for national accreditation
Not all accreditation bodies have international recognition. From a developmental point of view, it was vital for the
authors to consider the accreditation bodies that are still on the way to international recognition. To express the
different degrees of recognition, the authors weighted the number of accredited conformity assessment bodies:
an accreditation by a signatory of an MRA/MLA of IAF/ILAC or an RAC is given the maximum value of one. If the
accreditation body has any other kind of membership in IAF/ILAC or an RAC, the authors evaluate the number of
accredited conformity assessment bodies by a factor of 0.5. For all other accreditation bodies, the authors multiply
the number of accredited conformity assessment bodies by a factor of 0.1. If a national accreditation body achieved
international recognition, it would rise signicantly in the ranking.
The accreditation bodies that are members of IAF/ILAC and the RACs regularly record the number of accredited
conformity assessment bodies. This data also serves as the basis for calculating the membership fees of IAF/ILAC
and the RACs. The IAF and the ILAC regularly publish this data in an aggregated form to show the development of
accreditation worldwide and in the world regions respectively.
41 There are a total of nine metrological disciplines: Acoustics, Ultrasound, Vibration (AUV), Electricity and Magnetism (EM), Length (L), Mass and related quantities (M),
Photometry and Radiometry (PR), Chemistry and Biology (QM), Ionizing and Radiation (RI), Thermometry (T), Time and Frequency (TF).
42 The ISO Survey includes data on twelve management standards: ISO 9001:2015 - Quality Management Sys-tem (QMS), ISO 14001:2015 - Environmental Management System
(EMS), ISO/IEC 27001:2013 - Infor-mation Technology - Security Techniques - Information Security Management Systems (ITMS), ISO 22000:2018 - Food Safety Management
Systems (FMS), ISO 45001:2018 - Occupational Health and Safety (OHSMS), ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Devices Quality Management Systems (MDMS), ISO 50001:2018 - Energy
Management Systems (EnMS), ISO 22301:2019 - Security and Resilience - Business Continuity Man-agement Systems (BCMS), ISO 20000-1:2011 - Information Technology -
Service Management (ITSM), ISO 28000: 2007 - Specications for Security Management Systems for the Supply Chain (SMSC). ISO 37001:2016 - Anti-bribery Management
Systems (ABMS), ISO 39001:2012 - Road Trafc Safety Management Systems (RTSMS).
43 ILAC 2020: ILAC MRA 2019 ANNUAL REPORT, This gure does not include medical laboratories, PT providers, and reference material
Figure 5: Total Number of CABs accredited by ILAC 43
Testing Calibration Medical Inspection PTP
The number of signatories to the ILAC MRA by scope of signatory status is shown below.
There has also been a corresponding growth in the number of laboratories and inspection
bodies that are accredited by ILAC MRA signatories.
Accreditated testing laboratories (IS0/IEC 17025)
Accreditated medical testing laboratories (ISO 15189)
Accreditated proficiency testing providers (ISO/IEC 17043)
Accreditated calibration laboratories (ISO/IEC 17025)
Accreditated inspection bodies (ISO/IEC 17020)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Figure 6: IAF infographic on accreditation data. Reference
IAF MLA 209
IA Multilateral Recognition Arrangement (MLA)
       
            
 
            
  
74 Signatories 
64 signatory AB
70 Signatory AB
36 signatory AB
28 signatory AB
1S0/IEC 17029,
 1S0/IEC TS 17021-10 ISO 45001.
 
 
      
 
0  O 
   
 ן  ן  ן  ן ן 
Unfortunately, IAF/ILAC do not publish this data disaggregated at the level of the economy. Therefore the GQII team
had no choice but to read the data on the websites of 164 accreditation bodies themselves. Not every country has
its own national accreditation body, while other countries have several accreditation bodies. The authors used the
obligation of accreditation bodies according to ISO/IEC 17011:2017 that they “...should provide detailed information
on criteria and procedures for the assessment and accreditation of conformity assessment bodies.” In principle, lists
of accredited conformity assessment bodies, including their scope, can be found on accreditation bodies’ websites.
However, the information is not structured uniformly and is not designed for statistical evaluation.
To validate the correctness of their data collection, the authors wrote to the accreditation bodies after the census and
asked them to validate their numbers. Accreditation bodies of seventy-four (74) economies validated the numbers the
authors collected. In the GQII database, you will nd corresponding information if the national accreditation body has
validated the numbers. The authors were also able to cross-check their data with two of the RACs, AFRAC and IAAC.
For the GQII, they collected data for a total of seventeen (17) accreditation scopes (see Table 5).
Table 5: Accreditation arrangements and levels
Reference: Authors’ elaboration based on IAF MLA Status 23/02/2011 and ILA-R6:05/2019
Product Certication ISO/IEC 17065:2012 GLOBALG.A.P IFA
General Regulations V4
Points and Compliance
Criteria V4
Management System
Certication ISO/IEC 17021-1:2015
ISO/TS 22003:2013 ISO 22000:2018, 2005 (FSMS)
ISO/TS 22003:2013 FAMI-QS
Rules for Certication Bodies
Version 8
FAMI-QS Certication
Scheme Code Version 6
ISO/IEC 17021-3:2017 ISO 9001:2015 (QMS)
ISO/IEC 17021-2:2016 ISO 14001:2015 (EMS)
ISO/IEC 27006:2015 ISO/IEC 27001:2013 (ISMS)
ISO 5003:2014 ISO 50001:2018, 2011 (EnMS)
ISO 13485:2016 (MDMS)
ISO/IEC TS 17021-10:2018 ISO 45001:2018 (previous
OHSAS 18001)
ISO/TS 2003:2013 FSSC
Scheme Part 3 – Requirements
for the Certication Process
FSSC Scheme Part 4 –
Requirements for Certication
FSSC Scheme Part 2 –
Requirements for
organizations to be audited
Person Certication ISO/IEC 17024:2012 IPC PL-11-006
Validation and Verication
ISO 14065:2013
IV V1, ISP 14064-3:2006; ISO
16 Volume IV VI
ISO/IEC 17029:2019
ISO/IEC 17025
Scope of accreditation
ISO 15189
ISO 22870
Calibration ISO/IEC 17025
ISO 15195
Inspection ISO/IEC 17020
Prociency Testing ISO/IEC 17043
Reference Material Production ISO 17034
For the index itself, the authors selected four metrics, namely the total number of accredited conformity assessment
bodies for products (ISO/IEC 17065), management systems (ISO/IEC 17021), calibration laboratories (ISO/IEC 17025)
and testing laboratories (ISO 17025). For a detailed analysis of an accreditation body’s technical competence, the
remaining data can be found in the GQII database.
From a developmental perspective, the authors wanted to record the use of accreditation in countries that do not have
their own accreditation body or whose accreditation body is only in the process of being established. In this regard,
the authors also always recorded the location when assigning the data on the accredited conformity assessment
bodies and attributing the value to the target country. A detailed study of cross-border accreditation (Harmes-Liedtke,
Matta 2020) complements these procedures and facilitates the interpretation of the information from the GQII.
A specic challenge is to attribute the data from bi-national and regional accreditation bodies to individual economies.
In the case of the Joint Accreditation System of Australia and New Zea-land (JAS-ANZ), the authors weighted the
number according to the conformity assessment bodies accredited from each country. They attributed 90% of JAS-
ANZ accreditations to Aus-tralia and 10% to New Zealand.
Another case is the Southern African Development Community Accreditation Services (SAD-CAS) which is a not-
for-prot company registered in 2005 in Gaborone, Botswana. This mul-ti-economy accreditation body provides
accreditation services for fourteen countries, namely Angola, Botswana; Comoros, Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), Lesotho, Madagas-car, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, Eswatini (Swaziland), Tanzania, Zambia and
Zimbabwe. In this case, where possible the authors attributed the accreditations to the country where the CABs are
headquartered. The accreditations of SADCAS outside the region they have attributed to Botswana, the headquarters
of the accrediting body.
The formula includes indicators on metrology, standardization and accreditation
A core part of the GQII is the formula that calculates the relative level of development of an economy’s QI. The formula
is based on the simplifying assumption that three components, namely metrology, standardization and accreditation,
contribute equally to the QI system. The authors calculated a sub-index that expresses the relative level of development
of metrology, standardization and an economy’s accreditation for each element.
Figure 7: The GQII formula45
𝑀!+!+..!+ &!+. .
𝑀!+𝑀. .!+!×1
𝑀!+!+17065 !+17021 !+. .
The metrology component consists of ve indicators, which the author’s weight equally:
(1) Membership in the international and regional metrology organizations
(2) Membership in the CIPM Consultative Committees
(3) Coverage of the areas of Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMC)
(4) Number of Key & Supplementary Comparisons
(5) Number of accredited calibration laboratories in the country
The standardization component is made up of three equally weighted indicators:
(1) Membership in international standards organizations (ISO, IEC).
(2) Participation in ISO Technical Committees
(3) Number of companies certied for management standards
The accreditation component is made up of ve equally weighted indicators:
(1) Membership in or signatories to international or regional accreditation organizations
(2) Coverage of internationally recognized accreditation schemes
(3) Number of accredited conformity assessment bodies for product certication (ISO 17065)
(4) Number of accredited conformity assessment bodies for management systems (ISO 17021)
(5) Number of accredited conformity assessment bodies for testing laboratories (ISO 17025)
Indicators 3, 4 and 5 refer to the number of accredited conformity assessment bodies and are calculated together as
one sub-indicator.
The current formula essentially follows the proven measurement concept of the authors’ two previous publications.
However, the current formula takes into account the critique on its pre-decessors and has the following special features:
The information on membership is now directly assigned to the technical components.
The weight of the absolute numbers is reduced, for example by taking only the coverage into account instead of
the number of CMCs. In the area of accreditation, coverage has also been added as a new parameter.
Weighting with the population is dispensed with because the correlation of the individu-al measures with the
population is generally weak. Medium-sized and smaller countries can cover all components.
The attractiveness of the formula lies in the fact that it
refers solely to QI measures. To ensure the relevance
of the index, the authors followed the guidelines of the
JRC-OECD handbook and selected the baseline data
to cover an appropriate range of areas in a balanced
manner (Joint Research Centre-European Commission
and OECD, 2008, 49).
The authors presented and validated the formula of
the GQII to international experts and representatives
of accreditation bodies and metrology institutes in two
The formula refers exclusively to QI metrics
workshops. In the process, they addressed various points
of criticism and modied the original formula. Ultimately,
the decision in favour of a particular formula is always
subjective, and especially the ranking of countries should
always be viewed with a certain degree of caution.
Nevertheless, the authors consider this formula to be the
best expression of the relationship between the level of
development of different countries and components of
national quality infrastructures. The consolidation of the
formula will then make it possible in the coming years to
compare the GQII data over time.
The nal score produced by the GQII formula is an average of the various positions that
each economy obtains in the different sub-areas of the QI captured by the indicator. The
authors transform the counts and percentages that emerge from the data collection and
convert them into percentile ranks, that is, into a position within an ordered row with a
minimum of 0 and a maximum of 1. Thus if a country excels in metrology, standards and
accreditation, it will have a score that will leave it very high in the overall GQII table. To
achieve this, the economy must lead in each of the subcomponents that comprises each
term of the formula.
This methodology solves two problems in the construction of the indicator: rst, it allows
us to normalize, i.e. to bring together in a single calculation metrics that are different
(e.g., number of laboratories and number of ISO certicates); and second, it allows
us to attenuate to a large extent the size effect that exists in the QI phenomenon. For
example, a country like China has 1 390 calibration laboratories (including cross-border),
which, compared to Uruguay with 11 laboratories, means 126 times more. However, when
applying the percentile ranks to both values, the discrepancy drops to less than double, i.e.
while China occupies the 99th position in a row that goes up to 100, Uruguay reaches the
64th position in the global list. Ultimately, if the authors look at each country’s placing on
the list, the discrepancy is only 55%. They prefer this methodological approach over other
options such as weighting by population size or GDP.
Economies can be ranked according to their QI development
The GQII ranks the 184 economies according to the relative development of their QI. Based on the formula, a score is
calculated for each economy based on its position in the three sub-rankings for metrology, standards and accreditation.
An economy that ranks rst in all areas would achieve a score of 100. In the GQII 2020, the top-ranked economy
(Germany) achieves a score of 99.5, while the bottom-ranked economies (Solomon Islands, South Sudan and Timor-
Leste) have a combined score of 24.
Figure 8: GQII map46
46 Authors elaboration
47 The authors chose blue and orange rather than the usual trafc light colors to avoid misinterpreting the level of development of an economy's QI
as better or worse. The GQII is a value-free indicator of the relative devel-opment of QI. Another question is whether this level of development is
appropriate to the needs of the local industry.
Quality Infrastructure World Overview
GQII 2020 over 184 economies
The map in Figure 9 shows the relative level of development of the economies’ quality infra-structure according to a
colour scale from dark blue (highly developed) to dark orange (less developed).47 The world overview shows a north-
south divide. North America and Western Europe have a highly developed quality infrastructure. In contrast, large
parts of Africa and parts of Latin America and Asia have several economies with less or barely developed QI. The QI
development level is high in Australia, Japan and in the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa).
At the same time, the authors see some economies that deviate from the general pattern on their continent. These
are often relatively small economies that source QI services heavily from their larger neighbours. Examples are Belize,
Iceland, Lichtenstein and Tajikistan. In these cases, a lower rank does not mean that local businesses will not get the
services they need. Other outliers such as Venezuela show the consequences of ongoing local political and institutional
The complete ranking can be reviewed on the following pages:
Economy GQII 2020 Rank GQII 2020 Rank GQII Metrology Rank GQII Standard Rank GQII
Germany 99,5 1 2 2 2
China 99,4 2 3 1 3
US 98,9 3 1 10 1
UK 98,8 4 6 3 5
Japan 98,0 5 4 4 13
Korea, Republic of 97,2 6 7 8 14
Italy 97,0 7 16 4 4
France 97,0 8 4 6 20
Spain 96,4 9 12 8 10
India 95,6 10 19 7 9
Australia 95,4 11 8 19 6
Poland 95,3 12 15 12 7
Czech Republic 95,2 13 14 11 12
Brazil 93,8 14 9 16 26
Netherlands 93,7 15 21 12 15
Canada 93,6 16 10 27 16
Switzerland 93,0 17 13 14 33
Mexico 92,6 18 16 40 8
Hungary 92,4 19 18 19 18
South Africa 92,3 20 11 30 22
Turkey 91,6 21 25 21 17
Romania 91,3 22 25 14 30
Sweden 91,2 23 19 17 35
Russian Federation 90,5 24 31 18 23
Austria 89,6 25 22 25 37
Indonesia 89,2 26 35 36 18
Finland 88,9 27 22 28 38
Slovak Republic 88,6 28 34 29 32
Thailand 88,5 29 24 24 44
Colombia 88,5 30 42 31 21
Singapore 88,0 31 25 44 31
Ukraine 87,9 32 28 48 28
Belarus 87,8 33 30 45 26
Greece 87,7 34 42 35 23
Portugal 87,6 35 32 23 46
Belgium 87,3 36 46 25 34
New Zealand 87,0 37 38 52 11
Bulgaria 86,7 38 39 33 39
Serbia 86,4 39 33 39 45
Malaysia 86,3 40 37 21 50
Argentina 86,2 41 29 31 49
Denmark 86,2 42 35 41 42
Norway 84,1 43 48 38 47
Egypt 83,9 44 41 43 48
GQII 2020 | Global Ranking and Sub Rankings
Chile 83,6 45 47 49 40
Ireland 83,3 46 49 42 43
Slovenia 80,4 47 44 54 54
Israel 80,1 48 55 33 65
Kazakhstan 80,1 49 44 65 25
Philippines 77,9 50 63 45 57
United Arab Emirates 77,4 51 62 53 51
Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of 77,2 52 58 45 72
Peru 76,8 53 56 55 61
Viet Nam 76,8 54 60 64 36
Iran 74,9 55 85 36 68
Pakistan 74,3 56 82 50 60
Lithuania 74,2 57 52 70 53
Kenya 73,8 58 53 62 64
Taiwan (Province of China) 72,6 59 40 114 29
Uruguay 72,2 60 50 73 63
Tunisia 71,7 61 59 63 71
Sri Lanka 71,3 62 74 60 59
Ecuador 71,0 63 57 76 56
Croatia 70,9 64 51 50 135
Luxembourg 70,3 65 88 57 66
Costa Rica 69,4 66 61 88 52
Hong Kong, China 68,6 67 54 115 41
Qatar 68,3 68 79 59 84
Morocco 68,1 69 65 67 86
Bosnia and Herzegovina 67,8 70 67 67 83
Nigeria 66,7 71 116 56 75
Cyprus 66,5 72 114 69 55
Algeria 65,9 73 122 58 73
North Macedonia 65,9 73 69 86 67
Oman 64,3 75 91 61 102
Bangladesh 64,0 76 82 82 70
Malta 63,9 77 98 81 69
Albania 62,6 78 75 105 58
Zimbabwe 62,4 79 80 94 76
Georgia 62,3 80 68 101 74
Mauritius 62,2 81 88 89 79
Uzbekistan 61,8 82 81 108 62
Ghana 61,3 83 97 89 80
Jordan 61,2 84 135 72 81
Ethiopia 61,2 85 94 86 87
Bolivia, Plurinational State of 60,8 86 87 95 90
Panama 60,6 87 78 82 109
Côte d’Ivoire 60,6 88 123 76 78
Estonia 60,3 89 76 66 137
Bahrain, Kingdom of 60,1 90 103 80 96
Azerbaijan 60,0 91 70 111 82
Economy GQII 2020 Rank GQII 2020 Rank GQII Metrology Rank GQII Standard Rank GQII
Kuwait, the State of 60,0 92 84 93 101
Uganda 59,9 93 127 75 89
Tanzania 59,9 94 96 84 97
Mongolia 59,6 95 101 84 95
Namibia 58,1 96 85 108 92
Latvia 58,0 97 76 79 136
Iceland 57,9 98 132 78 99
Cuba 57,3 99 63 74 139
Lebanese Republic 57,1 100 155 91 92
Dominican Republic 57,1 101 119 102 77
Trinidad and Tobago 57,1 102 99 96 105
Jamaica 56,9 103 91 105 97
Paraguay 56,8 104 72 124 91
Moldova, Republic of 55,9 105 73 97 134
Iraq 55,9 106 71 71 143
Botswana 55,7 107 88 112 104
El Salvador 55,4 108 125 100 94
Montenegro 54,8 109 66 92 138
Sudan 54,5 110 102 99 122
Guatemala 53,3 111 114 124 88
Senegal 53,1 112 127 104 110
Armenia 53,0 113 137 98 115
Zambia 52,5 114 93 130 108
Rwanda 52,2 115 127 117 103
Cameroon 51,5 116 137 102 125
Democratic Republic of the Congo 51,4 117 137 105 117
Malawi 51,2 118 120 120 107
Suriname 51,2 119 104 124 111
Honduras 50,1 120 127 131 100
Seychelles 50,0 121 94 143 114
Gabon 49,6 122 127 119 125
Mali 49,2 123 137 112 129
Benin 49,0 124 123 122 123
Cambodia 48,8 125 132 128 113
Kyrgyz Republic 48,7 126 125 154 84
Macao, China 48,6 127 135 133 111
Angola 48,6 128 120 136 118
Bahamas 47,7 129 137 131 120
Mozambique 47,7 130 137 137 116
Eswatini 46,8 131 118 156 106
Guyana 46,3 132 104 150 123
Madagascar 46,2 133 137 141 120
Myanmar 45,9 134 157 120 132
Togo 45,5 135 137 143 125
Afghanistan 44,2 136 157 138 128
Liechtenstein 43,5 137 157 148 119
Barbados 42,2 138 104 115 151
Economy GQII 2020 Rank GQII 2020 Rank GQII Metrology Rank GQII Standard Rank GQII
Syrian Arab Republic 40,9 139 100 118 160
Nicaragua 40,8 140 117 145 140
Saint Lucia 40,5 141 104 124 149
Cabo Verde 40,2 142 157 162 132
Nepal 40,0 143 157 110 146
Congo 39,8 144 157 164 130
Lesotho 39,8 145 137 171 131
Palestinian Territories 38,9 146 157 135 142
Burkina Faso 37,8 147 137 122 153
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of 37,3 148 156 150 141
Fiji 34,4 149 157 129 160
Burundi 34,3 150 137 140 160
Bhutan 34,0 151 157 134 160
Papua New Guinea 33,8 152 157 153 145
Brunei Darussalam 33,7 153 157 138 155
Dominica 33,6 154 104 157 160
Belize 33,5 155 104 173 148
Saint Kitts and Nevis 33,3 156 104 160 160
Libya 33,3 157 132 163 150
Niger 33,0 158 137 152 155
Grenada 32,6 159 104 173 152
Vanuatu 32,6 159 157 142 160
Mauritania 32,2 161 157 147 155
Lao People’s Democratic Republic 32,1 162 157 146 160
Haiti 32,0 163 137 155 160
Tajikistan 31,9 164 137 159 155
Kosovo 31,7 165 157 181 144
Guinea 31,6 166 157 165 147
Yemen 31,5 167 137 166 154
Sierra Leone 31,3 168 157 149 160
Antigua and Barbuda 30,7 169 104 176 160
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 30,5 170 104 178 160
Gambia 30,2 171 157 158 160
Chad 30,0 172 137 167 160
Maldives 29,9 173 157 161 160
Equatorial Guinea 29,2 174 137 171 160
Central African Republic 29,1 175 137 173 160
Liberia 28,2 176 157 168 160
Djibouti 28,1 177 157 169 160
Somalia 28,0 178 157 170 160
Guinea-Bissau 27,8 179 157 176 155
Samoa 27,3 180 157 178 160
Tonga 27,3 180 157 178 160
Solomon Islands 27,0 182 157 181 160
South Sudan 27,0 182 157 181 160
Timor-Leste 27,0 182 157 181 160
Economy GQII 2020 Rank GQII 2020 Rank GQII Metrology Rank GQII Standard Rank GQII
Metrology, standardisation and accreditation are usually equally developed
Looking at the sub-rankings, there is a remarkable coherence in the positions. If a country has well-developed
metrology, standardization and accreditation are usually also well developed. The same applies to medium and low
development. There are some exceptions here: in some African countries (Algeria, Jordan, Côte d’Ivoire, Lebanon and
Uganda), metrology is relatively weak compared to standardization and accreditation. Conversely, the small states in
the Carib-bean benet from the fact that the CARICOM Regional Organization for Standards and Quality (CROSQ) is a
member of the BIMP and thus shows a higher value in metrology than the other components. Other outliers we see are
comparatively low values in the area of accreditation in Israel and the Kyrgyz Republic, or low values in standardization
for Hong Kong and Taiwan. The latter can be explained by the fact that these economies, as part of China, do not have
mem-bership in ISO. We attribute the relatively low value of the standard component in the US to the fact that this
economy has adopted fewer ISO/IEC standards (Choi and Puskar, 2014). 48
Due to modications of the formula and the expansion of the economies included, the GQII does not yet allow any
statements to be made about the evolution of the ranking positions. However, in future editions of the GQII, this will
be done explicitly, so that information can also be provided on ascenders and descenders in the ranking. The authors
emphasize that the rank of an economy in the GQII only offers limited information about QI development. The general
ranking position and the characteristics of the ranks of the components give the rst impression. The GQII database
contains additional information that can be used for a more differentiated analysis. Finally, the assessment of the QI of
an economy should always be supplemented by qualitative expert analyses.
48 „The ... alignment ratio (15.5%) of the US is low compared to that of its major trade partners. Canada adopt-ed 1 376 ISO standards, representing 36.4% of its 3 776 national
standards, with 43 at the end of December 2008. Today it is estimated that around 35% of Canada’s national standards are harmonized with ISO and IEC44. Other trading
partners have similarly high rates of harmonization. In 2009, the rate of ISO/IEC harmo-nization was 28% by China, 63% by Japan and 55% by Korea.”
Medians are the 50th percentiles, i.e. the values in the middle of a row, ordered from the lowest to the high-est.
QI data can be compared with other global rankings
A particular interest for the readers of the GQII is to capture the relationship between QI and economic development.
The GQII offers the possibility to compare QI data with other globally available statistics and rankings. For this report,
the authors examined the correlation of the GQII with the gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, exports of goods
and services and the Economic Complexity Index (ECI). For a better understanding, the correlation graphs have been
divided into quadrants in each case. The dashed lines show the medians (and not the means, as the data distribution
is asymmetrical for exports and GDP per capita. Conversely, GQII scores are very well behaved since their distribution
looks at, very symmetrical and therefore homogenous.
Correlation between GQII and GDP per capita
People may think that the development of QI in a country depends on the wealth of the country. However, the
correlation between GQII and GDP per person is 0.58. According to a socio-scientic study, a value of more than 0.5
indeed suggests a correlation of effects. Nevertheless, there is only a diffuse correlation between GDP per capita
and QI. In the following, it will be shown that QI has so far only been of particular importance for certain areas of an
There are several wealthy economies with poorly developed QI. Macao, Brunei Darussalam and the Bahamas are smaller
economies with a less diversied economy. These countries also often use QI services provided by their neighbours.
Conversely, there are several poorer countries with comparatively well-developed QI. These include larger economies
such as India, Indonesia, Kenya and Ukraine. In these countries, QI is often targeted at the economy’s strong and
dynamic sectors but does not necessarily reach the informal sector and peripheral areas. In the end, the prosperity of
an economy says little about the development of its QI.
Figure 9: GQII and GDP per capita
Figure 10: GQII and exports
Correlation between GQII and exports
In contrast to the previous graph, in Figure 10 the
correlation between the relative level of QI development
and exports is signicant and particularly pronounced,
with a correlation of 0.89.
Only a few outliers can be found in the graph. Examples
are Libya, which has been politically unstable since the
military intervention in 2011, and the metropolis and
Chinese special admin-istrative region of Hong Kong.
The strong relationship between QI and exports is
plausible since a functioning QI is one of the World
Trade Organization’s requirements. The World Trade
Organization and bilateral and multilateral trade
agreements explicitly refer to the use of mutual recognition
of accredited con-formity assessment services.
Although no conclusions can be drawn from a correlation,
the graph gives the impression that the economies
develop their QI according to their export activity.
Correlation between Global Quality Infrastructure and Economic Complexity
The Economic Complexity Index (ECI) measures the intensity of an economy in terms of the knowledge it incorporates
in the products it exports. This indicator predicts economic growth (Hausmann et al., 2013) and explains variations in
international income inequality (Hartmann and Hidalgo, 2017). With a value of 0.79, the correlation between GQII and
ECI is also signi-cantly positive, although slightly weaker than for exports.
In several economies (China, Poland, Mauritania), the development of QI corresponds to that of economic complexity.
In economies that are heavily based on natural resources (e.g. Austral-ia, Azerbaijan, Nigeria and Peru), we observe
that QI is comparatively well developed com-pared to the level of complexity of the economy.
In high-tech countries (Japan, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Germany and the US), QI is more agile when it comes
to the economies’ degree of complexity. This may well be the case, since for technological excellence, in addition
to QI services, other institutions of the Science Technology and Innovation (STI) system are also well developed and
take on corresponding tasks. In the case of developing and transition countries (Bosnia and Herzegovina, El Salvador,
Eswatini and Liberia), which have a more developed QI compared to the degree of complexity, the question is whether
QI is a future investment, and could become the enabler of greater di-versication of the economy.
Overall, the comparison of the GQII data with the other rankings conrms the strong correla-tion between a country’s
economic performance and the relative level of development of its quality infrastructure. For further editions of the
GQII, it will be interesting to observe this cor-relation and the individual performance of economies over time.
Figure 11: GQII and Economic Complexity Index
A milestone of global QI measurement
Data collection has given insights into data transparency and quality
The GQII-Index 2020, covering 184 countries, is a
milestone in measuring the relative devel-opment status
of QI worldwide, building on earlier versions and research
over the past ten years. International development
cooperation organizations active in this eld will obtain an
evidence-based overview for their programs and projects.
The data from the GQII can be used, for example, in the
project design for a baseline study. In the context of
regional projects, the GQII data allow benchmarking and
mutual learning. Simultaneously, the data and ranking
serve the QI organizations themselves to assess their
current relative development status.
This study conrms the strong correlation between QI
development and a country’s export ca-pacity. Leading
export economies such as the US, China and Germany
are at the top of the global QI ranking, as expected.
While this relationship does not suggest a correlation, it
does clearly indicate that an increase in exports requires
correlation with a more robust national QI system.
The collection of data has provided us with valuable insights regarding data transparency and quality. For metrology,
the KCDB in its new version is a reliable and easily accessible source. We have learned that measuring the number of
CMCs is not necessarily a good indicator of an economy’s metrological competence. The CMC coverage indicator
which the authors have de-veloped, on the other hand, is meaningful as metrology experts have conrmed.
In standardization, the ISO Survey data are informative as they document the use of manage-ment standards by
companies. Since these data are based on a survey, and it is not clear which certication bodies provided information,
misinterpretations can occur. However, these can be mitigated if the current ISO Survey data for an economy is
compared with the comparative data from previous years.
This study required the collection of a number of accredited conformity assessment bodies by consulting the website
of 165 accreditation bodies worldwide. Today there is no standardized and transparent presentation of the data. To
Given the correlation, it should be convincing for
policymakers to invest resources in QI. At the same time,
additional analysis is always needed to better understand
the correlation between QI investments and economic
development. Policymakers in economies with high
QI invest-ments and relatively low dynamism may ask
whether the investments have been used effective-ly
and efciently. This is where the GQII data can provide
valuable input.
The position of an economy in the GQII provides a rough
guide to the development status of QI in a country. For a
detailed analysis, it is advisable to evaluate all the data of
the GQII and its sources in detail. Qualitative information
and expert assessments should always be consulted
when analysing the QI of an economy. It is also interesting
to see to what extent the different components of QI
are developing similarly and how differences in the
state of development of metrology, standardization and
accreditation can be explained.
enable possible data transparency, the authors recommend that the national accreditation bodies develop a guideline
for data collection and presentation and that the statistics of the international and regional accreditation organizations
be published at the level of individual organizations and economies. Publication of this data would lead to more
transparency and condence in accreditation. In fact, the impression is that the publication of accreditation data has
induced some accreditation bodies to take greater care in the publication of their data and to make their websites
more user friendly.
Ranking economies according to the relative level of development of their QI, is somewhat con-troversial. Some
experts whom the authors consulted fear that the ranking could be criticized by representatives of less highly ranked
economies. Again, this ranking does not allow any direct qualitative conclusion as “the higher, the better”; for small
economies with limited trade such as Bhutan, for instance, rank 151 may be perfectly acceptable.
The choice of indicators could also be questioned. It is certain that the assessment of the relative level of development
of the QI of an economy is always associated with a certain degree of measurement uncertainty. On the other hand, the
use of various sub-indicators ensures that the overall assessment of a country’s QI is accurate. Thus the experts in focus
groups on accredita-tion and metrology have basically conrmed the plausibility of the ranking of the economies.
QI development and export correlation justify development cooperation efforts
A ranking of the relative level of development of QIs is needed to compare them with other rankings. The signicant
correlation of QI development with export performance and the com-plexity of the economies is ultimately a
justication for development cooperation to continue investing in the expansion of QIs. It will be interesting to observe
this correlation as well as the individual performance of economies over time.
The GQII database and ranking is a vital step towards basing the promotion of QI on evidence. The database provides
valuable data that can be used for different types of analysis. Analogous to business intelligence, we see great
potential for a technology-driven process for analysing data and presenting actionable information that helps QI body
representatives, policymakers and leaders make informed business decisions. The GQII offers an open platform to
promote data-driven QI development.
See Acknowledgements.
Each county prole contains basic information on the respective economy, such as the ofcial name, the ag, a prole
of the territory and data on population, GDP per capita and exports. The focus is on information on the relative state of
development of the national quality infra-structure and its components (metrology, standards and accreditation). For
each of these com-ponents, the respective rank among the 184 countries is expressed. The graphs also show the score
value and the distribution of all the economies. Each chart also gives the names and icons of the central institutions of
the national QIs and the indicators used in the GQII formula.
In the eld of metrology, the country prole shows whether and since when the NMI has been a member of the
CIPM and in what percentage of the total of ten Consultative Committees of the CIPM the NMI is represented. The
coverage of the Calibration and Measurement Capabilities (CMCs) indicates the percentage of the nine metrological
areas that have registered their own CMCs. Added to this are the absolute numbers of key and supplementary
comparisons regis-tered with the BIPM and the number of accredited calibration laboratories in the country.
In the eld of standardisation, the country prole records the membership in ISO as well as the number of ISO technical
committees in which representatives of the economy participate as full members or observers. The number of certied
ISO management systems in the country are also included.
In the area of accreditation, the prole records whether the country is a signatory to an MRA or MLA. The coverage
of the Conformity Assessment bodies is the percentage that a country co-vers of the sixteen accreditation scopes
covered. Added to this are the absolute numbers of con-formity assessment bodies accredited in the country for
product certication, management sys-tems and test laboratories.
BMZ 2004. Quality Infrastructure, Conformity Assessment – Metrology, Standardization, Testing, Quality Management (MSTQ). Bonn.
CHOI, D. G. 2013. A Primer on Korea’s Standards System: Standardization, Conformity Assessment, and Metrology. Washington DC: NIST.
CHOI, D. G., HYUN, O.-S., HONG, J.-I. & KANG, B.-G. 2014. Standards as catalyst for national innovation and performance–a capability assessment
framework for latecomer countries. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 25, 969-985.
CHOI, D. G. & PUSKAR, E. 2014. A Review of USA Participation in ISO and IEC, US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and
CHUGH, R. & GRANDHI, S. 2013. Why Business Intelligence?: Signicance of Business Intelligence Tools and Integrating BI Governance with
Corporate Governance. International Journal of E-Entrepreneurship and Innovation (IJEEI), 4, 1-14.
DE BRITO, A. C., KAUFFMANN, C. & PELKMANS, J. 2016. The contribution of mutual recognition to international regulatory co-operation, OECD
Regulatory Policy Working Papers No. 2, Paris.
FROTA, M., RACINE, J.-L., BLANC, F., RODRIGUES, P., IBRAGIMOV, S., TORKHOV, D. & OSAVOLYUK, S. Assessment of the Ukrainian quality
infrastructure: challenges imposed by the WTO and commitments to EU accession. Key engineering materials, 2010. Trans Tech Publ, 611-615.
GUASCH, J. L., RACINE, J.-L., SANCHEZ, I. & DIOP, M. 2007. Quality systems and standards for a competitive edge, The World Bank, Washington DC.
HACKEL, S., HÄRTIG, F., HORNIG, J. & WIEDENHÖFER, T. 2017. The digital calibration certicate. PTB-Mitt, 127, 75-81.
HARMES-LIEDTKE, U. & OTEIZA DI MATEO, J. J. 2019. Measurement and performance of Quality Infrastructure. A proposal for a global quality
infrastructure. Buenos Aires and Duisburg: Mesopartner and Analyticar.
HARMES-LIEDTKE, U. & OTEIZA DI MATTEO, J. J. 2011. Measurement of Quality Infrastructure. Discusion Paper. Braunschweig: Physikalisch-
Technische Bundesanstalt.
HARTMANN, D. & HIDALGO, C. 2017. Economic complexity, institutions and income inequality. In: LOVE, P. & STOCKDALE OTÁROLA, J. (eds.)
Debate the Issues: Complexity and policy making. Paris.
HAUSMANN, R., HIDALGO, C. A., BUSTOS, S., COSCIA, M., SIMOES, A. & YILDIRIM, M. A. 2013. The Atlas of Economic Complexity. Mapping paths
to prosperity, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
JOINT RESEARCH CENTRE-EUROPEAN COMMISSION & OECD. 2008. Handbook on constructing composite indicators: methodology and user
guide, Paris, OECD publishing.
KELLERMANN, M. 2019. Ensuring Quality to Gain Access to the Global Market: A Reform Toolkit. Washington and Braunschweig: World Bank and
NEDLAC 2001. Review of the South African Standards, Quality Assurance, Accreditation and Metrology (SQAM) Infrastructure. Pretoria
POTTS, J., LYNCH, M., HUPPÉ, G., CUNNINGHAM, M. & VOORA, V. 2014. The State of Sustainability Initiatives Review. London, International Institute
for Environment and Development , IIED
The role of ICP-MS in inorganic chemical metrology. Metrologia, 56, 034005.
SCHWAB, K. 2017. The fourth industrial revolution, New York. Crown Publishing Group
UNIDO 2020. Rebooting Quality Infrastructure for a sustainable future. Vienna.
YOUNG, R. J. 2020. Postcolonialism: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press: Oxford, New York.
Supported by:
For information on data and analytics on the quality infrastructure, visit
ISSN 2748-4866
... For the analysis to be as conclusive as possible, the data obtained by summing the indicators in the 3 directions were multiplied by the index obtained for each country as follows: competitiveness [56], innovations [57], and infrastructure [58], according to Table 2. The value obtained in each direction was multiplied by the value corresponding to the score obtained for each country from Table 2 according to Equations (5)- (7). ...
... where α is the global competitiveness index, β is the global innovations index, and γ is the global quality infrastructure index. The adjustment of data through indices allowed us to obtain values with a higher weight given the competitiveness needed to have sustainable industrialization, the innovations needed for innovation research, and infrastructure through quality according to indices in the literature [56][57][58]. ...
... This total value for each country is a composite indicator that better defines the country's level by cumulating the results obtained from SDG-9 with the score obtained for each country in terms of studies by international organizations [56][57][58]. After obtaining the composite indicators, the countries were grouped by levels of progress (high, moderate, or low) when the difference between one country and the next exceeded 8 units. ...
Full-text available
The need for sustainable development is a common concern for many countries, and the level reached by each country validates the efforts made and the effects of their associated well-being. In this study, an analysis of the indicators included in SDG-9 was performed, indicators that aim to achieve sustainable industrialization, increase research and innovation, and create a resilient infrastructure. The analysis used nine indicators that measure the situation of eight Eastern European countries during 2013–2019 to signal improvements or deteriorations in situations. The study used three working hypotheses that were verified and presented the evolution of countries in the aforementioned years. The results obtained led to the ranking of the countries by evaluating their economies from the perspective of the effects obtained by the method of sustainable development, thus categorizing the countries into ones with real, moderate, and low progress.
Full-text available The OECD’s New Approaches to Economic Challenges initiative invited experts from inside and outside the Organisation to discuss complexity theory as a means to better understand the interconnected nature of the trends and influences shaping our socio-economic environment. Their contributions, brought together here, examine the assumptions, strengths and shortcomings of traditional models, and propose a way to build new ones that would take into account factors such as psychology, history and culture neglected by these models. The authors concentrate on the discipline of economics as such; the financial system; and applications of complexity theory to policy making and governance. They argue that a new narrative is needed to integrate the hopes, values, attitudes and behaviours of people into economics along with the facts and data economists are more used to dealing with.
Full-text available
Business Intelligence (BI) is one of the fastest growing software sector and software vendors are rapidly developing multiple BI tools to support the growing data analysis needs of organisations. In order to be sustainable in a briskly changing turbulent environment, organisations need to have access to information about their operational performance. BI tools play a vital role in supporting the decision makers at different organisational levels. As these tools are becoming critical in decision making, it has become not only an information technology concern but also a management concern. Without proper governance it would be impractical to achieve the value that BI tools offer. Adopting a BI governance framework in organisations will lead to common principles and clear ownership over information. Additionally, appropriate alignment between corporate governance and BI governance can yield more benefits. This paper provides an insight into the importance and value of BI tools. Key functionalities of BI tools have also been highlighted. Different challenges in gaining true value from BI tools have been examined. Four phases of developing a BI governance framework have been illustrated. The alignment between BI governance and corporate governance has also been explored with a recommended model. Exploratory analysis of two organisations (Premier Healthcare Alliance & BellSouth Telecommunications) to identify how they have utilised BI tools and adopted BI governance has been briefly carried out. The paper posits that if the steps for developing a BI framework are adopted by organisations and the BI framework is aligned with the corporate framework, BI deployment and usage will be successful with reduced risk levels
Full-text available
The national standards and conformity assessment infrastructure in Ukraine is still largely based on a state-controlled system inherited from the former Soviet Union. This system differs significantly in form and function from the national standards and conformity assessment systems (or the national quality infrastructure) found in countries of the European Union and of the OECD. While in the latter group of countries the vast majority of national standards are of a voluntary nature and the national quality infrastructure operates as a highly-decentralized network of public and private institutions, the Ukrainian model emphasizes technical regulations (or mandatory standards) and is dominated by highly-centralized government institutions. The recent accession of Ukraine into the World Trade Organization (WTO) and commitment for integration into the European Union (EU) has motivated a comprehensive assessment of its national quality infrastructure. The main findings of a detailed assessment of the national quality infrastructure in Ukraine, which resulted from cooperation between the World Bank and the IFC Ukraine Business Enabling Environment Project, are summarized here.
Postcolonialism: A Very Short Introduction describes how people around the world have increasingly challenged the idea that Western perspectives are the only ones that count. It examines the history of that challenge, outlining the ideas behind it, and exploring how the histories and cultures of the world can be rethought in new, productive directions. This VSI situates the discussion in wide cultural and geographical contexts. It draws on examples such as the situation of indigenous peoples, of those dispossessed from their lands, Algerian raï music, and global social and ecological movements. This new edition also includes updated material on race, slavery, decoloniality, and the postcolonial politics of gender and sexualities.
A digital calibration certificate (DCC) serves for the electronic storage, the authenticated, encrypted and signed transmission and the uniform interpretation of calibration results. Under the leadership of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), a concept is being developed that will allow these data to be handled in the future. The target group are all facilities worldwide, which need proof of the metrological traceability of their measurement results. These include metrology institutes and designated institutes, national calibration offices, calibration laboratories and many facilities in industry that require proof of their quality management systems. The analogue calibration certificate has so far rarely generated a surplus value for a company since the data obtained during the calibration are time-consuming and error-prone. The DCC compensates for this crucial disadvantage of its analogue counterpart. Thanks to its machine readability, digitally supported production and quality monitoring processes are greatly supported. This creates a crucial added value for a company that uses the DCC. In addition to the structure of the DCC, special framework conditions must be laid down for its transfer. These include cryptographic protection procedures. They ensure the electronic transmission of the contents as well as the integrity and authenticity of the contents of the DCC. The core competency for appropriate procedures is not in the field of metrology institutes. For this purpose, previous results and external expertise will be used. However, the framework conditions are defined by the metrology institutes, taking legal requirements into consideration. The aim is to create an internationally recognized DCC format. This is to be established as an exchange format in the entire field of metrology. Based on the DCC, exchange formats should be developed in legal metrology, for digital type examination certificates and for the "digital twin" (DT), see Chapter 5. © 2018 Friedr. Vieweg und Sohn Verlags GmbH. All rights reserved.
This paper develops a framework for assessing national standards capability. The framework draws on total quality management (TQM) models as its theoretical basis and was developed through an expert group panel, interviews, and focus group workshops. To verify the framework, pilot implementation was conducted in four countries. The results show that the proposed framework is useful for measuring the strengths and weaknesses of overall capability per pillar and category in a national standards system. The paper contributes to the expansion of the TQM model in assessing national level capability by more effective evaluation and systematic development of national standards systems for developing countries.
A Primer on Korea's Standards System: Standardization, Conformity Assessment, and Metrology
  • D G Choi
CHOI, D. G. 2013. A Primer on Korea's Standards System: Standardization, Conformity Assessment, and Metrology. Washington DC: NIST.
A Review of USA Participation in ISO and IEC
  • D G Choi
  • E Puskar
CHOI, D. G. & PUSKAR, E. 2014. A Review of USA Participation in ISO and IEC, US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology.