I don’t normally use Wikipedia as a resource or for quoting but I think I’ll make an exception this time. Now, no doubt that certain industry standards can definitely promote quality but blind application (or not truly understanding them) can be disadvantageous. Since this is a humor site, let’s focus on the negative:

According to Seddon, ISO 9001 promotes specification, control, and procedures rather than understanding and improvement. Wade argues that ISO 9000 is effective as a guideline, but that promoting it as a standard “helps to mislead companies into thinking that certification means better quality, … [undermining] the need for an organization to set its own quality standards.” Paraphrased, Wade’s argument is that total, blind reliance on the specifications of ISO 9001 does not guarantee a successful quality system.

The standard is seen as especially prone to failure when a company is interested in certification before quality. Certifications are in fact often based on customer contractual requirements rather than a desire to actually improve quality. “If you just want the certificate on the wall, chances are, you will create a paper system that doesn’t have much to do with the way you actually run your business,” said ISO’s Roger Frost. Certification by an independent auditor is often seen as the problem area, and according to Barnes, “has become a vehicle to increase consulting services.” In fact, ISO itself advises that ISO 9001 can be implemented without certification, simply for the quality benefits that can be achieved.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9000

Just something to think about.