I disagree. In both cases, the problem is not the framework (or standard), it's the blind trust in it and the misconception that it's going to make you deliver higher quality.
The big problem with adopting quality frameworks* is that people adopt them to check a checkbox without understanding how they are supposed to work. Lousy but reproducible work is the result of doing the bare minimum to get certification. Unfortunately, that bare minimum is still a lot of effort because you have to document all your processes and keep records of your work. The real value comes from analyzing those painstakingly kept records to figure out where your problems are and updating your procedures to try to fix them.
I think this kind of checkbox compliance is why so many people hate quality frameworks. They go through a lot of trouble to get that checkbox, but because they only do the minimum the checkbox is all they get, and it's not a good return on their effort. It's only by moving on to continuous process improvement that the effort really pays off in improved quality.
*My experience is with cGMP for regulated drug manufacturing, but AFAIK most quality frameworks have the same general approach and outlook.