Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Bill, and Brooks Carder set out an interesting and challenging thesis that Qualitologists have gone through some form of epiphany and conversion that “we know in our hearts we can help make this world work better.” As I read this I was intrigued, but with a nagging feeling that this was not the first time I had heard of Quality expressed in near-religious terms.
One gets the sense that many people of my generation who moved towards a career in Quality were influenced by Pirsig and ZAMM. For example when Persig writes of Quality in it greater context it is always capitalized. When discussed in a more prosaic smaller sense, it is in lower case. I thought this was a style of my own invention. Probably not.
Further in support, in the commentary of Brooks Calder that Bill includes in his entry, he says: “After all, … quality is responsible for many of the things that make life better.” And his proposal for a new ASQ mission statement includes: “To improve the function and value of goods and services worldwide, and to facilitate the development of new products and services that improve the quality of life.”
Parallel that with Pirsig who wrote: “A person who connects with Quality … is filled with gumption, or enthusiasm, which literally means filled with God”. A person filled with gumption doesn’t sit around and stewing about things. He is at the front of the train of his own awareness and watching to see what is up the track” and further, and perhaps more importantly, “when a person loses sight of Quality they lose enthusiasm for what they are doing”.
Not to get too far down the road or too much off the deep end, Pirsig’s philosophical view of quality had a sense dualism: that it was perhaps, in part subjective, a part of the mind, and at the same time was in part, objective, a part of the material world. Or it was neither and was a third entity and independent of both.
As a side note, Brooks uses the term “a bunch of nerd engineers” to describe the quality community. Perhaps a bit too self-diminishing. Pirsig saw Quality a little differently. Said Pirsig’s in his immediate post-sixties era phraseology “When you subtract Quality, you get squareness. Absence of Quality is the essence of squareness. We are not the nerds, indeed we are the hip.
And as a final note, Robert Pirsig, is 84 years old. He was interviewed by the BBC in 2012 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8zdT5jYlro) It is well worth watching. Should ASQ recognize him for his contributions to the study and recognition of Quality.
Monday, December 1, 2014
In 2011 I introduced into our Certificate Course the concept of medical laboratory Quality Partners to remind the participants that the laboratory is never alone when it comes to developing an shaping a quality managed laboratory. [see http://www.medicallaboratoryquality.com/2011/06/more-musings-on-quality-partners.html ]. I created a definition for these Quality Partners as the network of organizations that develop and promote and provide services and assistance with the goal of supporting an effective laboratory foundation that is conducive of better patient safety and care. The network includes Accreditation Bodies, Proficiency Testing Schemes, Education Providers, Professional Organizations, Materials Suppliers (including equipment and reagent bodies), and Standards Development Organizations. These bodies surround the laboratory and provide documents and guidance and education, and assessment and support. Taken as friends, these groups can help defray (mitigate) most of the risk of error that laboratorians bear when providing essential information that has direct impact on patient care and patient safety.
But about a year or so later, I realized that I had left out an essential quality driver… the Public and its representatives including the media, the regulators, and the legislators. As we have seen throughout many developed country, when the public experiences what it perceives as a loss of trust in the health system, change will inevitably result. In the United States, that loss of trust resulted in CLIA. In Canada it lead to a series of public enquiries including the Krever Commission and the Cameron Commission, both of which forced dramatic change. We may not like the results of all the media attention and consequent change, but an angry public will always have its way.
This lead to a revision of the Quality Partner graphic which indicates the light of public scrutiny exposing the potential warts and blemishes of laboratory error.
But recently I have realized that there is another driver that has great impact on Quality. Competition. I have written about this before. Unfortunately we have lots of examples that indicate that when an organization has an endless supply of customers, with essentially no threat or consequence to counteract indifferent behavior, then performance may sink to the lowest level.
I have mentioned before, the performance of some (but not all) public servants and other organizations. When left to their own devices, it seems to become all to easy to stop meeting the Crosbyan and ISO definition of Quality. i.e. Meeting Requirements.
Over the last while I have been on the road a lot, putting in a lot of air travel. In the last few weeks I have spent well over 50 hours sitting in economy section seating, as airplanes have flown nearly 30,000 miles.
Now I understand that airlines are all now public corporations, with their primary responsibility being to generate profit and benefit to their shareholders. And I also understand that running an airline is a risky and costly venture. There is an old adage that says, the easiest way to become a millionaire is to start as a billionaire who runs an airline. The reality is that while some airlines at the moment are experiencing a rise in stock value, this is not likely to be a permanent state of affairs. Sooner or later, most airline companies will lose their value and their investors will lose their money.
But as anyone who flies knows and understands, with the exception of the few business section travellers, customers are stuffed into seats too close together with little leg room. Meals are either available only for purchase or if provided are of questionable quality and literally tossed. There are insufficient toilets and insufficient cabin staff, insufficient luggage storage space and insufficient walking or exercise space.
Don’t like it? Then you have two choices, either pony-up thousands of dollars or don’t travel. Change to another airlines? No difference. They have you. There is no tangible competition because they all work the very same way.
But if you want to think of contrasting services in the travel industry, think about hotels and restaurants. Those owners know and understand you can spend your travel dollars anywhere you want, and the place with the most comfortable bed or the best food wins, regardless of which price point you look at.
So where there is competition the customer requirements are met, and where there is none, the customer has little choice but to tolerate the absence of meeting those needs or requirements.
And so I have again revised the Quality Partner graphic.
And so here is my question to medical laboratory management. We are a service industry, with by-and-large little competition. We can, if we choose, ignore patients’ complaints and concerns with relative impunity.
Which model do we want to follow, the airline or the restaurant/hotel?
The choice is ours.