History of Quality - part 2

I was recently invited to participate in a meeting focused on the process of renewal and continual improvement for an organization responsible for Quality standards.  I assume that this is standard practice for all organizations committed to Quality, but there is that old adage about what happens when you ASSUME.  I won’t go there, but I will say full credit to the Canadian Standards Association for being prepared to both talk-the-talk and walk-the-walk. 

Anyways, during the introductory part of the meeting, a comment was made about CSA and Canada and its role and prominence in international Quality.  Not that Canada takes the responsibility as Secretariat for the ISO Technical Committee 176 (which it does) and not that Canada is a leader in Environmental Quality (which it is) but rather that ISO 9000, the cornerstone of all modern Quality Management was based upon a Canadian document specifically Can3 – Z299: 1985 Quality Assurance Program. 

That’s interesting, I thought that the source was another document, specifically BS5750.  Not only had I read that elsewhere but it was supported by information from the modern purveyor-of-all-knowledge (Wikipedia).  Wikipedia clearly and definitively states that the seed document to ISO9000 (first published in 1985) was the standard BSI 5750 published in 1979.  

The provenance of that document was the (US) Mil-Q-standard 9858 which was provided first to the pre-NATO structure (ABCA – America, Britain, Canada, Australia) and then to NATO where it became part of the Allied Quality Assurance Publications (AQAP) quality series.  

British Standards Institute (BSI) borrowed it from NATO to create its own quality document (BS 5179) which was later changed to (BS 5750).  [note: According to Joseph Juran: A History of Managing for Quality – 1995, 5750 was essentially a direct copy from NATO].  Britain then offered BS5750 as the  seed document for ISO9000.  Canada doesn’t come up anywhere, with the exception of being a part of ABCA and NATO.

What is missing here is that if you spend the time going to other sources, especially deep inside www.iso.org, you find the following: " When ISO/TC 176 embarked on the development of generic quality management standards for worldwide application it was able to take advantage of a substantial base of national experience notably in the United Kingdom and in Canada.

In the United Kingdom the BS 5750 standards were well on their way to broad acceptance and in Canada a series of national standards known as CSA Z299 were also widely used.”  

As I pursued further, it is clear that Z299 was a document developed from Mil-Q-9858 through NATO AQAP although, in contrast to BS5750 it was substantially changed to accommodate the new audience.  

I suspect what happened was that the ISO technical committee went on a search for seed documents Britain offered BS5750 and Canada offered Z299.1:1985.  Japan apparently also offered a document.  Based on these seeds, ISO 9000:1985 was created as a collective amalgam.  

All this basically makes sense.  The Quality seed document of note  was the US Mil-Q-9858, created by the US Military to improvement the Quality of companies selling products for military use.  By the language and structure, one can say almost definitively it was written either totally by W. Edwards Deming, or persons strongly influenced by Deming.  NATO used the document for similar purposes, but its potential value for civilian commercial guidance was acknowledged around the world.  Many countries, probably not limited to Britain and Canada created national documents.  I suspect (but can’t say with certainty) that Japan got to the same point not through Mil-Q- and NATO, but more likely from Deming directly.

CAN3 Z299.85 was first designed and written in the 1970’s but was published for the first time (?) in 1985, two years before ISO9000 series.  It is still available and still in circulation, and indeed is still being used as a certification standard today.  (Note that the US Military has dropped Mil-Q-9858 and replaced it with ISO9000).  Z299:1985 is not found in the current CSA catalogue.

So while perhaps the introductory comment was a bit of an overstatement, Canada’s role here has been under-recognized, probably by our own actions. 

It is not surprising that Canada’s role in this process has been missed in history.  It is a common Canadian trait to be at the forefront, but to hide in the background and let others take credit.  It is not a healthy trait.  

There are a few lessons here for me:  First off, the historical forefront and record of Quality does go through Canada and in particular through the Canadian Standards Association.  And second, don’t trust Wikipedia as an absolute source.  It is only as good as the author without a fact checker.  

As a final comment, someone at CSA or Standards Council of Canada could and should correct the Wikipedia record.  Credit when and where credit is due. 



Originally posted Nov 23, 2011.  Edited for grammar and spelling Feb 6, 2015

Learning the Past or Learning from the Past?

Paul Borawski is the CEO of the American Society for Quality.  He writes a blog “A view from the Q” which can be found through the ASQ website (www.ASQ.org).  In his offering from August 16^th, he asked an interesting question.

“The philosophy of modern quality reaches back to the late 1930s and 1940s. That’s not so long ago, but it might be ancient history. I’ve been in three large quality gatherings in the past year where the question was asked, “How many of you have heard of W. Edwards Deming?” I was shocked and saddened when less than a third of the hands went up. “How about Joseph M. Juran?” Fewer hands. It occurs to me that something isn’t right about that. Am I being nostalgic, or does the quality community bear some responsibility for making sure its philosophic foundations are not lost to history?”

It is an interesting comment that reflects as much on the author as it does on his observations. 

My guess is that Paul and I are about the same age, which is one very vulnerable to nostalgia.  In my day, things were better, or tougher.  My teachers were wiser, or more indifferent.   I had to walk 20 miles to school in the snow without boots carrying my lunch box in one hand and fighting off wolves with the other.   And in my day we know our history and were proud of it.  And don’t let me ever get started on those university students of today.

All good stuff, but it is not only fluff, it is almost always wrong.  We were just as illiterate about our history as kids are today.  Probably worse.  Back in our day all we had was the Encyclopaedia Britannica which was usually at least 10 years old.  And maybe a stack of Life magazines in the garage.  Today the kids have Google and Wikipedia and virtual instant access to the past, or at least the past as we recorded it.  I would venture that the 35 year olders are far more knowledgeable about things that occurred 40 year ago, than were we.  And more importantly, if they want to find out about that stuff they can Google it in a heartbeat.

While some of our generation may know about Frederick Taylor, how many ever knew who Levey and Jennings or Dodge and Romig were, even though some of us still use their charts and tables today. 

There is value in knowing the names within in our historical roots; Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Crosby, but more as an aid to knowing about planning and doing and studying and acting.  If the names get lost in time or get mixed up with certain mythologies that is OK as long as their messages remain.  I know we all want to be remembered, but can we agree that the real issue is appreciating the concepts for monitoring for error, implementing corrective actions, and applying all this to create an continuum of Quality improvement.

By the way, I have been teaching an on-line course in Laboratory Quality Management through the University of British Columbia for 10 years and still include The Deming Management Method by Mary Walton and Quality Without Tears by Phillip Crosby on the required reading list.

Personal Recognition and the CSA

The other day I received a letter from the Canadian Standards Association that I am being recognized with a 2011 Award of Merit in recognition for “visionary leadership, renowned expertise and dedication to the development and advancement of medical laboratory standards”.  I will receive the award in June at the CSA Annual Meeting in Victoria BC.  

I am not prone to personal aggrandizement, but I must say that I am really pleased by this award.  In my world, receiving a CSA Award of Merit is equivalent to receiving an Oscar or Genie.  (For those not from Canada, a Genie is a Canadian Cinema Award statue).  In the world of standards development, Canada and the Canadian Standards Association is a world leader within a very small group of leaders; ISO (obviously), CSA (Canada), DIN (Germany), BSI (UK) and maybe NATA (Australia).  So to be a recipient of a CSA award is a big deal.

Similar to other organizations the Canadian Standards Association was developed to solve the problem of incompatible technical resources that manifested during WW1.  By 1918 the organization was recognized by the young Canadian federal government as the Canadian Engineering Standards Association (CESA) with documents on the railway, bridges, and electricity, all the essential issues of the developing era of the 1920’s.  The Canadian Electrical Code was the milestone document in 1927.  
Over the years, CSA (so named in the early 1950’s) has been on the  leading edge of  every modern development, timber, steel, nuclear power, public health and occupational health, and now environmental health.   

It would be impossible to estimate how many children would have been crippled or worse had it not been for CSA focus on sports (hockey, bicycles)  helmets.  But it likely is in the millions. 

Many qualitologists (including me) are aware that one of the two seed documents that lead to ISO9000 was developed by the US military and  later modified for civilian use by BSI.  Far fewer (again, including me) know that the other document was from CSA’s Z299 series for quality assurance for the nuclear industry.

As Canadians we all know about the CSA mark on our toasters, and radios, and helmets, but I suspect  most are unaware of the major mark on international health that CSA has played in the design of health care facilities, delivery of anaesthesia and dental care,  and diabetic care, sterilization and blood transfusion and transplantation.  Hospitals around the world have benefited from CSA published standards of care.  

My personal connection with CSA began in 1996 when it rescued our fledgling Canadian Advisory Committee that was engaged with the formulation of ISO15189.  We had been raising our own resources, traveling at our own expence, and depending upon the good graces of our employers.  Had CSA not come along, we would not have been able to stay engaged in the development of that standard.  I don’t know what the document would have looked like in our absence, but I can say with absolute confidence, that it would not have been as good as it is now.  
More importantly the quality revolution that has now taken hold in medical laboratories now sweeping across Canada never would have developed the traction to get the conversation started.

So I am really pleased to have had a long standing link with CSA, and am grateful beyond grateful for the recognition.   It means a lot to me.
 
I have a lot of time for the Canadian Standards Association.

And so should you.