More about Volunteer Quality

More about Volunteer Quality

Of all the topics relevant to Quality, in my opinion, the singlemost relevant issue is the role of Voluntary Quality.  

As a rule, we humans are best characterized as procrastinators with, of course the best of intentions, but woefully short attention span.  Given the opportunity to do something right (the first time) we generally would like to comply, but then we become distracted and more times than not don’t actually get around to following through.  It’s not that we are an evil or slothful species, we are however, well intentioned, but easily sidetracked with some occasional shining moments.  There are some who might resent my characterization, but with regret, history and the wealth of evidence are on my side.

Many of us over time have tried to keep the ship going in the right direction by building systems and circumstance (police, government and laws, rules, teachers, mothers, standards and Quality Management) to overcome our inherent nature.  It seems that with an aggressive oversight we will tend towards more success.  In the presence of the watchful eye, we are more likely to do the “right thing”.

In my own situation, I personally tend to complicate myself and those around me with push-back, especially if I think the oversight rules, laws, conventions and pressures are artificial and arbitrary.  I always have.  To this day I rarely wear a seatbelt, and generally I consider speed-limits more as guidelines.  (But I digress).  That being said, if I know, understand and respect oversight, odds are that I will be a lot more diligent.

And that brings me to the essence of this posting.  

Recently I have been looking at what it takes for me to participate and commit to a set of standards that can provide insight and guidance within the domain of Quality.  Clearly we are committed to Quality, but we are just like the rest of our species; the chances of our becoming engaged in a system in which we don’t know and understand and respect the rules, and further don’t know and understand and respect the oversight body, then we will likely not follow-through.  We would likely fail to take the document seriously and would in all probability lose interest quickly.  

We are not alone.  Consider that 75 percent of certifications to ISO 9001 fall apart or fail.  For many of the 75 percent who fail, investigation and study indicates there are internal barriers that account for the failure, but I also wonder to what degree the organizations’ respect for their assessment bodies played a role.

Fortunately for us we are part of the remaining 25 percent who continue to be successful after 10 years of participation.  We know and understand and respect what ISO9001:2008 can bring to our table.  

Recently I have been on the lookout of a new standard to supplement our Quality Management system requirements.  We became interested, indeed intrigued with one, which will remain nameless.  

Unfortunately after a lot of investigation and discussion we now understand that the document was written by a process that as best as I can tell without regard to community or consensus or validation, and is written by a group that distains oversight of its own process.  Interesting when I had a thorough conversation with them about consensus and external validation as components of standards development, their response was “We are not accredited and we don’t have to do any of those things”.  

 I know what they are doing, and I understand what they are doing, but it is very difficult for me to find that essential third requirement of respect.  The chances of our having any on-going success would be very limited.  Having a successful first assessment would be a “no-brainer” and I guess we could notch that into our belt as an accomplishment, but the likelihood of sustained follow-through (the true achievement) just wouldn’t happen. 

The search continues.

PS: Recently I learned the hard way what happens when you don’t wear a seat belt.  You get a heavy fine.

PPS: Looking forward to a positive and successful 2014

External - Internal Audits (EIAs)

Quality Management principles and ISO Quality standards all talk about the critical importance of Internal Audit. If you don’t go through the active process of seeking information, then it is impossible to make informed decisions on progress and strategic planning. In the absence of internal audits one cannot use the term “continual improvement” because the word itself implies that you are actually aware of areas that need improvement.

I think that it is of value to talk about two different types of internal audits: one being where you do the assessments in your own organization (let’s call that a true internal audit) and the other is where you hire a consultant or colleague to come and do it for you. I think the term External-Internal Audit has value to describe this latter situation. Both approaches have value and both can provide useful information, but the latter (an EIA) may have greater cost but is more likely to raise critical information based on the knowledge and expertise of the person brought in to do the assessment.

I have mentioned in the past my strong preference on voluntary quality and EIA are another manifestation of that voluntary quality. The information may be done by an outside person, but the information is intended for internal consumption only.

I raise this because I am in the middle of an EIA in a mature and academically oriented laboratory in Canada. I am looking at the structure and function of the laboratory's quality system. It is a rather global review and we are taking our time to do it right so that they will end up with credible and useful information.

A question arose during the post-assessment discussion today about what is intended by the term “top management”. There was general understanding that TM means the folks who are in a position to make decisions for change based on their ability to make decisions on resources (also known as “the pursestrings”). I don’t think that is a correct understanding and in the public sector would almost assuredly be a terrible definition to envision or try to put into practice. The public sector by design is multi-layered with fiscal decisions being made at or very near the top. Almost assuredly the folks at that level are so removed from clinical or laboratory reality which again is by intent to reduce the risk of bias playing a role in fiscal decisions.

A more functional definition of TM (can we call them the function top management or FTM?) is that small group of people who are close enough to have an understanding of the organization’s mission and have the responsibility and authority to make decisions and change taking in mind all the resources available which may or may not include money. This is a really important group that when working well because they are high enough up on the food chain that they can think about the global organization, but are close enough that they can effect change at the local unit. It is a really good example of “Thinking Globally but Acting Locally”.)

Waiting for money to affect change is never a good idea. Positive assertive actions will begat money with a higher and sooner level of success than money will begat positive actions.

Updated for grammar September 2013

Quality and Excellence

Still enjoying summer but with a lot of projects and proposals on the go.  Hopefully they will all be ready by September.  Will talk more about them later. 

But today I received another email from the American Society of Quality (ASQ) with concern that the US government has put the congressional financial support of the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program on the chopping block.  The ASQ is asking its members (presumably just the American members) to write letters of support demanding the cuts can be prevented.

I understand that every organization needs financial resources to exist, and that the Baldrige Program is a P3 program (Public Private Partnership) which implies public support, but I certainly hope that along with this rally-the-troops email solicitation program, there is also a Plan B abrewing. 

In my opinion smart, forward-looking organizations make the decision that their operation will be enhanced by a Quality program and implementation is based on internal decisions.  Being seen as a best-in-class organization creates huge goodwill and creates a significant competitive advantage.  Given the choice between mandated quality and internal (volunteer) quality, the latter has a much greater chance of impact.  There clearly is a role for regulated Quality through mandated accreditation but Quality-by-force is a constant battle.   

When an organization sees benefit in Quality and implements because it wants to, the level of enthusiasm is higher and the level of activity is greater.  That is why I strongly see advantage in the US Baldrige or the Canadian National Quality Award programs.  Whether the program is funded or not, I suspect there always will be US organizations that will be prepared to implement some version of improved Quality and Excellence on a volunteer basis. 

But there are a number of key issues of which folks should be aware.  The Malcolm Baldrige program has been in place near 25 years as a public-private partnership.  The major private partner is the Malcolm Baldrige Foundation (MBF).  After 25 years if a foundation can not survive without government handouts then I would argue either the foundation is inept or the idea is not one worth supporting.  Second, the amount of money that is going to be withdrawn after 25 years is about nine million dollars ($9M), which again I would argue for a foundation the size and maturity of the MBF should be small potatoes, especially with all its very high 
 profile and the additional support it gets from professional organizations, including the ASQ.  

These days, if they still really need the $9M, there are tons of ways to raise that kind of money.  Remember that the Baldrige Foundation is supposed to be about organizational performance excellence through innovation and improvement. 

They could have a lottery for a Malcolm Mercedes or a Baldrige Buick.  They could have bake sales for Baldrige Bagels.  ASQ and all the other organizations could a 5% fee on memberships and book sales (Buy a book for Baldrige).  How about Malcolm mugs or Baldrige buttons? 

For a country with a 15 million-million dollar debt ($15T), another $9M represents the pocket lint found on the penny in the jacket pocket, but cutbacks are an inevitable political reality. Instead of having 600 assessment staff, could they get along with 540?   A drop of 10 percent could easily have a cost reduction worth millions.  A little LEAN thinking may be in order for the MBF.

So from my perspective, it is time to stop whining and time to start showing some of that innovation and improvement that the organization so strongly endorses and supports.  Put me down for two Malcolm mugs.

The Power of Voluntary Quality

If there is a single discussion point around which I am totally in self-conflict, it is the arena of voluntary efforts for quality versus mandated efforts.  As a libertarian by personal inclination, I am resistant to government mandated initiatives for Quality.  I see the consequences of mandated Quality all the time.  Mandated Quality becomes resented Quality.  
If we are not seen to do something, then someone can impose themselves.  It may mean imposed accreditation or imposed proficiency testing where the point of both exercises is not about improvement and all about getting it done an passed so that “they” will leave us alone until the next time.  Given a choice between using either or both as a learning exercise, or a something that just has to be complete with a good mark, it is strongly advised to “game for success” rather than risk intervention.  
On the other hand, as a Canadian, I see what happens in the absence of mandated Quality.  It is not by accident that our most public of Quality embarrassments (see the Cameron Commission) occurred in a part of the country that has never believed in required Quality in healthcare.     In Canada the experience unfortunately is that if you don’t mandate it, it does not get done.

That is a pretty gross overstatement, of course, but it gives me the opportunity to turn this towards an even bigger problem, not seen in Canada (more on this later) but in the US; the single greatest onslaught against voluntary Quality in the last 25 years.  As part of the new fiscal responsibility, the US white house and congress is starting a dismantling of the Baldridge Performance Excellence Program.  

The Baldridge program, first developed in 1987 under the Reagan administration created this program, with a mission to “enhance the competitiveness of U.S. businesses” It has served as a voluntary program with an national award for improvement and excellence and leadership for role models and best practices. In 1999 it was expanded to cover healthcare and education organizations, and more recently in 2005 to cover nonprofit and government organizations.  Even if it is not available in countries other than the US, it is a program that we should all hold in the highest regard because it recognizes and rewards those of us interested in Quality and Excellence, not because we have to, but because we want to.  
So why am I writing about this.  Today I read that this program which has a total budget of about 10 million dollars is slated for an over  20 percent reduction (2.2 million).
Now I strongly support tighter controls on federal governments everywhere.  One only has to look at what is happening in Greece, Ireland, Spain and Portugal to see what can go wrong.  And watching the US promote stimulus through setting the world back on the road to massive  inflation is frightening.  
What I find short sighted here (in addition to the obvious) is that organizations interested in Baldridge are not only the leaders in Quality and Excellence, but they are probably the leaders in Costs of Poor Quality containment.   If the reduction in funding results in fewer applicants, and this results in lower CPQ savings, this will be the worst $2M congress has ever saved.
What needs to happen is that the Baldridge becomes a public-private partnership with private funding but with an award that continues to carry the power and influence of national recognition.  
Message to the folks, never trust Quality to the hands of politicians.  

As a Canadian I have to wonder why no federal or provincial government has ever thought it reasonable to initiate a Canadian award for Quality and Excelllence.  Since we are in the middle of an election, maybe this is a good time to find out.

PART B
I was just at a meeting held by the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) because they have a committee with interests in proficiency testing and laboratory quality services for developing countries.  Not much to write about from the meeting, but I can show you a picture of a famous statue in the town.  
Question: Name the statue and name the town.

PART C
The attendance for our POLQM Quality Weekend Workshop is rolling in.  The early bird registration ends May 1.  If the meeting is of interest, it is time to register now and save $125.
Visit: www.POLQMWeekendWorkshop.ca