Thursday, March 28, 2024 | Ramadan 17, 1445 H
broken clouds
weather
OMAN
23°C / 23°C
EDITOR IN CHIEF- ABDULLAH BIN SALIM AL SHUEILI

Quality to be seen on days that end with ‘Y’

minus
plus

By Ray Petersen — I’m a staunch advocate of quality assurance, often referred to as QA, but I’m not always certain that what we are getting within businesses and institutions clearly reflects the intent of the philosophy. Actually referred to ‘dictionarily’ as a noun, quality assurance can be defined as, “the maintenance of a desired level of quality in a service or product, by means of attention to every stage of delivery.”


So if we take it a step further, we should be able to agree that quality is the process of meeting specific standards from conception, or beginning, to delivery, or, the end. However, what I fear has occurred in much of the QA sector, is that the intent to identify means of measuring the achievement of those “desired levels of quality,” has morphed into a seriously meaningless paper shuffling exercise that means we get rid of the best part of a forest every day. It’s a good thing that trees grow relatively quickly!


You see, in their wisdom, or perhaps driven by the impetuous demands of a self-perpetuating accreditation industry, rather than accentuating the affirmation of quality performance and production, accrediting bodies have found it very much easier to hide behind demands for documentation, exhorting front end delivery agents, in whichever industry, to “prove it.” This means that the process of quality provision is both mapped, and justified, at source.


It’s not really a poacher and gamekeeper scenario, but implies that if you do this, and this, and this, and this, ad infinitum, perfectly, you will end up with a perfect product. However that doesn’t take into account the human element of any production process. The human element, in any process, cannot be discounted. So what makes us, or anyone, think that quality can be ensured by ‘proving’ that you are doing things perfectly? Nothing!


A good example was presented a couple of weeks back when it was revealed that English Premier League giants, Chelsea, have progressed only a handful of Premier Level players, ten, through their amazingly well funded, by squillionaire Roman Abramovich, football academy. Yet, little old Southampton, with a shoestring budget and comparatively modest facilities, is producing a significant number of premier graduates, sixteen at last count. Proof that money and resources will not always create the perfect result.


I know I must sound a bit like the ‘Grinch,’ and a harbinger of resistance to quality assurance.


Well, actually I’m not. I’m a staunch advocate of quality, and I’m European trained and qualified in quality management. In fact I worked in an educational institution in the UK that was extremely close to losing its government funding through systemic failures.


Within less than three years, that same institution was rated ‘Best of the Best,’ one of the top 26 educators in the entire United Kingdom.


The change was created by a quality process, and a management team, that demonstrated trust in its employees. They created ‘micro-teams,’ that researched their accreditation requirements, and then matched their skill-sets and enthusiasms to the different areas of compliance required. In doing so, they ensured that each individual was keen to identify themselves positively, and take ownership of their area of expertise.


Then, someone asked, “What’s the use of me being the best there is, if nobody else can know and appreciate it?” And along with a realisation that modesty prevents many people from displaying their skills, qualities, knowledge and abilities, that management team made a point of institutional recognition of each other’s qualities.


The whole workforce consequently gained a much greater appreciation of each other, in a professional sense, and led to a greater level of institutional respect and admiration.


These were the genesis then, of a joint culture of quality, a shared vision, all built on getting to know, appreciate, and understand each other better, which at its zenith would lead people to go a lot further in search of excellence and quality, governed not by what was written in 370 pages of an inspection framework, but in acknowledging how much better was our workplace due to the greater levels of respect for each other, there was a recognition of our collective potential, and where quality, in all its guises, became the expectation.


Honestly, you have to work in an environment like that to understand that it’s a bit like a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy,’ in a way. You just don’t settle for less, okay, or good, but you discuss, you share ways to be better, excellent, and beyond. You think and dream of ways to improve, to be the ones that others will have to look up to, and it can be sometimes a word, or an action, by a colleague, that stirs an innovative response. It doesn’t take much.


It’s easy to say you can do things, and write it in a document. And it is probably safe to say, too, that your best employees can do all of the things you say they can, but until they all can, it’s hardly sustainable, is it? Henry Ford said, “Quality is doing things right, when nobody is looking.” Quality is not something to be written or read, but to be seen, as one wag put it, “on days that end with ‘Y’.”


— petersen_ray@hotmail.com


SHARE ARTICLE
arrow up
home icon