Jump to content

  • Quick Navigation
Photo
- - - - -

Towards a global cyber institute – Part 2.


  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 14 June 2005 - 07:18 PM

Towards a global cyber institute - Part 2.
By Allan J. Sayle

Part 1 of this article attempted to describe some of the shortcomings of traditional bricks and mortar based national quality bodies, BAMs. This Part 2 contains a number of suggestions about how a cyber-based, global quality institute might be set up and operate.

Read Full Article:
Towards a global cyber institute - Part 2.

Regards,
Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#2 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 15 June 2005 - 06:44 PM

Well almost a hundred views and thus far not a single word posted in response; maybe you're still all reading and digesting the paper. I do hope so.

Having read Allan's paper three or four times now, I believe it presents a superb vision of what could be; as is to be expected there are some things I do not quite agree with, understand or maybe would want to see in a Global Cyber Quality Institute, however I'm not going to dwell on these issues at this time.

Because BAM's (Bricks and Mortar Institutes) e.g. ASQ, IQA are large entities that have evolved over many decades, at first glance such a wide-ranging vision as presented by the article may seem impossible to realize; however, wearing my ‘web developer' hat I can say from a technical point of view the Global Cyber Quality Institute described by the article is readily achievable. A fully interactive, automated site that could facilitate the processes and features of the discussed site could be fully operational in 12-24 months; the cost for this I estimate would be in the region of $5,000 - $10,000. As an alternative is a budget option with less features to start with which could be fully operational within 2 months and that could evolve along with a growing membership base; the cost for this I estimate would be less than $1,000. So IF there is a will there definitely IS a way.

So is there a will?

Personally I support Allan's vision, I can see it, and that's why I am voting for the development of a new Global Cyber Quality Institute. As a demonstration of this support I am committing SaferPak to becoming one of its first Corporate Members. In addition, if needed I will be happy to share my experience and time in assisting with the specifying and the development of the web site.

A GCQI will not be owned by any company or individual it will be of the members and for the members. The realization of a GCQI is completely in your hands; if you want this change the time has come to express your support.

Finally I would like to publicly thank and congratulate Allan for his tremendous efforts in putting this article together. Allan whether anything comes of this directly or indirectly I admire your vision and your ability to document it so clearly. Well done!

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#3 David Hartman

David Hartman

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 1 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral

Posted 15 June 2005 - 06:44 PM

Part 1 of this article attempted to describe some of the shortcomings of traditional bricks and mortar based national quality bodies, BAMs. This Part 2 contains a number of suggestions about how a cyber-based, global quality institute might be set up and operate.

Read Full Article:
Towards a global cyber institute - Part 2.

Regards,
Simon


Just completed Allan's treatise and did enjoy, and for the most part do support it, but I do have a comment or two about a portion.

In 1632 Galileo presented his Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief Systems of the World - Ptolemaic and Copernican to the present day 'eminent panel'. The result not only included his house arrest until his death, but set science back several hundred years.

Do we really want to take the chance of limiting the advancement of quality/business management based on the good intensions of a committee (eminent or not)?

Throughout the history of our world there literally are thousands of examples where advances in any number of fields of study were quashed by those that were so enamored with their own ideologies that they could not except any thought juxtaposed to the accepted beliefs of the day.

What value is added by these reviews and approvals? Do they assure us that only thoughts worthy of our time are posted, or are they to ensure the view of the current party politic is supported?

If the former, what are the criteria? If NOT the latter, how do we prevent a move in this direction?

August bodies have their place in any society, I just question if censorship is the proper place.
  • 0

#4 allanj

allanj

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 21 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:MI USA

Posted 15 June 2005 - 07:17 PM

Thank you Simon and David for your kind words. :beer:

To David: I would echo your sentiments as I am indeed also opposed to any form of censorship. You may see that from another of my articles posted at Saferpack and I hope you also see it from Part 1 of the article under discussion.

Whatever might be the role of an eminent panel or board, it should be for the members to decide - if, indeed, they wish for one. If such panels/ a board are drawn from international sources one hopes the possibility of establishment views/ orthodoxies and such like would be avoided. But, even if such a set of people tried, would it not be impossible for them to succeed in a cyber site where free posting and speech (within the restrictions of decency/ libel/ racism etc) are allowed? And, if such people are accountable to the members through an open election process, maybe they could be removed for such sins as "censorship". I certainly hope so.

As you will realize the shape of the new Institute is open to debate and your ideas are most welcome: please post them for open discussion by all interested people. Or, start a thread at Saferpack to determine the "criteria" and help to steer us all in the right direction. :helpplease: I hope you will.

Lastly, please email your professional colleagues and contacts involved or interested in "quality" of this discussion and see if they would be willing to get involved.


Edited by allanj, 15 June 2005 - 07:18 PM.

  • 0

#5 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 16 June 2005 - 09:15 PM

I've bumped this thread because its here and I can. I wanted to give the Quality Profession another opportunity to comment on the article; at the very least it deserves that.

BTW welcome to the forums David thanks for your input.

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#6 Jim Wade

Jim Wade

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 123 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:All aspects of continual improvement

Posted 20 June 2005 - 01:33 PM

I've bumped this thread because its here and I can.  I wanted to give the Quality Profession another opportunity to comment on the article; at the very least it deserves that.

BTW welcome to the forums David thanks for your input.

Regards,
Simon


Allan has done a masterful job here but I wonder if he has gone nearly far enough and whether the idea isn't fixing a symptom rather than a cause.

I'm just a manager - not really part of the 'quality profession' - but I have a thought or two. These are not formulated with the care that Allan has taken, but I offer them nevertheless in their rough form.

Why, apart from people versed in technicalities such as sampling, SPC and so on, do we need to sustain an existing 'quality profession' that has largely failed? Failed, following Ed Deming's lead and after more than half a century, to penetrate the consciousness of most managers.

Why not, instead of creating yet another place for 'quality' people to hang out with each other, focus on that problem.

Why not create a place where managers can learn, supported by teachers and leaders and mentors and coaches, rather than by auditors and clause-quoters? Maybe hand leadership of 'quality' over to industry and to management consultants, for example?

So, sure, supplant the BAMs, but - while we are at it - let's also supplant the philosophies and structures of which they are just part.

Why for example, do we pretend to need a generic 'standard' for 'quality'?

Just some thoughts.

rgds Jim

jim.wade@bin.co.uk
+44 118 987 5120
+44 77 88 6666 08

Edited by Jim Wade, 20 June 2005 - 01:34 PM.

  • 0

#7 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 20 June 2005 - 03:30 PM

As ever I enjoy the way you look at things from a different perspective Jim. Bravo!

From this and some of your previous posts I understand you're thinking that ‘quality' should be amalgamated into the company and quality, measurement, improvement and general good management practice should be a part of every managers profile.

I can't disagree with this and maybe you're right I would like to see quality managers as pure facilitators, trainers and mentors. Perhaps this is the new role that needs to be discussed and supported?

P.S. Can we keep ISO 9000 out of this please.

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#8 Jim Wade

Jim Wade

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 123 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:All aspects of continual improvement

Posted 20 June 2005 - 04:30 PM

Can we keep ISO 9000 out of this please.

Regards,
Simon


Love to old bean, but I don't think we can or should.

Truth is, ISO 9000 (or more specifically the requirements part of ISO 9001) is, like it or not, absolutely dominant in the 'quality' scene.

Imagine this....

Divide the 'quality infrastructure' (the inhouse people, the consultants, the trainers, the organisations, the courses, the exams, the awards, the books, the articles, the websites, the buildings, the seminars and conferences - everything) into two enormous piles. One pile is labelled 'RELATED TO ISO 9001', the other is labelled 'OTHER'.

Which pile would be the largest and by how much? Can we ignore it?

rgds Jim
  • 0

#9 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 20 June 2005 - 05:21 PM

Why, apart from people versed in technicalities such as sampling, SPC and so on, do we need to sustain an existing 'quality profession' that has largely failed? Failed, following Ed Deming's lead and after more than half a century, to penetrate the consciousness of most managers.

Why not, instead of creating yet another place for 'quality' people to hang out with each other, focus on that problem.

Why not create a place where managers can learn, supported by teachers and leaders and mentors and coaches, rather than by auditors and clause-quoters? Maybe hand leadership of 'quality' over to industry and to management consultants, for example?

So, sure, supplant the BAMs, but  - while we are at it - let's also supplant the philosophies and structures of which they are just part.

Why for example, do we pretend to need a generic 'standard' for 'quality'?


Jim,
I've been eager to read your take on the latest developments Via, Allan Sayle's proposals.
The bottom line for Business management in general (If I can possibly be general) is that, we have absolutely ignored the lessons and benchmarks of history. Deming's SoPK (System of Profound Knowledge) was and has perpetually been ignored and derided by the majority of management in the west to the detriment of society. The end result of a rejection of a SoPK (Not just Deming) has infused into society and given the west what they deserve ISO9001 :lol:
I don't know about supplanting the BAM's, it's just my opinion. The BAM's shall always have their place in our culture. Take a look at the Japanese cultural angle on business management, they indeed have their institutions, and they're almost venerated.
In an ideal world managers should be permitted to be great mentors, but the structure of modern business just doesn't allow well meaning system thinking managers to share and infuse profound business knowledge. I remain hopeful though. :whistle:
I look forward to more of your thoughts Jim. ;)
Wallace.
  • 0

#10 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 20 June 2005 - 08:22 PM

Divide the 'quality infrastructure' (the inhouse people, the consultants, the trainers, the organisations, the courses, the exams, the awards, the books, the articles, the websites, the buildings, the seminars and conferences - everything) into two enormous piles. One pile is labelled 'RELATED TO ISO 9001', the other is labelled 'OTHER'.

Which pile would be the largest and by how much? Can we ignore it?

OK the ISO 9000 pile would be the largest by a very lot. And no we can't ignore it. But if we concentrate on making the other pile bigger then it may seem smaller? :thumbup:

Regards,
Simon
  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#11 Jim Wade

Jim Wade

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 123 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:All aspects of continual improvement

Posted 20 June 2005 - 10:06 PM

OK the ISO 9000 pile would be the largest by a very lot.  And no we can't ignore it.  But if we concentrate on making the other pile bigger then it may seem smaller? :thumbup:

Regards,
Simon


Could be, Simon.

Or perhaps the other pile also needs, if not torching, maybe a fleet of dumper trucks to take most of it to the tip.

Leaving behind .. what?

The principles or concepts that ISO 9000, the excellence model and Baldrige have [almost] in common? The wherewithal to deal with the organisation in process terms? the 7 basic QC tools? John Seddon's positive stuff (as opposed to his anti-ISO 900 rants), such as designing the system from the viewpoint of the customer? The excellence model/Baldrige? The balanced scorecard?

Certainly some small set of essential stuff that management can choose to gradually take on board - if they so wish - in order to reap the promised benefits of the 'quality movement'.

While we're about it, let's stop these endless and fruitless debates about the definition of 'quality'. I think I know what a really useful timeless definition should be and I will propose it in August's Quality World (Soapbox section)

Edited by Jim Wade, 20 June 2005 - 10:12 PM.

  • 0

#12 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 21 June 2005 - 12:32 PM

You are right Jim the ‘quality movement' promised a lot and largely the promise remains unfulfilled. Apart from some notable success stories here and there, in the main the ‘quality movement', the ‘quality profession' and ‘quality managers' have not been as effective as they could and should have been in transforming businesses and making them perform better.

In the 1980's/90's ‘tooled up' quality managers could expect high salaries and reverence and now they're ‘ten a penny' dealing with a multitude of tasks that nobody in the business particularly wants or really understands. Of course there will always be a role for ‘none productive' specialists in organizations and dealing with compliance, legislation, standards and the like has to be done. Yes Mr (and Mrs) Q have certainly become necessary evils and an ‘on cost' to the business, and this shouldn't be an easy feeling for any of us.

However the good news is that we are ‘needed' which presents a great opportunity and a real challenge to you, me and the tens of thousands of Quality Manager's throughout the world - yes we have a second chance!

In the next zero to ten years business owners, senior executives, directors and the like (especially in Western organisations) will be very open (nay begging) for change and ‘change agents' that can help facilitate improved business performance. Hey - it's the top management commitment we've begged for the last 20 years. No more excuses!

I believe the people who prepare and position themselves correctly either from within or from outside the organization will do very, very well. It's all about pounds, shillings and pence (dollars, dimes and cents) this time.

Daily we see North American and UK businesses closing or relocating overseas and those that remain are tightening their belts by downsizing, rightsizing and generally cutting costs in order to compete with the ‘high quality' ‘low cost' industries that are rapidly developing from Budapest to Bangkok.

In some countries they can operate with 30% waste and still sell 30% cheaper than you! So apart from accepting the inevitable or moving your business overseas the only thing we can do is to try very hard to reduce the cost differential. And we can only do this by making our organisations lean, mean and world class…and quickly.

Against this backdrop I cannot agree with you Jim when you say:

'Why, apart from people versed in technicalities such as sampling, SPC and so on, do we need to sustain an existing 'quality profession' that has largely failed?'

The modern day quality manger is uniquely positioned to become the desired ‘change agent' we have the knowledge and skills to improve processes and business performance (or have we?) and importantly the organizational freedom to do it!

A modern institute that can sustain, support and develop successful modern day quality managers is therefore essential. Have we already got institutes that can do this? How much do they need to change? Do we need to start again?

History is undeniably important, we cannot argue with it or pretend that it doesn't exist however we can visualise and prepare for the future. The time has com to rethink the quality manager's role and reskill him for a new and demanding era of business improvement. Knowledge is important, but the skills that enable us to put the theory into practical action, that delivers results, are the key.

Ladies and Gentlemen we face some serious challenges.

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#13 Jim Wade

Jim Wade

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 123 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:All aspects of continual improvement

Posted 21 June 2005 - 02:23 PM

... I cannot agree with you Jim when you say:

'Why, apart from people versed in technicalities such as sampling, SPC and so on, do we need to sustain an existing 'quality profession' that has largely failed?'

The modern day quality manger is uniquely positioned to become the desired ‘change agent'  management commitment we've begged for the last 20 years.  No more excuses! 


Well - there are certainly opportunities, Simon.

However, maybe this quote of Einstein's applies:

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."

rgds Jim
  • 0

#14 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 21 June 2005 - 02:51 PM

Hello Jim,

"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."

Hmm interesting quotation - it certainly is thought provoking, but is it a fact? I suppose given Uncle Albert's track record it must be, but then again where does learning from ones mistakes and continual improvement fit in.

'I burnt my toast and decided to scrape it; I then turned the temperature knob down on the toaster from 4-3 so that I wouldn't burn my toast again in the future. As an additional precaution I resolved to check the temperature setting each time before using the toaster.'

To take this line further who were the BAM's created by anyway?

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#15 Jim Wade

Jim Wade

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 123 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:All aspects of continual improvement

Posted 21 June 2005 - 08:00 PM

Deming's SoPK (System of Profound Knowledge) was and has perpetually been ignored and derided by the majority of management in the west to the detriment of society


Is that the fault of management or the fault of the quality profession, Wallace? Certainly much of the blame must lie on the Q side

Maybe it's time for management to say to the quality profession:

"Look, you've had dozens of years to get all this Deming/quality/excellence stuff operational (i.e. rolled out so it's working to the benefit of the stakeholders - including the shareholders).

"For whatever reason, it simply doesn't work in practice in the West. We don't undestand it (and we aren't stupid). You have failed to communicate it to us sufficiently well. All the Q profession seems to be able to do is to sit down and talk to itself - studying, for crying out loud, chapters of Demings book and moaning that we (managers) don't get it!

"If we just carry on doing the same old things year after year, we'll make no progress. So - let's try something that's different and simpler and effective. And if the Q profession can't come up with it damn fast, we'll find some other way to do it!"

  • 0

#16 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 21 June 2005 - 09:10 PM

Are you getting mad Jim? ;) Well as you are playing the manger you have a right to; after all you've paid this guy 30k a year for the past decade and what has he really got for your company except a bunch of wall candy and a well indexed management system.

For a time-served quality manager it makes tough reading but yes I must agree with most of what you say; maybe we have got a bit anal and have overcomplicated something that is in essence very simple.

For a minute let's ask ourselves why Quality Mangers have failed? Is it because they are plain dumb or maybe lazy or perhaps unable to inspire or just incapable of putting all of the theory into practice. Or could it be there are other reasons. What are they lacking? What do they need? They have all the knowledge and tools to do it - so why can't they just do it?

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#17 Jim Wade

Jim Wade

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 123 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:All aspects of continual improvement

Posted 22 June 2005 - 12:12 PM

For a minute let's ask ourselves why Quality Mangers have failed?


Well - and I'm sure you agree, Simon - I would certainly never claim that all Quality Managers - or any other class of Q professional - have failed. There is variation in all things.

A pertinent quote, IMO, comes from Ed Deming. He said "Put a good person in a bad system and the bad system wins, no contest"

I think that's the case with the 'quality meta-system'. Lots of good people in a bad - a horrible - system.

The bad system includes the acceptance of facts or habits such as:

- a pass/fail 'standard' for quality makes sense - not so!

- being a good third-party auditor is a helpful qualification for being a management advisor on 'quality' - not so!

- it's OK (even slightly amusing) to continually debate the meaning of the word 'quality' - not so!

- it's OK to let a whole BoK rot on the shelves while the profession debates the interpretation of some ISO 9001 clauselet - not so!

- if management don't get it, it's their fault - not so!

- focusing on the financial bottom-line is necesarily a bad thing - not so!

- pushing models and standards is preferable to pushing principles and educating managers - not so!

... and so on.

We need to change the system. If the BAMs can't - or won't - get together to do it (and that seems unlikely) some other drive is needed.

So I am suppportive of Allan's propsals to that degree. But I think a new-broom approach is needed (with a zero-based approach to what 'quality' is really all about anyway). As opposed to just setting up a cyber home for the same old system, attitudes and behaviours.

Let's use the tools. Start by asking why-why-why to everything so we know we have a really sound base on which to build. And bring in the customers (management) from the beginning.

rgds Jim
  • 0

#18 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 22 June 2005 - 01:47 PM

Excellent post jim,
I agree :thumbup:
Wallace.


  • 0

#19 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 22 June 2005 - 09:33 PM

Sense, sense, sense a post packed full of common sense!

In response to your why-why-why to everything call; why is it the majority of courses offered by ASQ, IQA, BSI, DNV etc. are technical based courses that all seem to end with 'ing' e.g. auditing, lead auditing, implementing, transitioning, integrating, measuring etc.?

I have a great friend who is I quite a bit older than me; he's a qualified accountant and worked as a car salesman for a time. He now works in planning for a large packaging company. When it comes to planning my friend knows what he's talking about and he's passionate about it; whenever we talk he always manages to steer the conversation towards MRP2 or ERP or machine hours or capacity or something - even when we're in the pub! He makes what is essentially a dull body of knowledge (to me anyway) quite fascinating; I don't know why exactly, but I'm pretty sure it's not the operations management BoK.

Technical training and the quality body of knowledge are important and stimulating to us quality folk, but if we are being honest they're not easily explained or very interesting to most others in the business.

Personally I want to see the ‘quality bodies' develop a range of smart and stimulating, soft skill courses designed specifically to help quality professionals become more effective at putting their technical knowledge into action.

Here are a few rough ideas:

How to sell the benefits of quality to senior management and get buy...no 'beg in'
How to increase your sphere of influence
How to become a change agent and quality champion
How to influence and motivate
How to be a leader
How to communicate effectively
How to start and maintain a permanent quality improvement programme
How to make the link between improvement and £££
How to keep it simple!

Would anyone be interested?

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#20 Wallace Tait

Wallace Tait

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 174 posts
  • 2 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Ontario, Canada
  • Interests:Systems thinking, Soccer (Glasgow Rangers), Family, the pusuit of truth and freedom

Posted 23 June 2005 - 02:55 AM

Here are a few rough ideas:
How to sell the benefits of quality to senior management and get buy...no 'beg in'
How to increase your sphere of influence
How to become a change agent and quality champion
How to influence and motivate
How to be a leader
How to communicate effectively
How to start and maintain a permanent quality improvement programme
How to make the link between improvement and £££
How to keep it simple.




Good list Simon,
The scope of your list is very wide and, I doubt if we have ever come across an individual who has all of the listed attributes. Well, I know I haven't come across an individual who expresses and practices all of the above.
I firmly believe a responsible and balanced business leader, should at the very least, be able to communicate effectively.
I have quoted some time ago:
Knowledge as the integral element of the information economy, is of no use unless, it is created with focus, managed effectively, and invested as an improvement tool.
Sounds a wee bit idealistic I admit, yet the plain truth regarding many of our "so called" business leaders expresses their almost absolute inability to communicate at the levels that matter.
People are the most important part of a process, and organizations regardless of their letter of institutional clout, have infused and enabled the communications brick wall.
Allan Sayle's proposals were right on in many ways, yet, I say the institutional BAM's should take note and address the fundamental importance of people.
After all, are not the systems of business obliged to filter their practice of excellence into society in general.
Wallace.
  • 0

#21 Donald Palmer

Donald Palmer

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Active
  • 3 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:Central Region, USA

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:17 AM

Gentlemen,

The debate as presented in this thread is quite stimulating :clap: and offers much food for thought. Thank you! :beer:

Donald


Edited by Donald Palmer, 24 June 2005 - 01:29 AM.

  • 0

#22 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 24 June 2005 - 12:26 PM

In any change management process there are three phases that one must transition through:

Endings - where we accept things need to change
Exploration - where we explore potential solutions
New Beginnings - where the change is implemented

Wouldn't it be wonderful if all change projects were so beautifully sequential?

In reality the phases are not quite so clearly defined and it is often difficult to tell where one ends and another begins; consequently it can be difficult to determine exactly where we are in the change process.

The main cause of this blurring is ‘people'.

Imagine a company-wide cultural change project with radical objectives. The change project will likely have begun with some sort of strategic vision or plan which will then have been slowly rolled out and communicated very carefully through the hierarchical structure. The plan would have to be sold at each level to ensure maximum ‘buy in' to the ideas in order to give the change project every chance of success. The problem is no matter how much care you take planning and executing this, people will personally react and adapt to the idea of change in different ways, and at different speeds.

It's not easy but the following three categories are generally used in terms of people's reaction to change:

Traditionalists - naturally averse to and resist change
Adapters - adapt to change
Innovators - welcome change

Obviously the above is a sliding scale and the blurring rule applies.

So why discuss change?

On two fronts, firstly:

70% of all change projects fail and quality improvement projects are just change projects. That's why quality initiatives historically have a high failure rate; and why those associated with or responsible for their implementation are seen to have been less than successful. We know the principals behind the methodologies are essentially right and yet our need to successfully implement them still remains largely unfulfilled. This unfulfilled need is the reason why the ‘quality industry' is continually driven to reinvent new and rehash old quality methodologies.

But what was wrong with Total Quality Management (TQM)?

The example of a company going through a change project could be any quality improvement initiative from the introduction of a new quality tool to radical company-wide change such as TQM. A quality manager would be expected to be leading or at the forefront of such a change project and therefore they must possess all of the required skills to successfully facilitate the change. If we do not equip the implementer with the required skills to implement then we will never free ourselves from the ‘tool - fail -tool' cycle.

It's a difficult job being a Quality Manager (I know I've been one); who else in the business has to deal with most internal and external stakeholders and at all levels. In general Quality Manager's are well educated and highly trained, however I do wonder whether the concentration of training on ‘technical skills' rather than 'soft skills' has made us less effective in our role. What else could it be?

Secondly:

When the idea for a Global Cyber Institute for Quality Practitioners was first proposed and the need for change was discussed by Allan's first article there was a tremendous amount of interest and many people (innovators, high-adapters) were displaying signs they had or were going through the ‘endings phase'. Many people appeared ready for ‘exploration' whilst we all eagerly awaited the publication of article two.

Of course the debate was ended prematurely on the C*#!! C*#! by their management, however there is still a debate to be had.

So I ask where are you people now? Are you saying no there really wasn't a need to change after all, or was Allan's exploratory article 2 really that bad you have changed your mind?

There is some useful discussion going on here and I thank those of you who have contributed so far. However, we want to hear lot's more of your comments - they are all very important to the debate.

Regards,
Simon


  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#23 allanj

allanj

    Grade - Active

  • IFSQN Associate
  • 21 posts
  • 0 thanks
0
Neutral
  • Location:MI USA

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:12 PM

Yes, all very interesting stuff coming in this thread. But, I sense the discussion is about aspects of the quality movement's mission as distinct from whether or not a GCQI is desirable, how it should be set up, what the various posters are willing to do (if anything) to help and so forth.

In the end, the quality institute you get reflects your own involvement. The status and standing of the quality movement reflects our own abilities and efforts in delivering beneficial results for our employers and clients.

For the present I will observe how the discussion moves, the level of response to the questionnaire concerning individuals' willingness to be involved and what might their contribution might be. Sadly, only a couple of the posters on this thread have actually completed that return: other posters have not.

If you want a GCQI: say so; state what you are willing to contribute. I am delighted with those people and companies who have responded accordingly.

Most important of all: I hope all who are reading this thread and taking part appreciate Simon Timperley's willingness to host this debate without censoring or deleting either the articles or the posters' comments. :clap: Such cannot be said of others and accordingly they cannot then be differentiated from the censorship practised by the BAMs, mentioned in my articles. And, Simon is well aware that copyright over my articles is not and never was an issue for any site such as his, though others claim it is in justifying their censorious acts.

And, none of the BAMs would show the courage to print my articles of allow the type of discussion that must ensue. That is why I am no longer interested in them.


  • 0

#24 Simon

Simon

    Grade - FIFSQN

  • IFSQN Admin
  • 11,390 posts
  • 1018 thanks
222
Excellent

  • United Kingdom
    United Kingdom
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Manchester
  • Interests:Life, Family, Running, Cycling, Manager of a Football Team, Work, Watching Sport, The Internet, Food, Real Ale and Sleeping...

Posted 24 June 2005 - 01:28 PM

Yes, all very interesting stuff coming in this thread. But, I sense the discussion is about aspects of the quality movement's mission as distinct from whether or not a GCQI is desirable, how it should be set up, what the various posters are willing to do (if anything) to help and so forth.

Sorry Allan, I've already done all that - I'm deep into the 'exploration' phase waiting for some company.

Added to post:

I might add the reason I am in the ‘exploration' phase is that I have already made my mind up that change is necessary and have committed myself to helping with the project. Reading your last post again Allan I realise its not yet been established whether a GCQI is desirable, how it should be set up, what the various posters are willing to do (if anything) to help and so forth.


Regards,
Simon

Edited by Simon Timperley, 24 June 2005 - 07:25 PM.

  • 0

Best Regards,

Simon Timperley
IFSQN Administrator
 
hand-pointing-down.gif

Need food safety advice?
Relax, you've come to the right place…

The IFSQN is a helpful network of volunteers providing answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts on food safety management systems and a wide range of food safety topics.

 
We could make a huge list of rules, terms and conditions, but you probably wouldn’t read them.

All that we ask is that you observe the following:


1. No spam, profanity, pornography, trolling or personal attacks

2. Topics and posts should be “on topic” and related to site content
3. No (unpaid) advertising
4. You may have one account on the board at any one time
5. Enjoy your stay!


#25 Jim Wade

Jim Wade

    Grade - MIFSQN

  • IFSQN Member
  • 123 posts
  • 0 thanks
1
Neutral
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:All aspects of continual improvement

Posted 25 June 2005 - 11:28 AM

And, none of the BAMs would show the courage to print my articles of allow the type of discussion that must ensue. That is why I am no longer interested in them.


Allan

Did you approach ISO?

I would have thought that Roger Frost - editor of ISO Management Systems would have been up for allowing you freedom of speech. He was positively enthusiatic about helping me publish an article claiming that ISO 9000 aren't really standards at all!

His contact details are:

1 rue de Varembé
CH-1211 Geneva 20
Switzerland
Tel. +41 22 749 01 11
Fax +41 22 733 34 30
E-mail frost@iso.org

rgds Jim
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users