| ||
Standards fall into two categories: behavioural and technical. Behavioural standards relate to honesty, integrity, probity, morality, ethics, reasonable expectations and generally, anything that the political correct lobby can get its hands on and generally anything of a subjective nature. Technical standards relate to, tangibles, parameters, criteria, things that can be measured and generally anything of an objective nature. The quality profession has a foundation in a technical background of a very sound and objective character. Most would agree that quality assurance arose from the need to have good products emanating from factories and the engineering industries. The person usually at the 'end of the line' was the inspector and he was responsible for the quality of what left his hands. Logic and good management thinking during the twentieth century resulted in the inspector being reassigned a different level of importance for his contribution and together with management contributions from the likes of Juran, A. V. Feigenbaum and Demming the "Quality Profession" evolved into what it became between 1950 and 1980. Post 1980 however, the quality profession lost its way. The standards that had been developed up to that time began to loose their objectivity. The things they required became more subjective and less measurable and required such attributes as skill, qualifications, experience, and integrity to permit a value judgement on whether or not a standard was being met. The need to relate any characteristic to a natural constant has almost passed from the language of standards writers. The end result is that compliance with standards becomes the domain of experts and professionals who, whilst skilled and experienced at the jargon of their 'profession' have developed the slight of hand and tongue previously the domain of carpetbaggers, card-sharks, doorstep salesmen, estate agents and, dare I say it, lawyers. Of course, one has to concede that generalisations are a bad thing and that one should not 'tar the whole profession with the same brush'. Nonetheless, one should be careful about how one cares to raise standards: There are two approaches. Approach (i) is to police the practitioners and Approach (ii) is to revise the standards so that they become less the domain of the 'experts' and more the tool of the 'users'. It seems farcical to me that management standards have evolved to such an extent that the intended users, though highly qualified and professional in their own right, have to procure the services of other professionals in order to understand and utilise these standards that are foisted upon them, supposedly for their own good. It was Oscar Wilde who said that "all professions are a conspiracy upon the laity". When he said it the quality profession did not exist. But if he were alive today may he not question "Quality Standards are they public protection or a professional scam?" So is there morale to this fairly negative diatribe? Yes there is. It is this:- All professions exist to serve the laity, when they become self serving their reason for existence ceases. If you are a user of professional services then ensure that your objectives are clear to you before you deal with a quality professional and then you can make sure that what he/she offers is in your best interests. If you are the quality professional, please make sure that your services are focussed on the needs of your client rather than the needs of your profession or the dogma of its adherents. |
 |
 |
 |
