Allan

ASA

Allan Sayle Associates

for business improvement services

ASA

Forward from the past

By Allan Sayle

Trade and competition have been a fact of economic life at least since the Phoenicians built boats. Their geographic reach grew through the expeditions of Marco Polo and Christopher Columbus and continues to grow through the Internet. Those twins are not new, but they are at their greatest point ever. Thanks to modern technology and transportation, their economic effects and challenges arrive faster. Their power is such that neither empire nor nation is immune from them. Protectionism and isolationism are a recipe for disastrous decline, not for survival and success. From its inception, the heart of global trade was a marketplace wanting to acquire goods perceived as excellent or desirable, not available in similar or better quality and at a competitive price from local sources.

Britain the trading nation

Britain has been a major trading nation for centuries. Though trade and Empire created national wealth, it was the explosion of technological know-how, not piracy and plunder that truly vaulted Britain to its past position of dominance. It was through applied know-how that Britain's industry created a trade-based infrastructure and prosperity that lasted for decades. That know-how was exemplified not just by the wonders of manufacture, railway engines, canal building, ships, Bazalgette's sewage systems, weaving and wonderful widgets, but, crucially, in the quality of those products and supporting services demanded and expected by customers. Quality built Britain's wealth. Such expressions as "Made in Britain" or "Clyde-built" had an important cache that largely died out. They were equivalent to modern-day brand names.

The challenging 1980s

Post WW2 Britain struggled as it declined in power and prosperity. Harold MacMillan's 1959 campaign slogan, "You've never had it so good" was accurate but omitted to say, "but that is not guaranteed to continue." And it did not. As the 1980s arrived, government recognized Britain had a serious problem, after all, it was the nation's largest buyer of domestic manufactures and suddenly it was genuinely concerned about how well taxpayer money was spent and it wanted the value for money it was not receiving. Britain's current account deficit (a.k.a. the trade gap) was alarming and there was also not enough foreign inward direct investment to continue funding it. It had already required an IMF bail-out in late 1976, secured only by the on-shore arrival of North Sea Oil, a depleting resource. Additionally, various earlier catastrophic disasters, notably the Flixborough explosion and America's Three Mile Island debacle had catapulted the importance of quality into the public's consciousness, before Chernobyl and a host of airline crashes. Japan and Germany were both showing through their quality and industrial successes what might be achieved for a national economy.

Mainly as a combined result of those situations, "quality" appeared on the radar screen as vital to national success, competitiveness and prospects, as well as safety. (To be fair, quality was not the only matter requiring urgent attention to arrest a declining situation.) It advanced through the efforts of people working in the quality field, labouring away in their firms, nationalized and private.

The British forum in which they could congregate was the IQA. The Institute's membership almost tripled, though, even on a per capita basis, it never reached that of America's ASQ, which ballooned to about 130000 in that decade: it has fallen dramatically since that time. As membership grew, so too did the available body of knowledge, ideas and tools also enlarged as people from diverse sectors were attracted, bringing with them their diverse experiences. Throughout the decade a commonly used expression was "cross fertilization of ideas", reflecting the cornucopia of useful contributions.

This nascent British quality profession, (previously a community of inspectors and quality controllers), wanted to find the various tools and techniques available that might help their firms become more competitive. And it was willing to develop new ones. In effect, it wanted to know how to reduce costs and increase productivity, to the benefit of business and the nation. In fine, all its efforts leant towards those goals. Its members were employed (indulged) by management to help achieve those essential results. And the members strove to find solutions to the daily problems facing business, one of which, was the international plethora of so-called quality standards - a plethora unhelpful to international trade.

The ISO 9K debate

Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, it was fashionable for nations to create their own standard. After all, what self-respecting nation could do without one? (So too, with various business sectors, ranging from nuclear to defense, oil, software and so forth.) Each promoted theirs as the best and as an indication of the supposed excellence of their individual national products: industrial sectors thought the same of their own quality epistles. Britain was no exception An unspoken reality was that each national "quality standard" constituted an invisible barrier to trade, though it was not the done thing to say so. In content, they were all much the same: the result of countless committees plagiarizing others' work and "word-smithing" their efforts to death! Solution? ISO 9000 appeared, and Britain led the effort.

The quality profession and its bodies, including the IQA, felt they were riding high and had secured management's attention and support. Sadly, as we became so enmeshed in the subsequent ISO 9K debate et al we almost lost sight of our profession, our duties and our purpose: our management did not. Pride goes before a fall. Fast-forward to today. After 16 years in existence and now in its third incarnation, the standard's content still attracts substantial debate and controversy.

As the first person (heretic?) who openly criticized the content of the standard, in an article published by the IQA in 1988, I feel it is incumbent on me to clearly say now: the time for debate has passed. It has gone too far. The debate has damaged the standing of the quality profession. It has turned-off management - our clients - who still must grapple with the day-to-day problems of running a business, maintaining its viability, enhancing shareholder wealth or protecting taxpayer money. If we once had its attention, that is now much reduced.

Recent publicity afforded by The Daily Telgraph, to the ongoing ISO 9K debate was followed by international denizens of Internet chat rooms. Parts of the response to Mr. John Seddon's concerns and views by the BSI's chief executive, Mr. Stevan Breeze, could be easily debated and, in some cases, disputed. But, to what avail? Would that help the standing of the quality profession? Would it be of benefit to our employers and clients? Would it serve better our nation's challenge of global competition? No. It is time to stop. Those wanting to alter the standard's content, should now contribute to or join one of the committees entrusted with its development. And, at best, the IQA, and other countries' similar bodies, might simply devote one edition per year of Quality World (or their own house magazine) to matters-ISO 9K.

We must discuss matters relevant to management and business and, like it or not, it is time for ISO 9000 zealots to face this fact: the standard is on the agenda of very few business leaders. It is something most top executives have now delegated down through successively lower organizational ranks. Today's main issue is the fight for survival, as it was back in those early 1980s' days when global competition was not as fierce and emerging nations, including China and India, were only just beginning their own great leaps forward. It is still the duty of the nation's quality professionals to help win those incessant battles for business and trade.

Closely related to the ISO 9000 debate is the perceived poor performance of the registration industry, a matter that has also done much to damage the quality profession and disillusion top management. This discussion, too, must stop. The registration industry must make it own case directly to business and let market forces determine its future prospects based on the relevance and contribution of its services to the firm's results. When quality professionals experience a problem with a registrar's service or competence, fire them, write to the accrediting body, post the details on a chat room and let word of mouth seal the demise of the miscreant. Moreover, the IQA and similar bodies must recognize registrar activities receive an unjustifiable amount of attention, considering their "audits" are a small sub-set of the auditing universe: moreover, compliance audits are increasingly passe as it is generally recognized they add little if any value to the organization's results. Management does not want them. It demands more. It is not the role of those bodies to either advocate or promote registrars or give them any special platform for their views. Registrars constitute neither the IQA nor the quality profession.

Regardless of the content of ISO 9000, regardless of the fate of registrars there are more "substantive issues" to be dealt with, to coin a favorite expression of the IQA's past Council Chairman, Eric Williams.

Moving forward

In responding to Mr. Seddon, however, Mr. Breeze raised several crucial points, and is to be applauded for so doing. And, yes, though they have all been said before, they bear repeating. He wrote, "Quality isn't created by management systems, it's created by people." Or, as I once wrote, "You can't paper it in. You must people it in." Being a high-profile person, one must welcome and fully support his statement for it reminds us of what must be done. To fight business' battle - prepare the troops. And the people to work on first are who? Answer: physician heal thyself.

The IQA must move forward the quality profession and that means, the members must move it forward - not the headquarters' staff. Grouch Marx is supposed to have said he would never join any club that would accept him as a member. As individuals we must look at ourselves and consider our personal professional knowledge and skills and decide whether or not we are a good advertisement for our profession's aspirations. What matters now is that the quality professional engages in obtaining the requisite knowledge and experience to become a valued member of the corporate business team.

For the quality manager or director (whatever title) this means learning the tools, skills, language and issues of top management. For those in the subordinate quality positions, it means learning the various tools and techniques needed to identify "shop floor" level problems and create solutions for them and to be able to train the organization's people in applying them. (Quality managers etc. must, of course, also be competent in those matters, if they are to effectively direct their application.)

We must understand and apply the various tools and techniques that exist. For that, a wide reading of timeless texts is essential. Read not just those of quality experts, such as the remarkable centenarian, Joseph Juran, but also those from the world of management and finance. To have a seat at our organizations' top tables, we also need to understand business and economics. Individually, we need to subscribe to eminent newspapers, or frequent our local libraries to read them. (The Financial Times, The Economist, and Business Week are a few I value and read daily or weekly, among others.) We need to build our personal libraries of useful texts and the latest books. Knowledge and education are the keys for our future. A business degree would be helpful: soon it will become essential to one's managerial career.

Building the IQA

IQA headquarters is meant to be the British quality profession's facilitator, offering an important forum for debate and communication for the members. The membership is the IQA, not the London staff, which would no doubt concur on that point. One cannot reasonably expect its staff to know what are the issues confronting business or the quality professional: that is for each and every one of us to do. The IQA reflects only the membership's involvement, efforts, competence and capabilities. Our staff must and will readily act on our instruction and advice of what is needed. (After all, unlike the 1980s, they now have competition from the Internet and, like all service providers, the London staff surely recognizes they are not owed a living.) We get the IQA we deserve. It is for us to promote membership in our chosen profession. It is not for the headquarters folk to do that. They can merely assist, reflecting the combined abilities and service of we the members. We can build our institute only by example and especially on the results we deliver in our daily affairs.

If we measurably prove we have something to contribute to the "bottom line", management will pay attention to us. If we prove "quality" can be a good career move for aspiring top executives, CEOs, managing directors and so forth, we will attract better able people who will remember what we can do when they, in turn and on merit, are promoted. And, though we might be able to persuade people to join the IQA, it is then for us to act in a way that will retain that membership. In my daily business dealings and contacts, I am made constantly aware of the (literally) thousands of people working in the quality arena who do not belong or who do not wish to belong to a professional body, such as the IQA. (Sadly, in all too many cases, they cannot afford the fees, especially as a growing number of companies no longer reimburse their staff. The IQA Council may reflect on Professor Arthur Laffer's famous curve observation that if, like taxes, it lowers the burden, the overall revenue may well increase.) Worse still, is the considerable number of quality professionals who departed such bodies as the ASQ and the IQA perceiving no benefit of membership or who are tired of the well worn themes being given too much attention: ISO 9000 and registration top the list. In order to develop and promote the know-how needed for a 21st century quality service, like the 1980s, able people must be attracted into our ranks.

Energizing times and challenges

In considering the challenges facing today's business and the nation, one is struck by how much the true, up-to-date quality professional has to offer. One is enervated not only by the breadth and depth of opportunities facing us, but also by the magnitude of the contribution we could make. We could demonstrate leadership in assisting our organizations to identify and prevent, eliminate or reduce their avoidable costs. We could help to develop an enduring culture well suited to finding solutions to business problems. We could show how outsourcing and off-shoring jobs might be avoided by assiduously applying a modern business improvement program. At the highest levels, we could prove we could provide invaluable input to executives wishing to define the business strategy, and act as a confidante and mentor for chief executives. We could show aspiring executives how being a quality professional is indistinguishable from being a company's leader.

The key word within that list is "could". All of those things are possible if we are willing to move forward and concentrate on the substantive issues. All are matters requiring the further and continuous development of people, not paper.

As a trading nation, Britain requires those things of us. We, the IQA, need to repeat our performance of the 1980s, but in the context and circumstances of this new millennium's trading patterns. Professionally, it is the time to move on and, in British style, when comes the moment then come the people.

Author’s Postscript:

This article was published by Institute of Quality Assurance, in Quality World, Vol. 31, Issue 5, January 2005 as “Onwards and upwards” with title and various other editorial changes decided by that organization, notably the removal of the entire section “Building the IQA” and various other references to that organization. Such changes were a factor in my subsequent writing of the articles, Towards a global cyber institute – Part 1 and Towards a global cyber institute – Part 2.

Allan J. Sayle

Associates and professional colleagues

Useful sites

Global resources