Auditing for effectiveness rather than strict conformance
These techniques are not synonymous. Sometimes results and methods are critical, sometimes only the results. That means sometimes we can tolerate variations in the process, different people using different methods to achieve the right result. Comfortable with that? No? What's that? Why can't methods be standardised whatever the process? Well, here's the answer
Sometimes we can have absolute certainty about the process we need to see followed, but that can only be achieved when we can control the consistency of the inputs. A lot of manufacturing processes are like that. We can feed a consistent standard of material into the process, control all the mechanised and non-mechanised process parameters and require that every repetition is executed just so. No problem there. Sometimes however we just can't control the consistency of input, particularly when the input may be a person (like in a training course). They're all different. They learn at different rates, work at different rates, ask different questions and so on. That means that no two training courses can run the same way. It's not just that variation in the process is tolerated, it is an absolute requirement if we are to achieve the right result
A changing world asks for different approaches
Some of our fundamental quality principles are being shaken up a bit. Not destroyed, but shaken. None more so than the cornerstone of TQM, PDCA. Hear us out
PDCA is a common-sense ready-aim-fire way of getting things done, and it's hard to imagine that it will ever be discredited as a guiding principle. However, the world is changing. Competition is more fierce, development times are getting shorter and shorter, windows of opportunity stay open for shorter periods and so on. Everybody needs things yesterday, and a ponderous approach may result in the opportunity being missed altogether. Now we're not calling for an abandonment of the sacred PDCA cycle, but what we are saying is that the new world often calls for a degree of agility in the process not previously required. Time is the essence, so to speak. And many "quality" organisations are struggling to reconcile the integrity of their PDCA processes with the speed at which they are now required to move through it
All this introduces an important dynamic and parameter for the quality auditor. Previously we may have been happy to see evidence that supported the basic integrity of the process, but increasingly we need to be aware of the balance to be struck between integrity and speed, and this is where our customer satisfaction measures come in. Does the customer require an early result but will tolerate a higher level of defect as a trade off for speed? Or does the customer need a very low level of defect and maybe they will wait until the process can deliver it? Clearly we need to know. Although generally the customer wants both (we know, we know)
Anyway, with the service sector looking a raging cert to provide the greatest opportunities for first world labour markets in the upcoming half century, we all need to get our heads round how these processes work, and quick. The risk of designing and assessing our developing processes using the same outdated and ponderous approaches that may have been appropriate in a 1980's UK engineering company does not bear thinking about
