You can read good words about the importance and value of standards at the various sources such as the International Standards Organisation and British Standards Institute web sites and it all makes good sense. Well, up to a point.
As far as standards are concerned, best practice, ethical behaviour and transparency are what I would prefer to see in everyone I enjoy some sort of engagement with.
So, I’m a believer when it comes to standards but I still have some concerns.
The concerns I have are about the difference between accreditation and implementation.
For something to be fit for purpose it must comply with the requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics as described by the standard that defines fitness for purpose. Yet implementation of accredited process seems a bit loose.
Demonstrating a required level of competence is one thing, employing that competence within a strict set of process guidelines is something entirely different. Of course there could be random evaluation of cases at the next review for continued accreditation but the horse may have already bolted.
I’ve learned to cope with the driving stresses of our British road network and have broken the habit of impersonating Victor Meldrew every time someone cuts me up or carelessly pulls out causing me to have to complete an emergency stop. I’ve resigned myself to the fact that the vast majority of these drivers have actually been accredited with knowing how to drive properly, observing traffic law and the Highway Code, yet they choose to behave differently to how they did to obtain a driving licence.
The good news is that for more serious instances of ignoring example demonstrated in obtaining the licence there is some policing and penalty, in some cases resulting in that licence being revoked. The horse has already bolted in this case too though.
Some would argue that the comparison between a standard and a driving licence is somewhat tenuous. Maybe so, but the fact is we can obtain accreditation to standards and then simply ignore them, merely using that accreditation as a tick in the box enabling us to engage with a particular industry sector or to allow us to present ourselves as better than someone who doesn’t have the same accreditation, so giving us an advantage.
As a consumer of a service I would always choose an accredited person or company over the alternative. Who chooses to jump into an unlicensed hire car when a licensed taxi is available, even though both drivers are likely to have some driving competence?
So accreditation to a recognised standard is obviously a good thing from a promotional perspective but could it be more? I believe so, yes!
By lifting the process definitions off the document and giving them life through technology we can start to enable the process as integral to the way we conduct our business. So instead of just saying, we start doing what the accreditation implies we will.
There are many additional benefits over and above those that come with a good standard as well. Single source of content means no more wrong versions of forms or ‘boiler-plate’ templates, change management is easy and cheap, training costs fall dramatically and evidencing compliance becomes a natural bi-product of the process.
It just makes sense. If you want to raise the bar get accredited. If you want to raise it even higher, automate your accredited process.
The technology is there to ensure process is followed so we can close the stable door before the horse bolts in a business scenario.
Unfortunately, motoring technologies aren’t available yet to enforce best practice on our drivers.
No comments:
Post a Comment