The Question

When we use standards are we sure we have a good system? Those of us who have an interest in 'quality' will readily recognise the fact that if we have a good system we will secure good quality and if we have a poor system then poor quality will ensue.

To achieve a defined objective, such as 'quality' we have designed a system that includes:

• The writing of a standard by third party experts
• The use of this standard to design our own company based procedures
• The internal auditing of compliance to the procedures
• External auditing by third party specialists
• Recognition of achievement through the award of various forms of badges.

This system has broad-based acceptance. It is used in quality (ISO 9000) Training (IiP) Environment (ISO 14001) Business Excellence (EFQM) etc etc. It is also used with a vengeance by the present government. In their commendable desire to modernise Britain it is flooding the public sector with regulation, standards, targets etc.

The following is an extract from the policy document of The Regulation of Care (Scotland) Bill

(We see regulation and standard being similar other than the regulation has an element of compulsion)

There seems to be a bold and unquestioning assumption that a regulation or standard improves quality. What if this assumption is suspect?

We all see the problems - for example:

From Rodney Buse - Chair of the Quality Standards Task Group for the Voluntary Sector

A very real concern because maybe that is exactly what standards do - it is one of the outcomes of the design of the system that uses standards.

From Helen Oldfield Editor "Quality World" (May 2001)

Maybe it is the design of the overall system that causes these problems.

From Thomas Petzinger in his book The New Pioneers

There is surely an urgent and immediate need to debate and question the underlying assumption that standards or regulations improve quality. Or to be more precise to recognise where standards help and where they engender waste.

In this article we would wish to argue that the use of standards and regulations for activities that require thought and commitment is inappropriate. It by passes the intellectual effort necessary and underestimates the complexity of most tasks.

There are undoubted areas where standards are essential. As a society we could not function if we did not voluntarily adhere to certain standards. The letters we use to write is a standard, our language is a standard, and how we depict music is a standard. Our roads would be chaotic if we did not willingly adhere to the Highway Code standard. We do need disciplines to enable us to work together, in teams, across the company, even between organisations

But at the other end of the spectrum let us recognise that we human beings are complex and varied. And it is this complexity and variety that is our principal asset. Is it not the very essence of our lives? There is a real need to understand this wonderfully complex asset. There is a real danger of inhibiting this asset if we overdo the demands for compliance.

At this point might we consider a paper presented by John Edelman, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Rochester College, New York. His theme was to argue that there is a need to be able to differentiate between simple or what he termed convergent problems and complex or divergent problems.

The three problems he uses as examples were - doubling the area of a square, baking a loaf of bread and educating your daughter to be an informed critical thinker.

To double the size of the square we can simply form a square on the diagonal of the original square. This rule or formula works every time, we can, with certainty, predict the outcome and we can apply the rule without knowledge of the mathematics that produced this answer. This he termed as a simple or convergent problem.

With the baking of a loaf of bread more variation comes into play. We can still have a standard - the recipe - but we have to take into account the skill of the cook, the temperature of the oven, the nature of the ingredients, the accuracy of the quantities. We do have to apply a degree of intellectual effort and we are not so confident in predicting the outcome. We are moving away from a simple convergent problem.

Now when we consider the third issue of educating our daughter we find that there are all manner of variables that come into play. They are her teachers, the school, the curriculum, the home environment and her peers. And most of these variables are now animate, they are people with all their complexity, innovation, love and talent. The more ambitious of us will invariably try to write a standard to address this issue, but they will fail. The problem is too complex especially when we require to balance opposites such as cultivating disciple and encouraging independence of thought. To achieve our goal there is no alternative but to continually apply considerable intellectual effort. It is not practical to delegate the thinking to some predetermined formula or standard. It is a complex divergent problem.

John Edelman's argument is that we should consider the nature of the problem before we design a solution. Simple convergent problems can be addressed with rules or standards. Other persons can be asked to provide the intellectual effort. We ourselves need only follow the rules and formula, and we can have reasonable expectations of the outcomes. On the other hand complex divergent problems need a structure to facilitate intellectual thought. The problem can only be addressed from a basis of knowledge and a feel for all the variety of the contingent influences. We cannot delegate the thinking. Nor is it reasonable to expect definable outcomes.

Let us now look at the work of Alfie Kohn. The starting point of his case is that the majority of us come to work wanting to do a good job, wanting to take pride in our contribution. As Douglas McGregor said in 1960 we cannot motivate people - they are already motivated - we can only de-motivate them. In Alfie Khon's book "Punished by Rewards" he reviews the damaging effect of reward thinking or positive re-enforcement. The basis of which is "Do this and I will give you that." It is a manipulative technique designed to enhance our motivation. But the actual outcome is that as individuals we move our motivation away from the this - the task - and onto the that - the reward. Instead of thinking about the challenges of the task we start to concentrate on how we can maximise the reward. The technique may work for activities that require no intellectual effort such as widget production, but it is a retrograde step when any real innovative thought has to be applied to the task. Reward thinking is widespread in our society and so are its damaging effects. Our students in our education system study not for the knowledge but to gain the qualification - the reward. And when the qualification is secured the student invariably has little further interest in continuing to study the subject area.

Furthermore reward thinking, as it is manipulative, eats away at our self-esteem. Our pride wants us to associate with the task and do the work to the best of our ability. When we find that we are persuaded to chase the reward at the expense of the task, it is our pride that comes under attack.

In other words we compound the damage when the standard is accompanied by a reward in the guise of certification or registration or the securing a place on the bid list. The requirement to achieve ISO 9000 before being allowed on bid lists was a marvellous marketing tool but we are paying a heavy price.

Edward de Bono in his book "Textbook of Wisdom" - a thoroughly enjoyable read - uses the simple drawings below to make a significant point. From the first box he asks how we would prevent a person going from point A to point B. Would we build a wall round B, dig a ditch between A & B, or simply tie a ball and chain to A's leg?

From the second box De Bono explains that by far the most effective way of preventing the person at A from getting to B is to provide an easy and attractive path to C.

All these standards that we mentioned, have been written by very capable people. People who have a very positive wish to help and provide guidance. They would be appalled to think that in the majority of organisations their work is being used as a short cut. There are several exceptions but in most companies this is precisely what is happening. If we take ISO 9000 as an example - it allows the purchasers to demand accreditation instead of developing a close working relationship with their suppliers. Managing Directors are persuaded to go for accreditation for marketing reasons not quality, They can delegate the thinking necessary to achieve quality to those that have written the standard and then pass the application onto the Quality Manager. The Quality Manager avoids explaining the rationale behind the procedures by proclaiming that it is demanded by the standard. And discipline is maintained by the threat of external auditors and the removal of the 'badge.' The third party auditors maintain the circus by creating a mystique about auditing and creating roles of Lead Assessors etc. In other words the standard has created a self-sustaining cycle that assists companies avoid the intellectual effort necessary to capture the full potential of our people and produce a real quality service to the customer.

The other tragedy is that the standards are rarely used as stepping-stones. If they provided guidance for the starting point from which real intellectual thought about quality might evolve then little damage would be done. But as mentioned, the use of rewards - i.e. accreditation - persuades us that the badge is the target and not quality. And the aim of quality is replaced by the aim of maintaining accreditation.

Quality, safety, training, care of the disadvantaged etc are all difficult problems that require intellectual effort - especially of our senior executives. By using standards we have in fact facilitated the by passing of this intellectual effort.

1. We apply simple convergent thinking to complex divergent problems. In so doing it allows executives to delegate the intellectual effort necessary.(Edelman)
2. By the use of rewards we encourage organisations to be more concerned with the badge or reward than the actual task. (Khon)
3. By providing an easy alternative we facilitate the avoidance of the real and complex problem. (de Bono)

We must therefore conclude that the system that uses standards to achieve 'quality' is in desperately need of re-evaluation. What is the alternative? The alternative is the investment in, and application of, knowledge. Knowledge of us as people, knowledge of our strengths, our emotions, our pride and our inherent desire to continually improve. And yes it is difficult and time consuming. That is the point. There is no short cut.