{"id":2387,"date":"2012-02-16T17:08:15","date_gmt":"2012-02-16T22:08:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.encoretechresources.com\/insights\/?p=2387"},"modified":"2012-08-06T10:36:15","modified_gmt":"2012-08-06T15:36:15","slug":"standards-get-us-there-consistently-and-reliably","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.encoretechresources.com\/insights\/2012\/02\/16\/standards-get-us-there-consistently-and-reliably\/","title":{"rendered":"Standards Get Us There Consistently and Reliably"},"content":{"rendered":"

We return briefly to sentiments being voiced at Quality Digest<\/a>, this time on the nature of standards. We can’t imagine there are too many folks who view standards, in the context of quality control, as annoyances or encumbrances, but William A. Levinson apparently has come across some such dullards.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Levinson, a quality engineer and auditor, feels it necessary to remind us that standards are developed for the efficiencies and reliability they insure, not for their own, annoying sake. (Unless, as sometimes happens, they’re relating to management rules or guidelines that aren’t true standards.)<\/p>\n

Standards are meant to express, as Frederick Winslow Taylor put it, “the one best way” to accomplish tasks based on given methods. That’s tasks, mind you, not always aims.
\n
\nThe ISO standards, for example, help make workplaces consistent and predictable, and their output consistently reliable. They are, notes Levison, to be viewed as servants rather than masters.<\/p>\n

“Do your own thing” doesn’t apply in workplaces that are expected to yield predictable value, day after day, year after year.<\/p>\n

“All human progress,” Levison writes, “depends on written records, and this is why ISO 9001 and other standards require documentation. It ensures not only that everybody does the job the same way, but also does it in the best known way.”<\/p>\n

Now, the best known<\/em> way implies that somebody in authority is paying attention to outcomes and possible improvements. That’s where fresh human insights come into play, and processes get advanced. But once they’re standardized \u2013 incorporated into standards \u2013 preservation of technique and assurance of outcome are the values being defended.<\/p>\n

So standards aren’t, and shouldn’t be viewed as, irritants but tickets to continued competence, safety and success. William Levison took some of his time and Quality Digest’s space to get that off his chest, and we’re glad he did. \u2013 Doug Bedell <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

We return briefly to sentiments being voiced at Quality Digest, this time on the nature of standards. We can’t imagine there are too many folks who view standards, in the context of quality control, as annoyances or encumbrances, but William A. Levinson apparently has come across some such dullards. Levinson, a quality engineer and auditor, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2387","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-business","category-technology"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t