On the same theme, and again with credit to Thomson, here is their current in-flight safety video. As a frequent traveller I can certainly confirm that if there is one thing that goes right over your head, it is the in-flight safety demo. Well just take a look at what they have done with it. Another very, very good piece of work.

Click here to view the embedded video.

…. and here’s another attempt to do much the same thing in a more “adult” way. Great fun, but a little distracting, I’d argue. I’ve actually watched this clip a few times, always for the wrong reason. At Capable People we understand the challenges that training brings and applaud anybody that tries to make it both fun and effective. However there is a balance to be struck. It is possible to get carried away with the performance and lose the message. My feeling is that this is what happens here. I’ll still give them 5 for effort, though …

Click here to view the embedded video.

Post from: Capable People Blog

Reinforcing the mundane

That said, it does have redeeming features (again recounted in this earlier post) one of which being the RADAR assessment framework, which can easily be disaggregated from the EFQM Model and used in isolation either to evaluate, review or even to help design a business process or function.

So what exactly is RADAR?

For those of you who don’t know, the EFQM assessment process uses a numerical scoring system. Its not an exact science, of course, but it does help assessors rank and rate comparative data between companies and processes, and maintain a consistent approach. At the moment that scoring system is based on the “RADAR” Scorecard (see below)

The EFQM RADAR assessment approach uses a type of balanced scorecard to encourage the assessor (or auditor for that matter) to ask a series of key questions, namely;

R. To what extent are results used to set targets for process performance?

A. To what extent is a clear approach (procedures for example) defined and understood?

D. To what extent is the approach deployed (i.e. does everyone follow the approach or is deployment patchy)?

A. To what extent is the process assessed (i.e. measurement that asks the question “is it working the way it should”)?

R. To what extent is the process reviewed? (i.e. a review of whether the overall approach is still relevant and suitable)?

Strengths of the RADAR approach

The key strengths of the RADAR approach (in my opinion) are as follows:

• It forces the user to evaluate the big, joined up picture, not just elements in isolation
• It forces the user to evaluate the flow of the PDCA cycle through a process
• It actually STARTS (the first “R”) by asking “to what extent does the process achieve its desired results

This final point, for me, is the key. The starting point for the evaluation of the process is to establish to what extent the process is achieving its aims. Whether it is EFFECTIVE in other words. I could suggest that in some other evaluative frameworks (quality auditing, for example) the effectiveness of the process is often relegated to the status of afterthought, and sometimes not even that. Conformance is king, in other words. Subsequent stages of the evaluation process (the remaining “ADAR”) more or less follow a recognisable PDCA process to establish (assuming the process is found to be effective) whether this effectiveness is controlled and therefore sustainable. I penned a post a couple of years ago suggesting ways it could be incorporated into the quality auditing process.

Now, I am not saying it is the answer we have all been looking for. All I am saying is that it could work well for some. Personally I like the thought process. I think it works

Post from: Capable People Blog

The EFQM RADAR Framework

Even though I may be a paid and badged-up quality professional, I have to confess that I have never worried too much about what the profession in general thinks about itself or about me. My customers are too important to me to get wrapped up in any of that. When push comes to shove, I have no illusions about where my bread is buttered. In my work I am fortunate enough to have very broad exposure to the inner thoughts and challenges of some pretty impressive companies. I know full well that those that operate towards the higher end of the food chain have no need for trite cliches or lectures about putting the customer first, the 8 principles of quality management or whatever. They are well past all of that. That begs the question, what do they want from “quality professionals” (if anything)?

Whilst it is hard to generalise what the majority of my customers want (I do different things for them) what I can say is that they want the service to be smart, commercially aware and, above all, grown up. I realised a long time ago that if I was one of those “quality professionals” that could only spit the dirty word “profit” through gritted teeth, as though it was something to be ashamed of, that I’d not get much work. Generally customers want either solutions to their existing problems, gateways to opportunities or assistance in refining their approach to, and management of, risk. They do not want a lecture about “quality” or “the customer” from somebody who has appointed themselves an expert in how to run their business. That, I would suggest, is NOT quality management for grown ups, but quality management for kids.

So, in summary, what does the profession need? Well I think two things for starters;

1. A greater understanding of basic economics, and an acceptance that this is vitally important and PART OF quality management;

2. A greater weighting within the accepted “core tools” of quality to the identification and management of risk

This is where I am going anyway. The wider profession can follow if it chooses.

Post from: Capable People Blog

Quality Management for Grown Ups

Open book/Closed book?

Now. I like open book exams, but then I also like closed book exams. But which is better? There’s only one way to find out …..

In April the IRCA are issuing a set of new QMS Lead Auditor exam papers. At the same time the format is switching from open book to closed book (with access to the ISO 9001 standard). This has started some heated debates, and I have seen some pretty unfair criticism levelled at the IRCA, the closed book format, the value of the QMS Lead Auditor training course and of the fundamental value of testing by exam. You’d think there was a perfect solution out there and all we had to do was choose to apply it. The problem is, life is not like that. Generally we have to choose the better of our available options

Closed book exams are nothing but a memory test!

Is that true? I have heard people say this before they have even they have seen the question papers. What about questions that ask you to interpret and apply knowledge in a particular situational context? Has anybody tried a memory based strategy for that? The IRCA have tried to develop papers that are a fair test of knowledge and ability to apply it rather than memory, so I think such criticisms are unfair

If people are going to cheat, they are going to cheat

This may be true, but there are things we can do to reduce their options for doing it and to make it easier to spot. In both cases I think the new papers are step in the right direction. Question papers that require qualitative and descriptive answers front to back actually offer several “correct” answers. This makes an improbable lack of variation much easier to spot. Closed book also limits the opportunity for people to be closely “coached” to the exam (which we all know happens)

The course means nothing, the exam means nothing

If the credibility of passing the exam reaches a tipping point it becomes worthless. If pass rates are high, as is incompetency in the field, questions get asked about what the point of the 5 day course is. Exams have two main functions. First to test knowledge and second to differentiate and present a competence barrier to practising. The achievement level has to be set at a level that lets the competent through and keeps the incompetent out. My personal view (I cannot say I speak for the IRCA, I am only speculating) is that the IRCA believe the pass/fail ratios are not right at the moment and that maybe more people should fail

Anyway. Changes are coming. Let’s see what happens and then we can all be wise with the benefit of hindsight. Right now I am sticking my neck out and saying it is a step in the right direction for the profession, even if it will mean the inconvenience of more re-sits

Post from: Capable People Blog

The problem with open book exams …

Singing in your own voice

An obscure statement, I know, but allow me to explain.

I have witnessed many people report their audit findings at the close of an audit. Some do it very well, some do not. One of the things I have noticed over the years is that the process of audit reporting actually does something to some people. It turns them into another person completely. They use a different tone of voice, they use unusual words that you would never here them use in everyday speech and, in the main, it ends up being incredibly distracting, painful sometimes.

A little while ago I was watching a programme on TV about music. I think the show was about David Bowie. Anyway, at one point in the show, there was an interview with the Madness singer, Suggs, who (in commenting on the singing style of David Bowie) observed that he generally “sang in his own voice”. What he meant by that is that you could tell it was him. Suggs sings in his own voice so did, for example, the late, Ian Dury.

Now, I am not for one moment suggesting that anyone should set there audit findings to music. I am merely suggesting that auditors could do worse than to consider the same principle when reporting their findings. Your own voice will be perfectly fine. The language you use in everyday speech will also serve your purposes quite nicely and, as an added bonus, you will not run the risk of sounding a bit daft. This is one area where we should not try too hard to learn a mysterious  new skill

Suggs from Madness reports his audit findings

Post from: Capable People Blog

Audit Reporting

How Capable Blog Started

Four years ago I started this blog. Capable People was young and acquiring its leads very much by word of mouth (which it still does, of course). I was researching ways to increase the visibility of our corporate website, get it higher up search engine rankings, more visitors, and so on – for fairly obvious reasons. I think my research started by googling a phrase something like “how to get more visitors to your website”, then trawling through what came up. Anyway, a recurring theme was “get a blog” so, on a whim, I did. That lifted the lid off Pandora’s Box somewhat as I then immediately needed to populate it with something – but what? Back to google … “the do and don’ts of blogs” (or something). Rudimentary though this research was, it actually gave me a useful set of guidelines within about 30 minutes that I still use today. I followed the same path when I started using twitter too, although this continues to be very much a work in progress. We also have a LinkedIn discussion group, but we do not use Facebook.

Rules is rules

The main point I am making in this post is that there are rules (or established conventions, to be more precise). Following the rules make it more likely that social media will work for you, while ignoring or breaking the rules may be worse than not using social media at all. In social media we have a newish vehicle by which companies can interact with their customers or user group. The vehicle has rules and conventions that are established by the user group, and companies have to understand and accept this. So rule 1 is that the company doesn’t make or dictate the rules. Any attempt simply to use your blog and twitter feed as a direct advert for your services will be rejected. You are, in effect, inviting yourself into the virtual social lives of your user group, and they will tolerate your presence only up to the point that you start to become a nuisance, and being a corporate nuisance in the world of social media is a very dangerous thing to be

It has to “add” something

Let’s get one thing straight, adverts are adverts. Adverts have been around for a while and we all know what they are. Corporate websites are the same. More or less an on-line advert for the day job. Anybody who thinks integrating social media applications as part of the same mix is on completely the wrong page. That is not how it works. Let’s start with blogging. If you think you can just cloak an advert for your services under the cover of a blog article, forget it. Few people are so stupid that they can’t see through it, and nobody likes being talked to like they are stupid. Blogs have to be interesting, funny or valuable in some way, preferably with genuinely original content and well written. The rules of blogging are quite straightforward, actually

The best uses of twitter, on the other hand, in my opinion anyway, is where the company actually tries to use twitter to add something to the way they interact with the customer. The best examples I have come across recently are @DellCares and @DeltaAssist. These corporate entities actually use twitter to pick up rapidly on gripes and grumbles of customers (like me) not only to respond to them, but also to actually resolve the problems via Direct Messages. For example, I have changed flights with Delta using twitter alone, and had a faulty printer replaced by Dell again simply via 2 or 3 tweets. They don’t use twitter merely as a means of sweeping cyberspace for gripes and then passing them on to the normal complaint handling people, they actually pick up the problem and DEAL with the problem at one fell swoop. The first time this happened to me (Delta) I thought it was incredible. I was on a KLM code share to the USA and found that everything KLM managed to screw up, I could tweet @DeltaAssist to get sorted, even in transit. KLM had no such equivalent process. Their twitter account merely routed you to a number you could spend the best part of a day on and still not get a result. Since then I have found the same smartness applies to @Dellcares

Anyway, the point is that social media CAN play a highly effective part in the customer relationship, but it has to ADD something. Merely using it to repeat or duplicate something that happens on your website, well, does that really add anything? I don’t think so

The final observation I will make about social media (from a commercial perspective) is that it tends to be quite fair with you. You get out of it about as much as you deserve, by and large. I think that’s a good thing

Post from: Capable People Blog

Smart Use of Social Media

Why Information Risk is a Board-level Issue

• Every organisation, whether public or private sector, handles information. This information must be appropriately controlled and protected against the threats, non-technical as well as technical, that can affect it

• Compromised information can cause enormous damage to an organisation’s operations and reputation. Information not appropriately protected can lead to serious compliance and legal failures

• Good Information Risk Management helps an organisation get the best out of its information and to move forward and develop, confident that its risks

Read more …

www.capablepeople.co.uk

Post from: Capable People Blog

Information Risk – It’s a Board Room Matter

Seasons greetings to everyone who has read and supported this blog over the past 4 years. It started as a hobby and has grown into … a hobby. That said, it has brought me in touch with a range of very nice, intelligent and interesting people so, for that reason alone, it has been worthwhile

To add a little festive cheer to your lives, I have linked to this wonderful example of dynamic incident management. To appreciate it in all its splendour, you have to have the sound turned up so you can hear the commentary

Meantime, I wish you all a happy, healthy and prosperous 2012. Please don’t worry that the world will end. It won’t. The Mayan calendar only had 360 days so, given that they clearly could not even accurately predict the end of a solar year, the chances of them being any more successful predicting the end of days I would say is remote

Shaun

Click here to view the embedded video.

Post from: Capable People Blog

Seasons Greetings from Capable Blog

There is a discussion in process within the Capable People LinkedIn discussion group at the moment, started by Craig Cartmell. Craig initially asked whether anyone had seen much evidence of any practical application of ISO 9004:2009 by companies. Naturally, I’ve added my ten cents, but the issues, I think, deserve an airing on here too, as I think, at best, ISO 9004:2009 is an enigma

So, two years on, where are we with it?

When ISO 9004:2009 was released, I think it is fair to say it took a lot of us by surprise. I posted a review of it soon after I had first sight of it, but at that time it was a bit early to judge its practical impact. What struck me first was that it was fundamentally a different document to its predecessor both in content and intended use. It no longer gave you clause by clause help on the intent of ISO 9001. In retrospect I now see that as a big retrograde step. Whatever we might feel about the weaknesses of ISO 9001, the old ISO 9004 did at least reduce the chances of inappropriate application. So, that useful “help” document is gone (or at least withdrawn). Whatever the intent of ISO 9004:2009 was or is, I do think that at the very least the old 9004 should have been allowed to retain its position within the series. The baby, in my opinion, went out with the bathwater. At the time I remember thinking, based on the general bemusement of the community with ISO 9004:2009, who asked for this? Time would tell, I concluded – let’s see who is actively using it two years down the line. Now I believe it is fair to conclude that appetite for the document is limited. I get around more than most and do not find people using it at all in a business context, and the only chatter about it is in an academic context such as this

Now I do appreciate that hindsight is 100% accurate, but I also believe that it is not that difficult to vox pop the user group and get a feel for demand beforehand. I simply cannot accept that this could have been done properly in this case. There are people who believe that it was developed with a view to craftily sliding in a “higher than ISO 9001″ level of QMS certification by stealth, but I’ve not seen any evidence for this. Moreover I don’t think the document reads like a certifiable standard, so I don’t buy into that conspiracy theory. In summary I am still left scratching my head after two years, lamenting the loss of the old style ISO 9004 and wondering how much time and money was spent (I won’t say wasted) developing something which, to me, seems like a complete white elephant

Post from: Capable People Blog

ISO 9004:2009 – Is it any practical use?

The performance of a system is affected in no small way by the behaviour of the people in it. They are affected in turn by variousl factors, their health and well-being, their state of mind, their competence and, last but not least, their motivation. This somewhat inconvenient situation is nevertheless recognised in its own somewhat clumsy way within ISO 9000. Involvement of People is listed as one of the 8 underpinning principles of quality management. The only problem is the auditable standard does not devote much effort towards defining any required system attributes that are likely to promote the principle, save perhaps for a bit of training (clause 6.2.2). It stands as a principle more or less absent of requirements

The main reason for the omission, perhaps, is that the subject is DIFFICULT. It’s tough. The concept of motivation is supported only by a lot of theories. Not laws or rules, just theories. None are proven and not all are necessarily consistent with one another. So dare I suggest that ISO 9001 takes the convenient option of side-stepping the issue for the time being? Let’s face it, many of us do the same. How often do we see adverts for “self-motivated individuals”. What should that tell us about the job? Don’t expect excitement? Don’t expect any thanks, recognition or encouragement? Maybe it should set the alarm bells well and truly ringing as we could often read between the lines “Mug required for god-awful job”

Deming, however, believed people do actually carry an inherent motivation. So maybe this concept of a “self-motivated individual” is no fallacy, after all. He believed each of us holds a desire to do a good job and we take pride in doing so. If true, that’s has to be a good thing, hasn’t it? Because, as leaders and managers, it gets us off to a bit of a flying start

But hang on a moment, we need to be careful. “Inherent” does not mean “unconditional” or “indestructible”. Motivation can be destroyed. It is destroyed – all the time. How often have we seen first day enthusiasm systematically crushed and replaced by seasoned cynicism and apathy? And here’s the rub. Who always gets the blame for this loss of motivation? Yes, the poor old worker

Good old blame. The management tool of choice for the terminally inept, as easy as credit and as versatile as a Swiss Army Knife

Anyway, whatever theory of motivation we subscribe to, it is underpinned by a fundamental law
People get pissed off

This links nicely back to an earlier post relating to the role of leaders in amongst all this malarkey. A key role of a leader, according to Deming, is to continually seek ways to make it easier for people to do a good job – remove the barriers. This post on Curious Cat refers to Deming’s views on this matter and calls on managers not to motivate but to “Stop De-Motivating Employees”

In other words, people are already inherently motivated – all we as leaders can do is mess it up … but sadly mess it up we usually do

In a very early post I highlighted the practice in a US Army Garrison of rewarding staff for making improvement suggestions. Deming was not one for that sort of thing at all. He deemed that to be extrinsic motivation, and you only need extrinsic motivation if you have failed to build intrinsic motivation into the job. He saw extrinsic motivators like that as a work-around and an indicator of a deeper, more under-lying, system malaise

Anyway, to summarise, we can perhaps take a useful and practical lesson from this great imponderable. That is, if the subject of motivation is so big and complex so as to freak us out, could we come at it from another, perhaps easier, angle, and focus on the identification and removal of demotivators?

Post from: Capable People Blog

Deming on involvement of people