Bill
Troy asks an interesting question about the global nature of Quality, although
I might argue the question could equally be framed in a number of other ways: “Does Quality have a national identity?” or “Is
the world being well served by the global nature of Quality?” or “Can Quality
become even more global in 2015?” or “Is
there a global Quality community and what does it look like?”
Like
most people I know who are involved in the Quality arena, Quality was something
that I discovered long after my education and training. If I had any prior experiences they tended
towards the negative images: “Quality means
don’t use white-out, or don’t make
scratch-outs when you write”. But I was
lucky and the opportunities for initially an interest in Quality found me
(rather than the reverse). Overtime that
interest became passion and commitment in almost every aspect of my
career.
As
I moved along, I learned to appreciate
that much of the modern Quality narrative is told from an early American perspective
(Shewhart, Deming, Juran, Crosby, Feigenbaum) but almost as quickly the
narrative takes on international focus through organizations like the Japanese
Union of Science and Engineers (JUSE), and British Standards Institute (BSI)
and International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and International
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) and the International Society for Quality in Healthcare (ISQua) and of course (waving my own
national flag!) the Canadian Standards Association (CSA). So from the very get go, the international
community as been on-board and very active with the Quality movement.
The
last several decades has seen great strides in Quality adoption, especially in
the arena of healthcare, and in my particular little part of that world, the
medical laboratory. Through programs and
initiatives including, but certainly not limited to World Health Organization,
and the President’s Emergency Program for AIDS Relief, the landscape of
laboratory Quality in many African countries has jumped forward through active
programs in Quality Management (including the recently developed Strengthening
Laboratory Management Toward Accreditation (SLMTA) initiative). And importantly one can point to the activities
and leadership of my friend and colleague through the Saudi Quality Council.
In
my own small way I get to participate in providing training in Quality
Management for participants around the world on a near daily basis through our
own university based course and through international training provision in
Proficiency Testing. And hosting the UBC
POLQM Medical Laboratory Quality Conference in October 28-30, 2015 (More on
that later!!).
So
that there is strong and active Global
interest in Quality is not in question.
But the larger questions of coordination of efforts that could lead to
more effective integration is still an open topic.
Personally
I see great hope for integration. First
off, within the limitations and realities of resources, the message around the
world is the Quality is Quality,
and matters not who is the messenger.
As
I get to move from meetings to conferences and on to international committees,
I more and more see many of the same people, all working in a variety of roles
surrounding Quality Partnerships. One
day the topic is standards, the next quality management, and the next quality assessment
or quality assurance. And all are
involved in the arena of Quality Knowledge.
What this means is that many of the barriers that have existed between
Quality Partner groups are very much breaking down. The broad topics with Quality Partnerships
are harmonizing.
And
that is a good thing.
And
if I have not made my point clear enough, let me be very specific. ASQ has been a leader in Quality for a very
long time, and its broadening interests to the arena of International Quality
can and will and does may Quality better.