Doncaster prison received a Charter Mark, the public sector's award which proclaims winners "have got a public service that is amongst the best in the country", the United Kingdom that is. However, that award didn't seem to fit in with Doncaster Prison's reputation as one of Britain's worst penal establishments for suicides.

While Home Office ministers point to other areas where Doncaster is ahead of the prison sector, its award does lead to questions about the value of accreditations such as the Charter Mark, ISO 9000, etc. These increasingly appear on everything from corporate letterheads to job adverts and are assumed to be a good thing.

But are these really good for business or is it just something that has been sold to large corporations by the quality assurance industry and later imposed by large companies to make their lives easier? The truth is that large companies and government authorities impose systems such as ISO 9000 to avoid auditing their suppliers as this is a requirement imposed by the standard. But, shouldn’t they be making sure their suppliers make the cut and not just ask for some general certification?

Well, I think there are good reasons to believe that quality is not good for business:

1. Procedures & Control. – ISO 9000 is based on procedures and control that focuses little, or nothing at all, on understanding why and what makes the business succeed. Planning and control overrides analysis and creativity needed to improve a business and encourage excellence.

2. Excessive Bureaucracy. – ISO 9000 overwhelms companies with paperwork which has no future use except to convince the auditor that the procedures have been carried out correctly. If you work for a company that is cerified you would have most probably suffered the “Record Panic”; all the company working for many hours to artificially reproduce records, which should have been a natural consequence of the employment of the quality management system.

3. Two-tier management systems. - Too many companies have a two-tier management system: the real management system and the one they display to the quality auditor. This obviously causes inefficiencies; such as the “Record Panic” mentioned before, duplication of tasks and tasks that add no value whatsoever to the business.

In my opinion, the objective of quality management systems, i.e. customer satisfaction and continuous improvement, is good, but this should be achieved by implementing a system that encourages the integration of the decision-making process with the workforce and customer relations. This more hands on approach should stimulate individual expression and creativity, rather than strict procedures and control.

Now this is my case against Quality Management Systems. Next week, Ricardo Rodríguez, an English student of mine and expert in this area will present the case in favour of Quality Management Systemas and in particular the ISO 9000 standard.

Charter Mark - un premio de Calidad en el Reino Unido
award - premio
amongst the best - entre los mejores
fit in - encaja
suicides - suicidios
Home Office - Ministerio del Interior
ahead - por delante
does lead to - no lleva a
letterheads - encabezados
imposed - impuesto
avoid - evitar
suppliers - proveedores
standard - norma
making sure - asegurar
make the cut - llega al nivel deseado
focuses - se centra
nothing at all - nada de nada
improve - mejorar
encourage - estimular
overwhelms - sobrecargado
paperwork - papeleo
procedures - procedimientos
record - registro
natural consequence - consecuencia natural
two-tier management system - doble sistema simultáneo
add no value whatsoever - no aporta valor para nada
i.e. (that is) - es decir
customer satisfaction - satisfacción del cliente
continuous improvement - mejora continua
decision-making process - proceso de decisión
workforce - fuerza laboral
hands on approach - enfoque práctico