Developing international standards

At present the Cove has various people intimately familiar with, say, TS 16949 or the working of the ISO TC 176 committee. Indeed, some of the Covers are registrars, members of such committees and so on. They can, do and could contribute important knowledge on such topics.

There is no reason why the TC 176 committee should not be invited to do its work openly using the facilities of the new body. At present, their only substantial means of reaching the international community to gain participation in the standards’ review process is through the BAMs and the ISO site, neither of which could be described as vibrant or vital in the debate.

Moreover, as membership of the BAMs dwindles, ISO is less likely to feel it issues “quality standards” that truly reflects the global constituency of its customers and users, for they are unlikely to be BAMs members or contribute. Even more importantly, if such standards are needed, the quality movement does need to know the end results is representative of the global opinion, experience and needs of its customers – the businesses it serves as employees, consultants or registrars. Could it be there is a correlation between the growing dissatisfaction with current ISO 9K (and other standards) and the falling membership of the BAMs? (I suspect some academic with little else to do will investigate that possibility, now that I have suggested it!)

There is no reason why a new ISO 9K should not be developed using the new Institute. Throw open the doors of the “smoke-filled committee rooms” and let those whom will use the standard, buy the standard and be responsible for its credibility and progress have their say in a public forum where all know their views will be seen, cannot be censored or swept under the carpet – dismissed because they are not in accord with the opinions of a mysteriously appointed few. Make the process transparent. Our cyber Institute would ensure the end product is better, that reasons for dismissing suggestions must be justified. Call the idea consensus or professional plebiscite as you wish. Actually, it is market opinion.

If the software community can develop Linux using the internet, why cannot the quality profession develop its own standards, which are far less technically complex or demanding?

That statement is intended as a direct challenge to standards’ committees.

While one cannot dispute the committees and TAGs enjoyed a close relationship with the BAMs over the years, their loyalty must be first of all to the profession they wish to serve. As the world moves on and the professional body’s business model changes to something new, those committees must work with the new one. In the case of America, for example, why should the new cyber institute not invite and welcome its TAG members and chairman? Why should that chairman not be invited to run a section of the site to help his TAG’s work and communicate with members.

Would any TAG chairperson be foolish enough to turn his/ her back on such an invitation and opportunity. And, the overall TC 176 committee and ISO itself, a presumably non-aligned, non-political entity, would surely frown if he/ she did. And, other nations’ TAGs could be invited to do the same. After all, the International Quality Institute (if that might be its name) would be precisely that: international.

Next: How to get the cyber Institute going

top of page