Quality Assurance/Quality Control in Education Consultacy

[pldey42]

I worked for several years as a consultant both in the USA and in the UK, delivering management systems consultancy.

Bearing in mind that each client, and each assignment, was different, the idea of standardization was more abstract. We delivered a consistent interpretation of the relevant management system standard (ISO 9001, TL 9000, ISO 27001) that met the client's unique business needs. We had three techniques for assuring consistency and quality:

First, we only hired competent people and put them through a kind of boot camp to align their working practices with ours. We had regular in-house conferences at nice hotels, using workshops to refresh our knowledge and skills, learn from each other and maintain a consistent approach.

Second, most of our work resulted in reports of one sort or another. Those were always peer-reviewed for quality, grammar and spelling, house style and in some cases reviewed by a senior manager in terms of risk management. There was no central "QC" function, we found peer review more flexible and real: there was no sense of being managed by bureaucrats in the office.

Third, when we worked with clients to construct management systems (we'd facilitate process mapping, documenting procedures, training, installation of new equipment like automated document control) we'd call in colleagues (competent independently-minded auditors) at various milestones for them to audit our work. This was especially useful when our assignment was to get the client certified with processes that worked.

The reviews and audits sometimes gave us lessons to share at our hotel conferences.

Hope this helps
Pat

 

[Rioananda]

Thanks Pat,

It's very helphful for me....


Thanks,


Rio

 

[Rioananda]

@pldey42 : Based on your experience, is there your client who do not have specific department like "QC" ?? If there, What type of organization ??


Thanks,



Rio

 

[pldey42]

I've always encouraged clients of all descriptions not to have a QC department, because (a) it's usually a test and review department, (b) it sends the message "quality's QC's problem, nobody else's, and (c) it's wrong, because quality is about assuring things are right all the way along the process, not just at the end. which is where QC usually is.

My main competence is in software, where good organizations don't test quality into the product, they assure it with sound process management, peer reviews and appropriate testing. When I have seen an independent QC department they're usually only doing QC (testing, reviewing) and become disconnected from the realities of the rest of the organization.

I'm a strong believer in having a quality assurance team who facilitate educated process management. For professional organizations, I think peer review is the only way to go, because it leverages real skills and capitalizes upon mutual respect and understanding.

(The management of educational and consulting services is, for me, one sector where ISO 9001's claims to be generic are a bit of a stretch. Such sectors rely critically upon professional skill that can take years to accumulate, where the typical ISO 9001-style excessive focus on documented procedures really doesn't help. There's no procedure for helping someone with a learning difficulty, or a senior manager who doesn't understand his costs of poor quality. There are at best techniques. But there is no procedure for the human sensitivity a consultant or educator needs to find the insight that will move things forward. And sometimes one fails because the politics went wrong. C'est la vie.)

But that's just my opinion, thanks for asking.

Pat

 

[Rioananda]

Thanks Pat....

Rio