{"id":2062,"date":"2012-09-15T12:14:12","date_gmt":"2012-09-15T12:14:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.saasoft.com\/blog\/?p=2062"},"modified":"2024-05-14T18:09:07","modified_gmt":"2024-05-14T18:09:07","slug":"standard-ambiguity","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/?p=2062","title":{"rendered":"Standard Ambiguity"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>One that causes much confusion and debate in the world of Improvement is the word standard <\/strong>– because it has so many different yet inter-related meanings.<\/p>\n

It is an ambiguous word and a multi-facetted concept.<\/p>\n

For example, standard method<\/em> can be the normal way of doing something (as in a standard operating procedure \u00a0or SOP); standard can be the expected outcome of doing something; standard can mean the minimum acceptable quality of the output (as in a safety standard); standard can mean an aspirational performance target; standard can mean an absolute reference or yardstick (as in the standard kilogram); standard can mean average; and so on. \u00a0It is an ambiguous word.<\/p>\n

So, it is no surprise that we get confused. And when we feel confused we get scared and we try to relieve our fear by asking questions; which doesn’t help because we don’t get clear answers.\u00a0 We start to discuss, and debate and argue and all this takes effort, time and inevitably money.\u00a0 And the fog of confusion does not lift. \u00a0If anything it gets denser. \u00a0And the reason? Standard Ambiguity.<\/p>\n

\n

One contributory factor is the perennial confusion between purpose and process.\u00a0 Purpose is the Why<\/em>.\u00a0 Process is the How<\/em>. \u00a0The concept of Standard applied to the Purpose will include the outcomes: the minimum acceptable (safety standard), the expected (the specification standard) and the actual (the de facto standard). \u00a0The concept of Standard applied to the Process would include the standard operating procedures and the reference standards for accurate process measurement (e.g. a gold standard).<\/p>\n

\n

\"\"<\/a>To illustrate the problems that result from confusing purpose standards with process standards we need look no further than education.<\/p>\n

Q: What is the purpose of a school? Why does a school exist:<\/p>\n

A:To deliver people who have achieved their highest educational potential perhaps.<\/p>\n

Q: What is the purpose of an exam board? Why does an exam board exist?<\/p>\n

A: To deliver a common educational reference standard and to have a reliable method for comparing individual pupils against that reference standard perhaps.<\/p>\n

So, where does the idea of “Being the school that achieved the highest percentage of top grades?” fit with these two purpose standards? \u00a0Where does the school league table concept fit?\u00a0 It is not obvious to see immediately.\u00a0 But, you might say, we do want to improve the educational capability of our population because that is a national and global asset in an increasingly complex, rapidly changing, high technology world.\u00a0 Surely a league table will drive up the quality of education? But it doesn’t seem to be turning out that way. What is getting in the way?<\/p>\n

\n

What might be getting in the way is how we often conflate collaboration with competition.<\/p>\n

It seems that many believe we can only have either<\/strong> collaboration or<\/strong> competition.\u00a0 Either-Or thinking is a trap for the unwary and whenever these words are uttered a small alarm bell should ring. \u00a0Are collaboration and competition mutually exclusive? Or are we just making this assumption to simplify the problem? PS. We do that a lot.<\/p>\n

\n

Suppose the exam boards were both<\/strong> competing and<\/strong> collaborating with each other. Suppose they collaborated to set and to maintain a stable and trusted reference standard; and suppose that they competed to provide the highest quality service to the schools – in terms of setting and marking exams. What would happen?<\/p>\n

Firstly, an exam board that stepped out of line in terms of these standards would lose its authority to set and mark exams – it would cut its own commercial throat.\u00a0 Secondly, the quality of the examination process would go up because those who invest in doing that will attract more of the market share.<\/p>\n

What about the schools – what if they both collaborated and competed too?\u00a0 What if they collaborated to set and maintain a stable and trusted reference standard of conduct and competency of their teachers – and what if they competed to improve the quality of their educational process. The best schools\u00a0 would attract the most pupils.<\/p>\n

What can happen if we combine competition and collaboration is that the sum becomes greater than the parts.<\/p>\n

\n

A similar situation exists in healthcare. \u00a0Some hospitals are talking about competing to be the safest hospitals and collaborating to improve quality. \u00a0It sounds plausible but it is rational?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>Safety is an absolute standard – it is the common minimum acceptable quality.\u00a0 No hospital should fail on safety so this is not<\/strong> a suitable subject for competition. \u00a0All hospitals could collaborate to set and to maintain safety – helping each other by sharing data, information, knowledge, understanding and wisdom. \u00a0And with that Foundation of Trust they can then compete on quality – using their natural competitive spirit to pull them ever higher. Better quality of service, better quality of delivery and better quality of performance – including financial. Win-win-win.\u00a0 And when the quality of everything improves through collaborative and competitive upwards pull, then the achievable level of minimum acceptable quality increases.\u00a0 This means that the Safety Standard can improve too.\u00a0 Everyone wins.<\/p>\n

\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

One that causes much confusion and debate in the world of Improvement is the word standard – because it has so many different yet inter-related meanings. It is an ambiguous word and a multi-facetted concept. For example, standard method can be the normal way of doing something (as in a standard operating procedure \u00a0or SOP); … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Standard Ambiguity”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[21,22,35,46,48],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2062","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-governance","category-healthcare","category-reflections","category-teach","category-trust"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2062","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2062"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2062\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6312,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2062\/revisions\/6312"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2062"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2062"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/hcse.blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2062"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}