It is now officially announced. I have volunteered to be the chair of the Team and Excellence Forum for the ASQ.
The Team and Excellence Forum is well placed to develop and provide best practices in the input and process factors, and to develop competencies that the other technical divisions and forums can leverage. Areas such as facilitation, team organization, collaboration and the list goes on. In the last few months I have found myself narrowing in to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Division for my professional/technical competencies and the Team and Workplace Excellence will be the focus on my interests in social and self competencies.
As the announcement indicates I am currently pulling together a leadership team -we will need to fill at minimum a secretary and chair elect (the chair position for the forum runs through 2021 so I’m not going anywhere) – and folks to build and drive content.
My immediate goals are:
Conduct a voice-of-the-customer survey – need to figure out what topics the membership is most interested in and what content formats (case studies, podcasts, webinars, videos, articles, etc) work best
Build content on the my.ASQ community so it can go public
Create a 2020 business plan aligned to the ASQ strategic priorities (due in September)
An exciting year is ahead. If you are a member of the ASQ and looking for volunteer opportunities, and your interests align with Team Excellence, then drop me an email.
I’ll be a Session Speaker at the 2019 ASQ Audit Conference in Orlando, Florida on 17-18 October. My sessions “Lessons on Change Management from a Consent Decree Site” and “ Auditing the Quality System for Data integrity”, two topics I hope folks known I am passionate about.
The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Division is sponsoring a track of speakers and I volunteered to participate. I look forward to meeting anyone who is at the conference.
Every 5-7 years ASQ reviews and updates each Body of Knowledge (BoK) to ensure the most current state of practice is being tested in the examination. Part of the updating process is to conduct a job analysis survey to determine whether the topics in the 2012 BoK are still relevant to the job role of HACCP auditors and to identify any new topics that have emerged since that BoK was developed. Based upon qualitative research with industry experts and feedback from the CHA Job Analysis Committee, food industry knowledge was included in the job analysis survey. The quantitative results of the CHA job analysis survey indicated that all topics from the 2012 BoK are still relevant to common practice and that food industry knowledge is essential to the role of ASQ Certified HACCP Auditors. To accurately reflect the expanded new knowledge and the practice of ASQ Certified HACCP Auditors, ASQ and the CHA Committee have updated the name of the exam program to the Certified Food Safety and Quality Auditor (CFSQA).
The 2020 Certified Food Safety and Quality Auditor Body of Knowledge (CFSQA BoK) will be introduced at the January 2020 administration. After that, ASQ Certified HACCP Auditors will be renamed and recertify as ASQ Certified Food Safety and Quality Auditors.
To see the 2020 Certified Food Safety and Quality Auditor Body of Knowledge, click here, and to see the changes between the 2012 CHA BoK and the 2020 CFSQA BoK, click here. Below are some frequently asked questions regarding the update.
Why will the name be changed?
ASQ conducts a job analysis studies to determine what topics in the existing BoK are still relevant to the job role of HACCP auditors and to identify any new topics that have emerged since that BoK was developed. Based upon qualitative research with industry experts and feedback from the CHA Job Analysis Committee, additional food industry knowledge was included in the job analysis study and was subsequently validated by the active CHAs. To accurately reflect the expanded new knowledge and the practice of ASQ Certified HACCP Auditors, ASQ and the CHA Committee have updated the name of the exam program to the Certified Food Safety and Quality Auditor (CFSQA).
When will the certification program’s title change?
Starting January 1st, 2020, all Certified HACCP Auditors will be known as Certified Food Safety and Quality Auditors.
What was the scope of change in content within the Body of Knowledge?
No content from original CHA Body of Knowledge was removed, only new content (primarily related to the food industry) was added to the new BoK in the update. View the CFSQA BoK Map for additional information.
When will the new CFSQA BoK be tested?
The first administration testing new CFSQA BoK will be during the January 3–19, 2020 testing window.
This is a good move. Its definitely good for folks in the food industry as it better defines the certification to material required in food safety.
It also removes the focus on a tool which is of use for other industries (we use heavily in pharma for example). I often found the focus on the tool for a specific industry confusing for those folks who were looking at the tool for other uses. This clarity is good for everyone.
I have been spending a lot of time lately thinking about how to best build and grow knowledge communities within quality. One of my objectives at WCQI this year was to get more involved in the divisions and technical forums and I, frankly, might have been overly successful in volunteering for the Team and Workplace Excellence Forum (TWEF) – more on that later when announcements have been made.
Communities should be independent of organizational structure; they are built around areas upon which members wish to interact.
The divisions and technical forums are one part of the organizational structure of the ASQ, but they tend to be more on the knowledge generating side of things. The other major membership unit, sections, are geographical.
Divisions and forums are basically broken in two categories: industry type(s) and activity band.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic or Biomedical are great examples of industry focused (these are by nature of my work the only two I’ve paid attention to), and they seem to be very focused on product integrity questions.
The activity bands are all over the place. For example in the People and Service technical committee there is a Quality Management, Human Development and Leadership and a Team Excellence Forum. Those three have serious overlap.
It is of interest to me that the other divisions in the People and Service technical committee are Education, Healthcare, Government, Customer Supplier and Service Quality, which are much more industry focused.
And then there is the Social Responsibility division. I have super respect for those people, because they are basically trying to reinvent the definition of quality in a way that can be seen as anathema to the traditional product integrity focused viewpoint.
There is still so much to figure out about the TCCs.
Communities are different from teams; they are based on topics, not on assignments.
Easy enough in the ASQ as this is a volunteer organization.
Communities are not sites, team spaces, blogs or wikis; they are groups of people who choose to interact.
As the ASQ tries to develop my.ASQ to something folks are actually using, this is a critical principle. The site pages will grow and be used because people are interacting, not drive interaction.
Ravelry seems like a great example on how to do this right. Anyone know of any white papers on Ravelry?
Community leadership and membership should be voluntary; you can suggest that people join, but should not force them to.
Divisions are voluntary to join, and people get involved if they chose to.
Communities should span boundaries; they should cross functions, organizations, and geographic locations.
The ASQ has this mostly right.
The industry focused communities are made up of members across companies, with a wide spread of locations.
Minimize redundancy in communities; before creating a new one, check if an existing community already addresses the topic.
The ASQ hasn’t done a great job of this. One of my major thoughts is that the Quality Management Division has traditionally claimed ownership of the CMQ/OE body of knowledge, but frankly a good chunk of it should be between the Team Excellence and Human Development divisions, which between them seem to have a fair bit of overlap.
Take change management, or project management, or program management. Which one of the three divisions should be focusing on that? All three? Seems a waste of effort. It’s even worse that I know the Lean Division spends a fair amount talking about this.
Communities need critical mass; take steps to build membership.
The major dilemma for professional associations. Love to see your suggestions in the comments.
Communities should start with as broad a scope as is reasonable; separate communities can be spun off if warranted.
I’m going to say a radical and unpopular thought. If the ASQ was serious about transformation it would have dissolved half of the divisions and then rebuilt them from scratch. Too many are relics of the past and are not relevant in their current construction. Do you truly need a Lean and a Six Sigma forum? A Team Excellence and a Human development (and a quality management).Should biomedical (medical devices) be part of the FDC?
Communities need to be actively nurtured; community leaders need to create, build, and sustain communities.
To do this community leaders need training, coaching and mentoring. I’m happy with the connections I’ve started building in headquarters and with a certain board member.
Perhaps one of the focuses of the Team and Workplace Excellence Forum should be to help push the praxis on this.
Communities can be created, led, and supported using TARGETs: Types (TRAIL — Topic, Role, Audience, Industry, Location) Activities (SPACE — Subscribe, Post, Attend, Contribute, Engage) Requirements (SMILE — Subject, Members, Interaction, Leaders, Enthusiasm) Goals (PATCH — Participation, Anecdotes, Tools, Coverage, Health) Expectations (SHAPE — Schedule, Host, Answer, Post, Expand) Tools (SCENT — Site, Calendar, Events, News, Threads).
Okay. So much here. But this helps me build an agenda for a forthcoming meeting.
I may be jumping the gun, but if you are a member of the ASQ and interested in contributing to the Team and Excellence Forum, contact me.
A theme of this year for me has been focusing more and more
on the difference between the product integrity focused approach to quality
that folks in my profession normally focus in on and a more excellence focused
approach. The two are not in opposition, but I can’t help feeling that the
product integrity exclusiveness of many pharmaceutical quality professionals is
holding us back.
This is especially on my mind coming back from ASQ WCQI and
thinking about just how few of my pharma colleagues identify with that
organization There are a whole host of reasons (including the fact that many
people don’t associate with ANY professional association) but I can’t help but
contemplate how do we make the excellence side of quality more relevant to not
just pharmaceuticals but to wider questions of just what is quality anyway?
I’ve discussed the need to realize that we have different types of domain knowledges, but just what is this domain we call quality and is it truly its own discipline?
Disciplines can be modeled as a system comprising an “activity scope” that is enabled by a “knowledge base” but conditioned by a “guidance framework”.
The guidance framework typically involves multiple worldviews. The same subject matter can be studied from different worldviews, and the theories around a given subject can be interpreted differently from different worldview perspectives. You can see this in the various flavors of continuous improvement or better yet, the presence of a sustainability push within the society.
The knowledge base is the data, theories and methodologies that drive the discipline
The activity scope describes the range of activities in a disciple, including the professional practice.
We’re probably truly multi-disciplinarian, in that the we draw from multiple other disciplines, a short list includes: Engineering, Computing, Control Theory, Mathematics, Information Theory, Operations research, system theory, Management sciences, a whole range of social sciences and more than I can think.
What does this mean?
I am more thinking aloud than anything at this point, but I think it’s important to work on developing the QBOK along a guidance framework, knowledge base and activity scope methodology. Then as we develop sub-body of knowledges we drill down from there, either in a very knowledge base way (such as the CMQ/OE) or in an activity scope (like the CPGP). I often feel that the way we develop these are more hit-and-miss and could do with some coherence – the biomedical auditor and hazop auditor are great examples of wanting to meet a very narrow need and thus being very very specific to a small set of the knowledge base.
I guess I’m striving towards applying theory to our practice a little more deliberately.
Some of the technical forums (Human Development and Leadership comes to mind) seem especially designed to pull information from one or two different originating disciplines and adapt it to the knowledge base. I think this process would be added by a coherent understanding of our guidance framework and just what the activity scope we are trying to address as discipline.
In short I am just thinking that a little more coherence, strategy and transparency would aid us as a profession. As I heard in many a conversation last week, we should probably as an organization be better at what we preach.
Rousseau, D., Wilby, J., Billingham, J., & Blachfellner, S. (2016). A Typology for the Systems Field. Systema 4(1), 15-47
Wageeh, N. A. (2016). The Role of Organizational Agility in Enhancing Organizational Excellence: A Study on Telecommunications Sector in Egypt. International Journal of Business and Management, 11(4), 121