The Perception of BS 5750 Using the Lucas Model
(1982)
Author: Mr D Wilson
Source of document: Open University
Date: 15/08/95
In identifying some of the benefits and weaknesses of BS 5750,
Dale and Oakland (1991) listed various observers of the standard.
Using these observers as examples, I am going to account for
some differences in the ways BS 5750 can be perceived. This will
be achieved using the Lucas model (1982) as a basis. Lucas noted
that the following affect the interpretation and use of information;
decision making, personal and situation factors, cognitive style
of decision making and organisational setting.
IBM (1985) were concerned that BS 5750 did not address a company's ability to control production. It also pointed out that if BS 5750 was adhered to strictly then a company's ability to control production could be ignored. IBM saw this area as an important contribution to quality. It can be seen here that IBM's organisational setting, a large company with several tiers of management, requires production control, as do most production oriented companies. However IBM has taken the lack of direct wording within BS 5750 and interpreted this as though the standard ignores production control. IBM's cognitive style of decision making has not taken into account the emphasis placed on documenting systems and processes including the quality manual. One important area of this manual should cover manufacturing control.
Mortiboys (1983) detailed several points. Firstly, the lack of requirement for extensive employee motivation or involvement is linked to BS 5750 systems not being fully cost effective. Here a decision has been made that BS 5750 systems are not fully cost effective. In the studies conducted by Mortiboys this may be so, but that is not due to the standard itself but more to how it has been interpreted and implemented. This is a case of situational factors leading to a different interpretation of BS 5750. One aim of the standard is to improve company moral through the promotion of quality of life which as Herzberg has pointed out will lead to a motivated work force. Also, BS 5750 requires systems to be documented as stated earlier. When writing work instructions the employees should be directly involved, which contradicts Mortiboys statement of the lack of requirement for extensive employee involvement. This may be due to organisational settings that do not promote employee involvement rather that the standard preventing it.
Secondly, Mortiboys goes on to highlight the lack of provision within BS 5750 for the implementation of cost-effective management of product control, market research, quality cost management, training and planning. These areas are covered by the standard. What is missing, is how to implement them. Mortiboys, through his cognitive style of decision making, has perceived that the standard should not only state the training requirement but it should also go on to explain how to achieve this. This may be due to Mortiboys personal factors, in that he may believe that the standard should be an all encompassing document that will ensure Total Quality, rather than Quality Assurance. It is possible that the organisational settings studied by Mortiboys, do not provide the required training standards set out by BS 5750. This training gap may then have been interpreted as a lacking in the standard for not stating how to implement training rather than a lacking within the companies for not providing the training. This all stems from the situational factors that have affected Mortiboys interpretation of BS 5750. Market research is not a heading within BS 5750 however my interpretation would be that market research is a tool to discover customer requirements. The customer being an area clearly identified by BS 5750. However due to personal factors or perhaps the decision making process used by Mortiboys, market research is seen as an area clearly missed by the standard, resulting in systems not being fully cost effective.
In a study conducted by Whittington (1989) several observers views of BS 5750 are stated. It is these views and not Whittington, that will be used as examples.
Quality managers noted that the systems proposed by the standard were replacing the systems currently in place. Also, that the new systems were not necessarily as good as the current ones. The managers have not taken into account that documenting a concession will also conform to the standard. Here the managers have reasoned that their systems must be replaced by BS 5750 systems. The standard has been interpreted as a replacement system rather than a standard to which current systems should conform. Possibly through personal factors, natural resentment of change, managers have missed the point that the systems belong to those who use them and not to the standard. The systems should still be as good as, if not better than they were before conformance.
Managers, other than quality managers, often did not see quality as part of their function. Taking internal audits as a situational factor, the non quality manager will come to realise that the standard aims to encompass all areas of a company.
Customers are requiring suppliers to provide statistical evidence of control. As BS 5750 does not cater directly for SPC this has been interpreted as a lacking in the standard. This is because SPC is a situational factor being viewed in isolation. If the customers requirement is seen in the light of one of the aims of BS 5750, to protect the customer through consistent quality of goods and service, then clearly customers do not yet accept certification of BS 5750 as complete proof of quality. This is the customers perception through personal factors such as a lack of trust of the unknown and the good business sense of not accepting a supplier that does not yet have a good track record. This perception should change with time, which will result eventually with the customer accepting certification, thus saving time and money through reduced vendor appraisals.
Employees often aggravate the difficulties of implementing the standard. This is due to their personal and situational factors of uncertainty, reluctance to adopt new systems, potential job insecurity through improved systems and the natural resentment of change.
It can be seen by the above examples that the circumstances
outlined by Lucas do affect people's interpretation and use of
information. The standard, as viewed by one person with their
personal factors, cognitive style of decision making etc will
be viewed differently by another with their own factors etc.