hygiene zone
quality tools
quality techniques
human issues
quality awards
quality extra
visitor tools


Stay Informed
Sign up below to receive our Occasional Newsletter.

We Respect Your Privacy!

Web SaferPak
SaferPak: Food Packaging Safety, Food Safety, Business Improvement and Quality Management
       Home     About     Contact

Towards a global cyber institute – Part 2.
By Allan J. Sayle, President Allan Sayle Associates

How to get the cyber Institute going

Naturally, it would be a process of evolution and the final shape may not be apparent for some time. The problem, though, is that it would require effort by members and dedicated people.

As is always the case in life, there are those who will grumble and those who will put hands to the oars. From the outset, the Institute needs the latter. Appendix 1 – Register of volunteer assistants contains a suggested table that might be posted on the new Institute’s web site to which volunteers could respond detailing the nature of assistance they are willing to provide.

The founding members would review the offers and set-up teams as appropriate, regularly posting details of their decisions and progress made.

How you can help to build membership

Even if you cannot yet write an article for the Institute, you can be an advocate by emailing your contacts and encouraging participation at some level or other.

Side Bar: Most Covers and Saferpakers know a good number of people interested in quality who are not currently members of the traditional societies. Maybe the dues are too high, the services poor or irrelevant. Membership can be rapidly grown by each of us emailing such people. Given the speed and reach of email the collective “address book” is beyond the wildest dreams of the traditional institutes who will only SELL you the (relatively paltry) list of addresses and names they have. Thus the potential membership and rate of growth could be staggering.

You could encourage your firm to support the endeavors by becoming a Corporate Member. You might even prepare your registrar for the possibility that, in the fullness of time, if the Institute also sets up an accreditation and registration activity, you will be selecting registrars meeting those forthcoming requirements determined and internationally agreed by the Institute. The members would be involved in making proposals and voting on their adoption for running such activities.

There are many things an individual could do and feel rewarded about in helping to set up a truly international Institute that reflects the profession’s needs, experiences and views. Contributing by paying dues to buy and set up the necessary equipment and software etc would be appreciated and welcome. Contributing articles for the Library or Reading Room would show a degree of support as would posting comments and views on the “inner threads”.

What does the membership want?

How easy that is to discover. On the one hand the constant posts are a census on topics of relevance and concern. On the other, the members can start a thread saying, “This is what I need for our Institute”, and list their requirements and specifications for the particular service. And they can quickly coordinate an action team to address those matters. Far more vibrant than present day “professional bodies”, and completely devoid of the possibility a HQ will sit on its hands or file the request in the round file.

The resources to do what is needed are available immediately and without the need for HQ appropriations committees, budgets and approvals. In any case since volunteers often have to do the real heavy lifting, what is new? The Cove and Saferpak are all about volunteers – as would be the new institute. So too are the BAMs. As mentioned elsewhere in this article, without volunteers the BAMs would collapse in days.

In what way would the cyber Institute be different from the BAMs?

Though it may seem the suggestions made above merely reproduce such organizations there are fundamental differences. Among others:

Apart from those involved in maintaining the servers etc., there would be few if any HQ staff.
The Institute would not be national (parochial) in character. It would bring together people working in the quality field around the world and have no individual national identity.
It would ensure any member could raise or discuss any topic and post an article on any topic without interference or editing. It would give greater degree of freedom of speech than exists with current BAMs. Individual contributions would be known and recognized.
The global depth and breadth of its body of knowledge would be greater than any individual BAM. The speed with which important topics, problems and solutions could be presented to the international membership is far greater than at present.
The Institute’s discussion and voting processes would be transparent.
Local, national political or civil services’ influences or appointees would not covertly guide it.
It could be portal based using an existing platform such as the Elsmar Cove or Saferpak.
Its membership levels would be give people international status based on a contribution acknowledged by the international membership, thus removing arguments about the comparative worth of individual national memberships.
Its certificates would be based on world-class curricula agreed by the international membership. This would ensure candidates would “stretch” to achieve them and also remove arguments about the comparative worth of individual national schemes.
Its registration/ accreditation schemes would do likewise.
Members of a global Institute would better serve business and its global supply chains by being better informed and having an Institute that embraces the foregoing points.
Its fees could be far lower than those of the BAMs.

Next: A respectable goal and a goal of respect




Back to previous page




























top of page

home :: about :: contact :: terms

© 2006 SaferPak Ltd.