The nice people at the UK Accreditation
service sent their update today. You can read it by
clicking here. I always do. Some people have criticized me for not taking the
whole UKAS thing seriously, which is unfair. I take it very seriously as doing
so is a legal requirement. However I question how any of its requirements
improve what I do on a daily basis. I can remember asking the same question
about its predecessor organisations Clinical Pathology Accreditation and
Investors in People.
I am very open to being shown the error
of my ways. I wish I could be shown the error of my ways; clearly thousands of
people feel the entire accreditation process to be a very worthwhile endeavour.
It’s just that every single person with whom I’ve spoken about it approaches accreditation
from the perspective of “doing accreditation” for its own sake.
I’m sure I’m missing something. I *wish*
I knew what.
No comments:
Post a Comment