The "Company Line"

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT Senior Member Username: rliebing Post Number: 1366 Registered: 02-2003 Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2013 - 07:55 am:    130116 THE COMPANY “LINE” by Ralph Liebing, RA, CSI, CDT, Cincinnati, OH Does your firm have a published mission statement? Have you been called upon to memorize the statement and be able to recite it verbatim? In most cases, the firm will issue the very insightful and directed statement and then ask the employees to be able to express or describe the thrust of the statement in their own words. Smart! To require a “parroted” or “cloned” response really serves to discredit many mission statements that profess to include staffs that are flexible and able to address any challenge given them, in proper and professional ways. To allow individual responses, shows confidence in the staff, and an atmosphere of openness, “buy in”, and understanding of what the prime movers of the firm express as their charge. But in a sense it is also about letting go. You must have great regard for the staff and each staffer to allow them to use their thoughts to express corporate image concepts. You have to have a staff that is willing, in tune and accepting of the basic statement. That would seem to project a very astute, active, and forthright professional organization! On the other hand, tighter management techniques require closer adherence to the “strict company line”, or as some call it, “the school solution”. Granted you have to think less, and merely mimic what you’ve retained, yet point still made-- but method and credibility changed. Looking at it another way, if you write a college text, is it better to write about a closed, strictly regimented, and interrelated system for accomplishing the tasks, or are the students/readers better served by guidelines, and principles that foster thinking, and facilitate a wide variety of solutions [all valid]? How any ways can you show that 2 + 2 = 4, or must it ALWAYS be written like that? How many ways can you design an interior, one-hour fire-rated partition [as required by the building code], or must you ALWAYS do it this way? Examples abound for various forms. But now, there is a need to evaluate the student or staffer. In a quiz or examination, there may be a single solution, BUT that solution may be presented in any of many, many forms-- don’t you agree? Just think about the solutions to the two examples above. In professional registration examinations, formulas may be required, but how you do the math manipulations is open to many methods [including fingers and toes]. Great principles are examined in the context of how they are applied in any of several solutions—but the testing is in the knowledge of what principle to use. Design problems, be they structural, architectural or mechanical, all are subjective to a point, and modified by principles to, again, produce any of many solutions. The testing is that the correct principle is used, and the solution reflects correct use of that principle. Another method of verifying competence and skill lies in the various certification programs. Many of these involve narrowly drawn training programs that offer the “certification” notation upon successful completion. For example, a company that makes a specific type of machine can develop a technicians’ program for trouble shooting and repair of the machines, etc. The certificate, here, is also drawn carefully in that it certifies the skill and ability to work on the specific machine or line of machines-- it does not address similar work on machines produced by other manufacturers. Often these other product lines are quite similar and one “can” work on them, but the basic certificate is still verifying only the single training that was completed. May be a non-player, but there is a gray area when the technician works “outside the certification”. In contrasting the certification to the registration, it is fairly obvious that the registration is more principle oriented—and those principles have wide application, in any number of circumstances. The certification is tied to the one system, period of training, product line, or organization. The certification programs of CSI are the same. The concept is quite valid to establish and verify skill, understanding and ability in the process of writing specifications. The measure applied here is the PRM, MF04 and the other various instructions and guidelines of CSI-- it is not intended to measure every program in every office. But in this, there is no implication or innuendo intended to portray that there is but one way to writing and format specifications. Certainly the overall system developed by CSI is highly creditable, but within all of the information there are options, and flexibility wherein any user can adjust the various aspects of the program to better facilitate specific conditions, projects, or office standards and procedures. Instructional and training sessions usually point this out. Therefore, contrary to common thought, there is no “right”, wrong”, or CSI way! True, the certification is based strictly on the CSI documents and the measure is so indicated.-- and properly so! But MF04, and the other CSI documents are DYNAMIC, not static, parochial, or dictatorial. Certification is one thing; speaking in your own words is another!