I was trying to explain to someone yesterday about the process that we follow when receiving clients’ goods before we re-pack or relabel them. This goes way beyond the all-important identifying, counting and labelling the goods as part of the unloading operation.

Our policy requires that for every one of this type of delivery a pack of the product is brought to the office for inspection and photography. A copy of the photograph is retained with the delivery documents and a file is sent to the customer for their records. The photograph includes the batch marking on the primary and secondary packs. The inspection has two purposes. One to allow us an early opportunity to identify any particular difficulties that we might encounter when repacking or re-labelling and the second to assess, on behalf of the client, if the product is genuine or counterfeit.

This process provides the client with an early warning if the product is suspect, photographic evidence of the integrity and traceability of the material to comply with their Registration conditions and some assurance as to the original state of the material if there is some later insurance claim.

I was trying to explain that this process, which is not explicitly requested and invisible to the client, provides value to both the client and ourselves in the event of a later challenge by a third party but is time-consuming and expensive to undertake. This is particularly onerous when the quantity of goods to be re-packed or re-labelled is only small. It is something that I have instituted and in the most part I execute. The difficulty comes when I am not available to execute the process. Does it happen? If it does, do the people concerned understand why they are doing it and what is the purpose? After all it is not immediately obvious how the process contributes to the primary objective of re-packing or re-labelling.

“Procedures” you say and “training” and you would be right, but how often do procedures and training go to that level of detail?

But they should because without that level of detail “how we do things round here” doesn’t get done and the added value that the customer expects evaporates and what makes us special disappears too.

I see the same issue in a parallel example quoted by my highly talented daughter who is responsible for mass participation sporting events involving large numbers of people running or cycling around a course in London, or another major city. These events re often paid for by high-end clients who expect a large amount of attention to detail for both the benefit of the participants and for the visual appearance of the event which will feature in their Marketing and Social Media exposure.

So something simple like the appearance of the stakes that hold the tape that marks the course across the park is not an insignificant matter. If the stake is wooden and painted white it is both more visible at a distance and has a higher quality appearance as compared with a piece of rusty steel that has loop formed in the top to carry the tape. If the event is run as an annual event and the Client begins to notice that the appearance of the course doesn’t seem to be as attractive as in previous years the choice of stake might be seen as a loss of attention to detail, or worse, as budget cheeseparing. This might result in the loss of business next year, all for the lack of a procedure or training as to “How we do things – and why”. Nobody intended to undermine the event’s reputation but they assumed that the team knew “how” and “why”. The team didn’t even see the issue until the irascible Project Director demanded to know why there were no white stakes. It was about the appearance and feel of the thing from the perspective of the participant and Client. This is a Quality of Service matter.

I feel the same about the response that I received from the FE College when I complained on behalf of our Apprentice in “A matter of Integrity”. The College rightly saw my complaint as an important issue that should be treated quickly and in accordance with the relevant procedure. What they did not do was to look at the situation through my eyes or those of my Apprentice. Their procedure did not address the most appropriate location for the initial investigation interview, how to visit the College or the lack of familiarity on our part with the procedures relating to complaints or the courtesies of calling for a meeting with one member of staff and conducting it with another.

As I pointed out, the procedures that relate to Harassment and to Learning, which lie at the heart of the matter, are curiously one-sided in their failure to address the failure of staff to behave appropriately or to teach sufficiently.

Quality of service is embedded in how things are done and the organisation must ensure that the details of how and why are properly communicated in the detail necessary.