Quality Control

[Timothy Caron]

Want to kick off a discussion of Quality Control: Anyone have any thoughts on Critical Thinking? Does anyone disagree with Principles being the foundation of critical thinking?

[Corey Hobbs]

If critical thinking is the process of thinking carefully about a subject or idea, without allowing feelings or opinions to affect you (Cambridge dictionary), then I think we need to rely on facts to guide decision making. But, does it have to be a principle to be considered a fact? Principles are true in every situation, but couldn’t a fact be true contextually? Would it then not be a principle? I feel like none of that really makes sense and is just me spitting out a bunch of hypotheticals.

My immediate thought goes into human interactions. We know people act/react differently based a number of factors, and they’re usually outside of our control. A seemingly benign comment one day can be triggering another day. From a QC standpoint, we need to be able to read verbal and non-verbal cues. So, perhaps those cues could be argued as principles since they could be consistent with an individual.

Aside from that instance (and I feel like that is even probably a stretch), I feel like principles should provide the bedrock of our critical thinking and decision making processes. Curious to hear some other thoughts as well!

[Timothy Caron]

I think the concept of bedrock of language, we bring so much personal bias and agenda to conversation as well there is so many context dependent variables such as environment or size of the group. Principles eliminate what is not real or context dependent. To me is the speaking to alien with no context on what you mean, you have to strip everything down to what is true to have effective communication. Once we understand what is true we can then begin to decipher what is quality and how to manage that. If we all are working with various definitions of good or bad, we cannot come to a consensus on what is quality.

[Timothy Caron]

Next question, based on B, would be how do you determine Quality within you program?

We talked about in the module about B (Practical) that I determine Quality based on:

– Quality/Safety (Reliability) – Techniques that were taught/instructed
– Compliance/Identity (Reliability) – Constraints on program that are adhered to
– Performance/Purpose (Validity) – Attainment of something that is better than we started

Do you agree with that criteria? Anything you would add or take away?

[Corey Hobbs]

I absolutely agree with you. The more I typed out my response, the more I realized I was grasping at straws, but I felt it was a good thought experiment.

I like how you laid it out in the practical. I think this was the module you talked on your office at USC. You couldn’t hear anything, but you could see everything. It was a literal window into the efficacy of a coach into those bullet points – especially Quality and Compliance. Technique as demonstrated, right tempo, right sets and reps. I’d say if we’re getting that, we’re on a really good track.

The only thing I might change is with performance/purpose. Better than we started is kinda vague and could be misinterpreted. If I previously squatted 450, but now I can squat 505, that’s arguably better since it’s more weight, but it probably isn’t going to make a huge difference on the field. I’d tie that specifically to OKRs for that individual/group.

[Author]

Posts