|
|
April 1999 Volume 1
Number 1
New Ecology of
Quality Assurance
Randall S. Murch
Deputy Assistant Director, Science
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington DC
At the recent (February 1999)
American
Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in Orlando, I was invited
to contribute to a symposium on quality with a talk entitled
"The Challenges of Quality Assurance in the Forensic Laboratory."
I chose to approach the term quality from an ecological perspective
rather than the standards- and accreditation-driven approach
that is most often promulgated today. Here, I attempt further
philosophical commentary along this pathway.
In my view, forensic laboratories
will best establish, maintain, and advance quality when it is
viewed and conducted from a systems approach in which a number
of interrelated subsystems contribute to a harmonious, dynamic
ecosystem. I dissect this ecosystem into the seven subsystems
of
- scientific truth,
- practitioners and managers,
- infrastructure and process,
- peer groups and standards,
- external review,
- scientific capabilities,
and
- perspective.
Fundamentally, quality does
not happen in scientific or related organizations without a commitment
to determining and communicating scientific truth within acceptable
limits of the science and technology applied. The quest for scientific
truth does not end: As scientists, we should always strive to
do better, provide more usable information from the evidence,
and be more effective. Strong and definable foundations are built
and strengthened for support, and we unceasingly impose rigor
on what we do. The scientific method makes our science and technical
practice live and breathe. We continually seek best practice
and tools. We strive to better interpret, understand, and communicate
what we do because we do not live in an isolated ecosystem. We
accept that science and technology always evolve and change,
often at a faster pace than do our neighbors who are the most
interested in our forensic endeavors. We hypothesize, study,
test, validate, incorporate, educate, and advance. Science, like
medicine, is not always strictly quantifiable but can be legitimately
based upon observation that is repeatable, structured, and documentable.
Quality will not be optimally
achieved without positive attention being given to the people
charged with carrying it out. Ultimately, it is management's
responsibility to provide an organization with the human resources
(not just bodies) it needs by
- recruiting and placing the
best qualified people possible;
- properly training and certifying
them for the position hired;
- developing, articulating,
and measuring core competencies;
- providing access to relevant
continuing education, which includes advanced degrees;
- providing lateral and vertical
professional development opportunities;
- overlaying pertinent, yet
critical, review and audit processes;
- understanding and applying
accountability and corrective actions; and
- testing proficiency.
All organisms in this complex
food web must be active in these processes and outcomes.
Life does not exist, survive,
and perpetuate without proper environment and sustenance. Likewise,
quality people, products, and services in forensic laboratories
will thrive when the infrastructure and business processes are
optimized and balanced. The space we reside in should meet our
needs five years from now. We must embrace the advance of information
management and communication systems to make most efficient the
delivery of products and services. Increasing and wisely invested
equipment and supply budgets is the cost of doing quality forensic
business. The physiology of what and how we do also deserves
close study and improvement. Is our kos (Greek for
house and root of the word ecology) organized properly? Do we
have effective and well-understood command, control, and feedback
systems in place? Do all the component parts interrelate efficiently?
Do we have a well-thought-out strategic plan? Do we understand
how and why we have built it so and how we are going to execute
it? Have we looked at cost versus benefit tradeoffs?
Many species of organisms
are grouped in communities for beneficial social and biological
reasons. Interaction in these communities takes place by various
obvious and subtle means. The quest for quality science and technical
practice in the forensic community should likewise be ordered,
balanced, selective, and evolutionarily beneficial. Scientific
working groups (SWGs) are critical niches for the identification
and natural selection of guidelines for practitioners of the
practice, validation, and communication of specific forensic
science and art. Standards organizations and accrediting bodies
should provide relevant, understandable, and consistent guidance
so we walk on firmament rather than quicksand. These pearls should
be performance- and outcome-based, not process-based. Guidelines
and standards should be designed and engineered with the mind-set
of down-line quality. The right people using the right processes
will meet these needs of our ecosystem.
The quality and practice
of science and related endeavors is properly dependent upon,
and advances because of, external peer review. This has been
true in science and other fields for hundreds of years and more
recently understood and applied in the forensic laboratory environment.
We should work very hard to improve and strengthen this structural
framework. Accreditation through recognized, external organizations
is a critical contributor to the quality and credibility of forensic
laboratories. However, several aspects need investment of energy
and resources. Accreditation should be built upon consistent,
predictable, articulable, and understandable rules. Standards
and guidelines should change as necessary, but creatures of our
size, mass, and mobility do not locomote well on earth that is
sometimes the consistency of soft Jell-O. One means to
achieve this is to create an inspection system that uses a permanent,
dedicated core inspection staff supplemented with trained assistant
inspectors who are expert managers and senior practitioners from
pertinent disciplines. This service should be sized to fit demand
and should not negatively impact any of the contributors of personnel
or prospective consumers. Regular, prescribed self- or collaborative
peer inspection should occur between the quintennial bursts of
energy. The bar of natural selection should be high, and only
those properly prepared and tested should be able to leap over
it (and celebrate).
Our scientific and technical
capabilities must be a focus of our attention and investments.
Current best practice should always be sought. Research, development,
test, and evaluation of new technologies and methodology is a
required cost of doing business. Authorizers and appropriators
should listen and act positively. Legitimate advancement should
not be limited by the legal community but should be made understandable
and helped by mutualism. At any moment in time, the performance
boundaries of all instruments, methods, and techniques should
be defined, understood, and communicable. The community should
seek and use rigorous, consistent approaches to the validation
of the new before the new is ever applied to physical evidence.
Every opportunity to publish or present important advancements
or observations should be sought or provided for. Organizations
that embrace forensic science would make an important contribution
to quality and continuous improvement if they were to raise the
standards of the publications and presentations they permit.
I wonder whetherwithin
certain laboratory systemssynergism and increased positive
outcomes would occur if resources and expertise were cooperatively
(regionally) consolidated rather than (geographically) underpopulated
and distributed. Here, I contemplate the benefit and limitations
of the specialist versus generalist as well as more consolidation
of expertise and services to provide improved performance and
responsiveness. I fully expect vigorous and antagonistically
vocal response to my observations.
It is important to keep a
critical and realistic perspective of the tidal wave of quality
assurance propagating through our forensic ocean. We exist in
a complex ecosystem with many species, communities, niches, and
stresses participating or affected. We should remember frequently
that quality assurance and its specialists exist to support forensic
science and its practitioners, not principally the other way
around. Our vision of forensic science and quality must embrace
change and its effective management. This requires leadership
and commitment from many working together, not few working independently.
As forensic scientists, we should remember why we seek quality
people and practices as well as useful and timely services. We
serve the guilty and their victims, the innocent, and the system
that seeks to correctly address and accommodate them.
Quality, like Mother Earth,
is a work in progress.
Back to the top
Link to American Academy of Forensic
Sciences (AAFS) web site
FORENSIC SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS APRIL 1999 VOLUME 1 NUMBER 1 |