Klever Creators Program begins with Enzo M, Medical Director at an Italian Health Laboratory with decades experience in Quality Processes, applying his expertise to Klever. His findings are compelling
In my life I have been dealing with Quality and Audit for a long time, well over a decade, as I am the Medical Director and Quality Manager for an Italian health care company.
The approach to Quality activities and processes in simple words means having a clear understanding of the path that must be followed to provide a product that is as perfect as possible.
In this article, I apply the principles of Quality to the Klever project. To my amazement, Klever’s Management and Project reached all the highest levels of evaluation with the data I had publically available.
My field of application is primarily in medical test laboratories, but the mechanisms governing the general aspects of processes can apply to all aspects of our current life, and I am proficient with ISO 9000 series which illustrate a number of regulations and guidelines guide developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) for the implementation of a company quality management system in order to improve the effectiveness and efficiency in the realization of the product and in the provision of the service, for the final purpose to obtain and increase customer satisfaction.
I must actually say that the underlying technological mechanisms that regulate blockchains are somewhat obscure for me, but let’s face it, how many people know how a television or a mobile phone works? Yet these are products that we use on a regular basis in everyday life whose real functioning we do not know.
With this in mind, I tried to apply the principles of Quality to the Klever project.
Obviously applying quality to the world of cryptocurrencies may seem strange but if we start from the concept that a blockchain-based project is based on canonical standards that provide for the basic idea its development and its efficiency and effectiveness, then we can see how even a project based on something not easy to understand can be analyzed and studied in general terms to understand how it is developed and implemented.
The world of cryptocurrencies is full of SCAM projects we know. Whoever has not been caught in the snare of easy earnings, please raise your hand. This stems from the fact that the more important the ideas are, the more they attract unscrupulous people who just want to make money by stealing from the naive poor who are attracted to easy money.
This condition obviously had its repercussions in the general aura that Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general have built. Ordinary people are attracted only in the presence of major collapses or in the presence of stratospheric gains, and as usual, finding the “right way” is particularly difficult. This is because it is inherent in human nature to be carried away by ideals, to be exalted for nothing and above all to be deeply depressed by the losses suffered on the stock market.
I don’t want to conduct a behavioral analysis of the people who are attracted to this new world of cryptocurrencies, but a right consideration must be made. Many projects live only on smoke, attracting the chicken on duty to be plucked.
The Quality, the services offered, which we can translate as ease of use, simplicity, applications in daily life are often ignored.
This does not mean, however, that “progress” does not go on and the innovations produced are able to penetrate more and more practical life by generating products that have the purpose of simplifying life for the daily “Well-Being”.
So it happens that projects started quietly and perhaps among the criticisms of most people, suddenly seem to assert themselves as if they came out of nowhere, but really it is not so, years of work, study, attention and respect of the end users always pay off.
Obviously, those who adhere to a project from the beginning, for its goodness and its potential greatness, can be annoyed by the fact that the perceived evaluation at a general level can be held in little consideration by most while realizing the goodness of what is developing, but this depends on human variables, woe if the world were homogeneous, only in diversity is there growth: the mass realizes the complexity and importance of certain projects only when the phenomenon explodes in its entirety. Recent examples are the great uproar that the powerful revaluation of Bitcoin is causing worldwide.
The canonical definition of Quality in ISO 9000 states: Quality is the degree to which a set of intrinsic characteristics of an object satisfies the requirements. Too complex? So let’s simplify in “the measure of all human activities”, and in more vulgar terms: “aspiration to supply a perfect product”. So two terms on which we must focus are “aspiration to” and “perfect”, in practice it is the continuous desire to improve and improve one’s work, one’s project, one’s product and to obtain the satisfaction of users of what was done.
These are universally accepted concepts and the mechanisms that regulate them have now been extensively studied and standardized by the International Organization for Standardization.
With these ideas in mind, anyone who follows me on Twitter (@ViniciusSaoP) will remember that in the past I posted a series tweets in which I conducted an Audit on Klever based on ISO 9004 “Managing for the sustained success of an organization – A quality management approach”. With this ISO 9004 we try to understand how an organization manages to carry out its project regardless of the field of application, as it is based on management analysis and how it operates in the context of continuous improvement. The concepts expressed are applicable to any type of organization, from the one that has to send a man to Mars or to our family organization for managing the economic budget just to give an example.
In the absence of a direct approach to Klever’s Management and therefore unable to “see the evidences” produced by the Team, nothing prohibits carrying out an external audit on the finished product, i.e. the wallet and the relationships that exist between Klever and the users’ community.
This can be considered an inverse approach with respect to a canonical Audit, but perhaps it is the one that best corresponds to reality as the effects of the project and product on the community and on the real fields of application are directly evaluated.
Let me be clear that I conducted this Audit in a personal capacity without any commission from Klever, because I set myself up independently, trying to deepen and possibly confirm or not the choices I had previously made when I entered with a substantial investment in the project.
My greatest amazement was to see how Klever’s Management reached all the highest levels of evaluation as I considered the data I had on hand. This is almost unbelievable in an apparently deregulated world such as that of cryptocurrencies.
Yes, of course, for the myriad of token offering there seems to be the Wild West, but the study, the in-depth study of the projects and then making your own DD, allows you to carry out the right screening even in “strange fields”.
ISO 9004 states that:
The sustained success of an organization is achieved by its ability to meet the needs and expectations of its customers and other interested parties, over the long term and in a balanced way.
Sustained success can be achieved by the effective management of the organization, through awareness of the organization’s environment, by learning, and by the appropriate application of either improvements, or innovations, or both.
Conclusion: Klever achieved all the highest ratings for the points of Quality that I was able to analyze on a scale of 1 to 5. The score achieved by Klever was always the maximum i.e. 5.
So, let’s review the points of the ISO in which Klever reaches the degree of perfect agreement on the basis of the observation of the facts (for the assessments mentioned, refer to Tab A of ISO 9004: 2010):
SELF ASSESSMENT KEYS OF KLEVER
Point Required by the Standard (R) What is the management focus?
Match found (M): The focus is on balancing the needs of emerging interested parties. Best in class performance is set as a primary objective.
(R) – What is the leadership approach?
(M): The approach is proactive and learning-oriented, with the empowerment of people at all levels.
(R) – How is it decided what is important?
(M): Decisions are based on the need for flexibility, agility and sustained performance.
(R) – How are the activities organized?
(M): There is a quality management system that supports innovation and benchmarking, and which addresses the needs and expectations of emerging, as well as identified, interested parties.
(R) – How are results achieved?
(M): The achieved results are above the sector average for the organization, and are maintained in the long term. There is implementation of improvement and innovation throughout the organization.
(R) – How are improvement priorities decided?
(M): Improvement priorities are based on inputs from emerging interested parties.
(R) – How does learning occur?
(M): The organization’s processes for learning are shared with relevant interested parties, and support creativity and innovation.
(R) – Sustained success
(M): There has been sustained improvement in performance in the past, with evidence of planning for the long-term future (e.g. the next five years).
(R) – Strategy and policy formulation
(M): Interested parties are engaged in and contributing to the organization’s success; there is confidence that the level of their contributions will be maintained. There is confidence that successes will be sustained.
(R) – Strategy and policy communication
(M): There is evidence that communication processes meet the needs of interested parties.
(R) – Partners and suppliers
(M): Data demonstrates that partners are engaged in and are contributing to the organization’s successes.
(R) – Infrastructure
(M): The performance and cost base of the organization’s infrastructure compares favourably with similar organizations.
(R) – Knowledge, information and technology
(M): The results achieved for information, technology and knowledge management compare well with other organizations.
(R) – (Process management) General
(M): Process performance is compared to leading organizations and the results are used in process planning. The outcomes of key processes are above the organization’s sector average.
(R) – Process responsibility and authority
(M): Learning is shared between process owners and interested parties
(R) – Internal audit
(M): The organization involves other interested parties in its audits, in order to help identify additional opportunities for improvement.
(R) – Analysis
(M): Relevant political, environmental, social, technological and comparative data is analysed and used. Risks and opportunities that could impact the achievement of short- and long-term objectives are identified and analysed. Strategy and policy decisions are based on information that is gathered and analysed in a planned way.
(R) – Review of information from monitoring, measurement and analysis
(M): Differing sources of information indicate good performance in all strategic and operational areas of the organization. Review outputs are shared with partners, and are used as an input for the improvement of products and processes that can influence their level of performance and satisfaction. The results of reviews demonstrate that the actions taken are effective.
(R) – (Improvement, innovation and learning) General
(M): There is evidence of a strong relationship between improvement activities and the achievement of above average sector results for the organization. Improvement is embedded as a routine activity across the whole organization, as well as for its suppliers and partners. The focus is on improving the performance of the organization, including its ability to learn and change.
(R) – Innovation
(M): Innovation activities anticipate possible changes in the organization’s environment. Preventive plans are developed to avoid or minimize the identified risks accompanying innovation activities. Innovation is applied to products, processes, organizational structures, the operating model and the organization’s management system.
(R) – Learning
(M): The culture of learning permits the taking of risks and the acceptance of failure, provided this leads to learning from the mistakes and to opportunities for improvement.
These are just a few points that I was able to analyze only on the basis of the data provided publicly by Klever and after a long and careful analysis of what the Group declares and realizes.
What else can be added? I was lucky enough to enter the Klever project at an early point of its development, there will still be a long way to go and the roadmap may seem difficult but Klever has all the skills to realize it and bring great satisfaction to his creators and end users.
Disclosure: I have a position in KLV; I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I have no business relationship with any company whose coins or tokens are mentioned in this article.
Medical Director and Quality Manager for Italian public health company
If you enjoyed the article by Enzo, make sure to leave him a KLV tip in his Klever address below: