“Added value” was a favorite expression until some years ago, before being replaced by “Risk Based Thinking.”

What’s the factual difference?

When we do our internal audits or we consult or train or audit for certification or its maintenance, isn’t it just a routine job, subject to clearly established rules?

So, what and where would be “added values”?

We aren’t “champions of the world”, we’re just employees or free-lance operators who sell our skills for money as independent contractors.

When we buy an item or a service – any one of them – we pay for it.  We don’t expect any ”added value”, nor does the seller provide any of it unless it is a discounted price, these days.

Yes, it may be courtesy, a smile, support or assistance in case of malfunctioning but it’s no contractual added value in any case.

It depends instead on a personal relationship.

If we were invited to a wedding party, how would we estimate its “added value” ?

The drinks, the environment, the food, the people around us, their dresses, their cars, the table service  ?

“Added value”, like many other expressions in the quality jargon, is a very risky one.  Everybody thinks to know its meaning but its meaning it’s not actually so clear, as many other common expressions.

I would therefore suggest to stop using the expression “added value” and replace it with a simpler, standardized one, that is “effective”.

Let’s not speak no more of added value audits therefore but let’s speak instead of effective audits.  The words are different but the meaning is the same.

History abounds of episodes in which mercenary troops and their commanders were instrumental to win battles and wars.  The “patriot” ideology needs to be reviewed.

Certainly, the “patriot” concept implies a high degree of reliance, but who believes in his own nation these days or in his own government?

This is a crucial, very critical factor.  It seems that those “at the top” don’t realize the risks they run and make to run those below them, too.

In the western world, we’re in the average well off but it can’t be said the same of the rest of the world.

The planet is now hosting some seven billions people.  They will be ten billion in a few decades.  The planet’s population’s needs will far exceed the present use of planet’s resources.

We have to look for more effective ways of adding value to what we do and how we do it.  This is why I insist in saying that simply saying “adding value” has no meaning at all.

How do we measure the value we add?

Why therefore don’t we speak of “effectiveness”, or efficiency, of what we do?

ISO 9001 (2000), a well known quality management standard, has introduced the concept of measuring organizations’ quality performance via metrics.

Putting aside the misuses that have been done and are still done of this concept, this is the only way to determine  any action’s “added value” and therefore improve it.

There’s one more risk by wanting to add value, one can go beyond the established rules.

True it is that “no risk, no glory”, “fortuna audaces juvat timidosque repellet” (luck helps the daring ones but not the timid), and other similar sayings.

But it’s also true that the use of the expression “added value” if it hasn’t to be discontinued at all, needs at least a very careful review.

I hope to have clarified my thinking.  We’re running the risk to keep using words and expressions that can lead us nowhere, or, worse, toward a precipice.