I received an interesting package over the weekend from the Major Quality Organization in the U.S.

I am a Certified Quality Manager and although I have dropped my membership, my Certification is good for 2 more years. I was chosen to fill out a survey for the Body of Knowledge for future exams. The survey was pretty much what I expected with how important I thought training, different quality initiatives, statistics etc. played into a Quality Managers job, that is until I hit the last two questions.

1. Do you think the Certification name should be changed from Certified Quality Manager to another name? (I said NO)

2. Which of the following would you choose as the new name for the certification.

They gave a list of 10 different "New" names, and here is the kicker: ONLY 2 OF THE 10 NAMES CONTAINED THE WORD "QUALITY" IN THEM!!!!

Needless to say, I had a lot to write in the "comments" section at the end!

They are truly a disgrace.

Carl-

Yes, Carl, and they should be glad they weren't asking for new names for the ASQ, e.g. what word would you replace in "American Society for ???"? Hmmm?

It's all about the dollars at this point

Yes, Carl, and they should be glad they weren't asking for new names for the ASQ, e.g. what word would you replace in "American Society for ???"? Hmmm?


Sophistry?

Do you ever get the idea that ASQ HQ is like a large anthill that goes wild with activity whenever somebody prods the hill with a stick? Then you wait for a few minutes and everything settles back down into a dull routine.

The idea of an alternate outfit SELLING certifications is starting to look better and better. Maybe we need an influx of fresh thinking to go along with price and service competition. Monopolies rarely are noted for innovation and service. Of course, monopolistic price gouging goes without saying.

Remember, I am an ASQ Senior Member, so I may be biting my own hand here.

I am absolutely ready and willing to grant a certificate to anyone passing my "audit by mail" that states I have have found their quality system to comply with ISO 9000 revision 2000. I will give them a certificate number and will place my ASQ Certified Quality Manager certificate number on the certificate as reference to my credentials.

The price? Considerably lower than ANY current registrar. Let's say $500 for companies under 200 employees and $1000 for companies larger.

As a testament to my inovation and service, I will provide the certificate already framed and will reduce the annual registration cost 5% every year.

Auditor Certification and Certified Quality Manager cert costs to follow.

Carl-

Are you bucking for the Humanitarian Award, now, Carl?:lmao:

Humanatarian?

Nah.....

At $500 per, It is a win-win.

They get just as useful a tool to their QMS, I get rich, and ASQ, well, they get NOTHING so I guess it is more like win-win-loser.

Carl-

:lmao: Well that answers that question in the back of my mind if it would be worth spending my hard earned money for a certificate to hang on the wall! I think I have learned more from this cove forum than anywhere else. :)

Humanatarian?

Nah.....

At $500 per, It is a win-win.

They get just as useful a tool to their QMS, I get rich, and ASQ, well, they get NOTHING so I guess it is more like win-win-loser.

Carl-

Back on topic:
Certification is a pocketbook item.

We joke and rail a lot about certification, but the fact remains earning the actual certificate does not mean the certificate holder is more knowledgeable than a non-certificate holder. Organizations who use certificate status as the sole criterion for hiring or promotion are just as blind as those which select suppliers on the basis of whether they hold registration certificates to ISO or other Standard.

If you are the prospective employee who stands to gain by getting certification, get one, ESPECIALLY if the organization will pay your way.

For the rest of us to whom certification doesn't add or detract from income, consider testing yourself against the tests for the body of knowledge which are offered in texts, on CDs, and on the internet. If you consistently score 90% or better on those, odds are good you would have passed the actual certification test given under more stressful conditions.

Consider this similar to self-declaring your organization to be "compliant" to an International Standard. It really all depends on what your "customer" demands!

I received an interesting package over the weekend from the Major Quality Organization in the U.S.

I am a Certified Quality Manager and although I have dropped my membership, my Certification is good for 2 more years. I was chosen to fill out a survey for the Body of Knowledge for future exams. The survey was pretty much what I expected with how important I thought training, different quality initiatives, statistics etc. played into a Quality Managers job, that is until I hit the last two questions.

1. Do you think the Certification name should be changed from Certified Quality Manager to another name? (I said NO)

2. Which of the following would you choose as the new name for the certification.

They gave a list of 10 different "New" names, and here is the kicker: ONLY 2 OF THE 10 NAMES CONTAINED THE WORD "QUALITY" IN THEM!!!!

Needless to say, I had a lot to write in the "comments" section at the end!

They are truly a disgrace.

Carl-

Okay, roast me if you want but this occurred to me:

Isn't it true that Quality is becoming less easily defined and labeled? Often enough, I have urged people of our stripe to try to think of something else to call it because almost zero people I know around here understand it means more than a hot hamburger or a bus that arrives on time.

I could say I live in Hicksville, but this country mouse (after becoming professionally frustrated in the country) went to the city and found a lot of people think they understand what we are about, but still don't understand it goes beyond product or service goodness. Finally realizing that not so very much was different after all, (except the city had more manufacturing so the odds seemed somewhat better from sheer numbers) I came back.

And in most cases, it's still about Fitness For Use. I tell them I'm a certified quality engineer and they think I design good bridges. I say I was a systems auditor for an electronics manufacturer and they think I'm in IT.

I've been mentioning to ASQ for awhile now that they should start aiming lower, to start using regular-speak and stop identifying us with quality because people just can't get their arms around a larger concept than the word. Perhaps they were listening after all.

I don't know what your 10 choices were, but just possibly they were intended to make the title sound more like what it really is: a Performance Systems Manager, or some such.

Okay, roast me if you want but this occurred to me:

Isn't it true that Quality is becoming less easily defined and labeled? Often enough, I have urged people of our stripe to try to think of something else to call it because almost zero people I know around here understand it means more than a hot hamburger or a bus that arrives on time.

I could say I live in Hicksville, but this country mouse (after becoming professionally frustrated in the country) went to the city and found a lot of people think they understand what we are about, but still don't understand it goes beyond product or service goodness. Finally realizing that not so very much was different after all, (except the city had more manufacturing so the odds seemed somewhat better from sheer numbers) I came back.

And in most cases, it's still about Fitness For Use. I tell them I'm a certified quality engineer and they think I design good bridges. I say I was a systems auditor for an electronics manufacturer and they think I'm in IT.

I've been mentioning to ASQ for awhile now that they should start aiming lower, to start using regular-speak and stop identifying us with quality because people just can't get their arms around a larger concept than the word. Perhaps they were listening after all.

I don't know what your 10 choices were, but just possibly they were intended to make the title sound more like what it really is: a Performance Systems Manager, or some such.Hicksville is a lot bigger than the town I live in http://www.city-data.com/city/Hicksville-New-York.html:lmao:

At any rate, the main thing is ASQ has missed the boat on spreading the word about the BOK behind each certification and how that BOK relates to an organization. I agree the title is immaterial so long as there is understanding and respect for the skill set represented by the certification.

I agree that ASQ is becoming--hollowed out--in how it is marketing to, for the most part, those who would probably already understand them.

It's gotten to the point that I seldom open the Quality Progress anymore. The articles feel irrelevant to me and most organizations I can think of within driving distance. And the articles on careers leave me with a taste in my mouth.

ASQ does a poor job in outreach, I do agree and steadfastly maintain. They need to open up new markets to ensure they can even survive in current ones.

To do that, they will need to do more than spread the word about the BOK in each certification. They'll need to start explaining what is obvious to us, that problems like employee turnover can cripple an organization's developmental ability.

They will also need to recognize lifestyle businesses, where improving quality means, not necessarily growth, but improving the work's enjoyability.

Wait a second,

I am having a little trouble with this "rose by any other name" mentality, so you are going to have to help me here.

I have 15 or so years in QUALITY, the fact that some country bumpkin doesn't know a pareto from a potato should not change my title to "Good Stuff Sorter".

Plenty of people have no idea what a Oncologist is, but I don't think there will be a big movement by the AMA to start calling them "Cancer fixer uppers"

The ASQ does not need to start "aiming lower" they need to stop shoveling all the BS and start paying attention to what actually does work, not some martial arts catch phrase with no data to support it, and certainly not a Standard certification that has no redeeming value whatsoever and no tracking to support the effectiveness.

Our discipline is supposed to embrace data, statistics, root cause analysis etc. and yes, the human factors involved in QUALITY. Someone in Hicksville that "can't get their arms around" the concept should have zero impact on what we do.

The intent of changing the name is a simple one, get more people to certify, bringing in more members from other disciplines (like tractor repair), who will need to take more ASQ courses to support the recertification. This is a grab at the almighty dollar. If you can think of ONE advantage changing the name will have for me, I would like to know what it is.

Jeeeesh! people really are like sheep.

Carl-

btw, I DO think the CQMgr test I took in 2000 was a pretty decent gauge of my abilities as a Quality Manager.

Wait a second,

I am having a little trouble with this "rose by any other name" mentality, so you are going to have to help me here.

I have 15 or so years in QUALITY, the fact that some country bumpkin doesn't know a pareto from a potato should not change my title to "Good Stuff Sorter".

Plenty of people have no idea what a Oncologist is, but I don't think there will be a big movement by the AMA to start calling them "Cancer fixer uppers"

The ASQ does not need to start "aiming lower" they need to stop shoveling all the BS and start paying attention to what actually does work, not some martial arts catch phrase with no data to support it, and certainly not a Standard certification that has no redeeming value whatsoever and no tracking to support the effectiveness.

Our discipline is supposed to embrace data, statistics, root cause analysis etc. and yes, the human factors involved in QUALITY. Someone in Hicksville that "can't get their arms around" the concept should have zero impact on what we do.

The intent of changing the name is a simple one, get more people to certify, bringing in more members from other disciplines (like tractor repair), who will need to take more ASQ courses to support the recertification. This is a grab at the almighty dollar. If you can think of ONE advantage changing the name will have for me, I would like to know what it is.

Jeeeesh! people really are like sheep.

Carl-

I've done a lot of research on this subject. Here's the deal:

People aren't learning the basics while in public schools. Even business clubs like DECA are phasing out and, when they exist in any form, are merging with VICA, which is designed to make good employees.

Business schools aren't teaching much about quality management either.

As a result, there are a lot of people out there who don't know how to analyze data, compare cost savings of reduced defects to a sick leave policy, or control their employee turnover. They don't need ANOVA, they don't know what PDCA stands for. They can't drill down to root cause the first time they try; it often takes a cycle of failure for them to realize they just can't stab at a solution and hit the target.

But many are feeling their way into improvement because they really do want to do well. They are reinventing the wheel because they don't know there is one already out there that works.

Possibly the quality management you and I know is too complex for them. These people don't need expert talk and they don't want someone to say to them, "I'm a Quality Manager, stupid!" They need to start with specific improvement targets that really matter to them, not worry about a system that has to be maintained.

These bumpkins contribute more than half of the U.S. GDP. The market potential is enormous, and almost utterly untapped because no one has managed to communicate to them yet that quality is much more than a hot hamburger. If their hamburgers are already hot, they think they don't need you...even though their company is hemorraging money elsewhere.

It seems you are in an area where there is no shortage of companies to work in who understand you. That is very encouraging, a wonderful thing. But things look much different from the ground. I feel like I'm trying to call up at you in a tree house.

Hi, all.

I think I can distill most of my thoughts on this issue into a couple of questions:

Have you ever heard a child, even a teenager, say they want to go into quality?

If not, why not?

While it is easy to take shots at ASQ (I know I have) and as the self appointed spokesgroup for the profession many of those shots are deserved, I believe that we, as individual Q pros, are also to blame. Have any of us been to a high school or elementary school "career day" to speak to a class about what we do? I did a couple of years ago, and the glazed looks were even worse than the ones I sometimes have recieved during portions of management review meetings. Maybe that's why I have not been asked back. How would you approach this type of group (not rhetorical)? I wish I had a better answer because that answer for a small sample may very well apply to the population as a whole.

It seems to me that, at this point, depending on ASQ to address the issue of communicating what we do is a dangerous proposition. We MUST find a way to better explain what we do and why it is important. Then, we must go out and do it.

Although I think changing the CQx designation is a bad idea because of the (little) recognition that has been built for the brand name, in the end it does not even come close to addressing the root cause of the recognition/awareness problem.

OK, so the answer is to open up the discipline to non-Quality oriented people so we can enlighten the world to what "Quality" is? And while we are at it, we will change the name to defect reduction specialist?

Maybe we should call Actuarials, "Insurance number guys" and CPA's "Tax form filler outers" because I really don't have a good grasp of what they do and I need to feel more comfortable on career day.

Think about what you are saying. When is the last time a Phlebotomist showed up at a career day and the kids knew what they were? and then when they found out they ran home and said "Mommy, I want to be the best Phlebotomist in the world when I grow up!"

Some careers have more glitz than others, we can't all be Policemen....Oooooooh! There's a thought!, call us DEFECT POLICE!, that way people will have a good grasp of the basics of what we do!

Craig is right, we are to blame. We keep running down this road of "initiative of the day", blindly following any hucksters claim without regard for the actual data, which is 180 degrees contrary to the way a Quality Manager should be wired.

You guys keep following the herd, I am comfortable going it alone on this one.

Carl-

Few would successfully argue that I am a "follower."

That said, I tailor my presentations to the audience I am trying to reach.

I certainly talk about Quality initiatives and their relationship to bottom line more frequently than I try to dazzle folks with my knowledge of acronyms. I hardly ever use an acronym in an oral presentation and when I write, I'm usually careful to include the whole word or phrase spelled out at least once.

When I ran a high-tech machine shop, my "Quality" people did not do routine inspections. They created inspection processes (Control Plans) and trained operators to perform those processes. They were involved in customer and supplier interaction. They served as "court of last resort" rather than "police." They knew when to go to an outside source when an aspect of quality was beyond the scope of our in-house capability or capacity. They constantly assessed whether the quantity of outside referrals justified bringing the capability/capacity in-house.

I spent an entire career grooming folks to improve their personal knowledge and capabilities so they could advance in my organization or someone else's.

I gave up good people to customers and suppliers and it was like bread on the water in terms of return in good will and improvement in dealing with either customer or supplier.

For the past 25 years, I've been in the executive suite and spent the bulk of my time dealing with other executives in-house, at customers, and at suppliers. In all that time, I can't recall an occasion where I had any animosity in dealing with a Quality Manager, but often had plenty of trouble dealing with the executives in that same Quality Manager's organization, because they didn't respect the opinions of their own Quality Manager. I found myself spending lots of time educating those executives about just how good their own QM was and that they should respect his opinions.

Regardless of Deming, Juran, Crosby, et al, there continues to be a major misunderstanding (even among quality practitioners, themselves) about the true role of a Quality professional in an organization. I contend the role is to make the organization as efficient as possible in producing quality products and service to meet requirements of customers. Too often the Quality folk limit themselves to some arcane specialty and lose site of the big picture. It's not enough to generate SPC charts - the Quality practitioner has to ensure the organization understands the purpose of the chart and how to convert the information it conveys to increase the bottom line. When there is a disconnect between the chart and using the chart to benefit the organization, is it any wonder the Quality guy is considered a geek by the rest of the orgnization?

The best Quality Manager doesn't manage Quality, he manages information about Quality throughout his own organization and the organizations up and down his supply chain. So what nomenclature should we use to describe this function?

Wes,

All good points.

Reminds me of a Plant Manager I used to work for. He used to say, "We don't manufacture, we manage employees, the product is just a by-product of the process"

Pretty nice and "touchy-feely" but when bonus time came, the $ amount of sales was #1 on the list and that whole "people management" thing (along with everything else) was somewhere down the road.

I am not sure what the "Best" Quality Manager does. I do manage some Quality information, but I also have an active role in determining the actual level of Quality.

So what nomenclature should we use to describe this function?

I would say.....Quality Manager would fit nicely.

Carl-

Simply stated: "determining level of Quality" is not necessarily "managing."

Many have the title "Quality Manager" - but they are really only glorified inspectors. When the "manager" has a voice in what, how, when, and how frequently something is measured, then he is probably a manager, even if he is the sole employee in a Quality function, because he is managing concepts.

The reality of life in the corporate world is that our ambition and desire to do something or be "somebody" is often curtailed by contrary desires and ambition of others.

One of the ways we break out of pigeon-holes others prepare for us is to refuse to call ourselves "pigeons." The Six Sigma guys are doing that now by creating a new "nomenclature" for the "same old" "same old" stuff since Shewart came on the scene.

Take a look in job ads today. A Master Black Belt in Six Sigma may have no more knowledge than contained in the Certified Quality Manager Body of Knowledge [maybe even less], but the salary offerings are 20% to 100% higher than for "Quality Managers."

Somewhere along the line, we have to decide whether our pride in a job title is real or false pride.

I'm not looking for enemies here; I'm looking to help folks (just like the US Army) "be all they can be."

In my humble opinion the "BEST" quality manager is a user of a "common sense" approach to improvement of product and resolution of problems.

I recall as QA manager of WRE, Inc. we entered the SPC phase of QA (brought about by Customer demand) and proudly hung our charts all over the plant for all to see. What glitter what and accomplishment! All visitors were very polite as we explained our new found religion of SPC. What a farce (charts were never used to improve the product or the process)!

At my current organization (JRB Company) there is NO salary job description with the word quality in it. As I have stated in another post my current job title is Manufacturing Engineer, although my business card reads QA Engineer. My counterpart in Iowa and Tennessee are both Industrial Engineers who are performing QA work.
The Company that just bought out JRB is quite proud of their "Manufacturing Services Director".
It does appear that some american industry is drifting away from the terminology if not the function. I wonder why? :nopity:

I hear ya Wes.

I would also have to agree with you.

I will say this though, regardless whether you call me a VP, Manager, Director, Master Black belt or Inspector, QA or QC, my Core responsibility lays squarely in the Quality discipline and I feel strongly that the department I work for as well as my title should contain the word "Quality" somewhere therein.

Carl-

I hear ya Wes.

I would also have to agree with you.

I will say this though, regardless whether you call me a VP, Manager, Director, Master Black belt or Inspector, QA or QC, my Core responsibility lays squarely in the Quality discipline and I feel strongly that the department I work for as well as my title should contain the word "Quality" somewhere therein.

Carl-On that note, I think we have to agree to disagree. :truce: For many folks, the mere fact of being employed is much more important than the job or department title.

I think I'd rather be a "garbage man" at $25.00/hour than a "sanitation engineer" at $20.00 an hour if both titles mean I dump garbage and trash in the back of a truck.

Euphemisms are just synonyms that someone has decided are "nicer" than a common word. How many kids have been bent for life by a parent who applies numbers or cute words to urination and defecation? I know some grown people who still announce to the room at large (like a kid in toilet training): "I have to go toy toy."

Yes, I guess we will have to disagree on this one.

I think they are dead wrong in their current bent of changing a Society that was based by Quality professionals, for Quality professionals into a homologation for the sake of money.

They are selling out, and I do not like it at all.

Carl-

I don't know what your 10 choices were, but just possibly they were intended to make the title sound more like what it really is: a Performance Systems Manager, or some such.

I had the title of Manager of Performance Systems when I first got involved with quality. After busting my tail on creating a management system, introducing control charts and other quality tools, forming improvment teams and getting the plants ISO 9000 certified, I found out why the VP gave me the title.

One day I was having a meeting with him and he asked me to do something. I commented that it didn't sound like it had anything to do with quality. He politely asked me my title and then said my new project sounded like a performance system to him. My comment was that almost anything could fit that definition and he agreed. The light bulb went on.

For those that have seen my postings, I can be a jack of all trades. Apparently, my boss planned it that way and gave me a title that fit. He saw the title and job description somewhere and decided that that was what he wanted and not a quality manager. I was the only one in the company with that title but also the only wanted that reported directed to the vice president rather than through manufacturing so there were some benefits. I definitely had management support.

Bill Pflanz

OK, so the answer is to open up the discipline to non-Quality oriented people so we can enlighten the world to what "Quality" is? And while we are at it, we will change the name to defect reduction specialist?

Maybe we should call Actuarials, "Insurance number guys" and CPA's "Tax form filler outers" because I really don't have a good grasp of what they do and I need to feel more comfortable on career day.

Think about what you are saying. When is the last time a Phlebotomist showed up at a career day and the kids knew what they were? and then when they found out they ran home and said "Mommy, I want to be the best Phlebotomist in the world when I grow up!"

Some careers have more glitz than others, we can't all be Policemen....Oooooooh! There's a thought!, call us DEFECT POLICE!, that way people will have a good grasp of the basics of what we do!

Craig is right, we are to blame. We keep running down this road of "initiative of the day", blindly following any hucksters claim without regard for the actual data, which is 180 degrees contrary to the way a Quality Manager should be wired.

You guys keep following the herd, I am comfortable going it alone on this one.

Carl-

If anyone thought I was just a Defect Police, I'd be out the door.

What do you mean, exactly, when you say "open up the discipline to non-quality personnel"? Should the discipline be closed?

Certainly I'm not suggesting making a cert that doesn't have anything to do with quality management or needs none of our skills. I sure regret if I gave that impression.

I really didn't set out here to get ridiculed, but I came back because I'd just like to caution against defining ourselves too narrowly. After all, changes in the economy are still underway.

It's true we are to blame, I suppose, where we have become so specialized that the non-quality people don't believe we offer any value--which I have seen in an employer.

When the exiting manufacturing sector leaves a big sucking noise that you apparently aren't hearing, there remains a need to describe, in an understandable way, what one does so one doesn't just become obsolete along with the line workers.

Operational Performance Manager might be more understandable.

But of course, if you don't need to think outside the box this way, then by all means carry on. It's perfectly okay as long as you remain in demand.

Jennifer, I am certainly not ridiculing you, all I am saying is call it what it is!

If your duties are going to include things outside the Quality discipline such as Bill's Manager of Performance Systems, by all means then the title should match.

HOWEVER

There is nothing wrong with the title of Quality Mangager! The title is hardly "narrowing me out of a job." I have never met a someone in Quality that was so specialized that all they did was sat in an office and poured over AQL levels all day.

Like Bill, I am also a jack of all trades at my company. I take responsibility for any project that has anything to do with QUALITY. From mold qualification, to shipping problems and everything inbetween. That includes improvement initiatives and cost saving measures. Skills that will always be needed in the manufacturing sector and are well understood by any company I would be interested in working for. While I am certainly not in a Silo and I have never said "that's not my job", I am also not expected to become involved in projects such as costing of the product, somebody else performs that function.

I am not sure where all your fear of job loss stems from, but I can tell you I have worked for 5 companies in the last 15 years, never took a pay cut and don't plan on taking one in the future. I have only been unemployed once for 3 weeks when the company I worked for layed off 20% of the Management. My skills were always needed and I have always held a title that contained the word "Quality".

If I held a title that did not contain the word "Quality", that would be fine, however I would not consider my position part of the Quality discipline.

Call it what it is. "Quality" is not a dirty word folks.

Carl-

Call it what it is. "Quality" is not a dirty word folks.

Carl-

Carl:

Not wanting to be mean or start a fight, but I think in some circles "quality" may not be a dirty word, but is at least misunderstood, and to our detriment.

I am thinking here of at least 2 mindsets. The first involves the old quality- as-inspector outlook, where production makes stuff, and quality rejects it. The 2 respective managers would then beat on each other as to what to do, or even worse, the Produciton Manager would beat up on some hapless QC inspector. Hardly a model of how to do things.

The second involves the ISO standards, primarily 9001, and the old 9002 and 9003. These quality standards were often intrepeted as dictating EXACTLY what had to be done. Sure, there are/were "shalls" but often the actual implementations included things that went beyond those "because (we think) the standard says so". I believe that has given quality (certification to a quality standard, actually) the reputation of being a cost of doing business, rather than a way to improve. The fact that plant managers and the like are generally averse to having anyone tell them how to run their plants does not help (I'd be the same way, BTW).

So, "quality". Change the name, or change the perception?

:magic:

Craig,

I agree with you. I vote to change the perception. Changing the name would only be a temporary fix. Eventually the perception would become attached to the new name. Changing the perception is a more robust corrective action.

It seems kind of silly to start playing with the title. The title "Lawyer" has been the focus of jokes and animosity for years and very few people have an understanding of the job, but I doubt the American BAR association is going to start calling them "Legal Profession Advisors" or some all encompassing title. Nor are they going to allow someone who does not have that specific skill set to claim they are qualified to practice law. There are specialties such as divorce, corporate law, financial law etc. and there are general practices, but they are all LAWYERS. (Usually designated Esq.)

If there is a need for a new breed of Manager, a "jack of all trades" Manager of Performance Systems, then by all means, we should start a certification for it, but don't dilute my focused profession to create it because a lot of people worked very hard to get the recognition to this point.

Carl-

Carl, I certainly can imagine why you would feel it is fine to keep the title. And I don't see anything wrong with it--my challenge is in people not understanding what it means. Yes, the perception. People in the remaining small businesses around here largely think it means Fitness For Use.

It may or may not help that the title invites this misunderstanding, which I hope you will forgive people for thinking wrongly as they are thinking the dictionary standard meaning. How are they supposed to know what it is all about unless they've been shown it?

These bumpkins, as I remember reading them described, though many with advanced degrees and brilliant, comprise most of the state's economy. It's either finds a way to market to them, or try for Career #3, like Door #3, and see if that one actually works.

My fear of job loss stems from having lost my job and not been able to replace it with a job that has anything to do with Quality. Maine has lost 17,000 manufacturing jobs--that is a lot for up here--and those were about the only people who had any idea what we do that has organizational value. We have not been so fortunate as you. I will confess to some envy about that.

Consider the posts on this forum. What percentage are from non-manufacturing? Our world is getting smaller unless we enlarge it. No, I can't relocate.

I have a number of friends who have had the same challenge, so I don't feel like an outcast. It's just a simple shift of demand from those who know, to those who don't know.

So it remains to the imagination to decide if the effort to increase understanding of what we do would be helped, or hurt, by keeping the word Quality in the title or not.

There's no shame in reinventing yourself to fit altered circumstances. Humankind has been doing it through Evolution for a million years or more.

When Ice Ages or drought occurred, they migrated or learned to adapt to the changed surroundings. Today, humans occupy and are self-sustaining in almost every biome except Antarctica.

Like the rest of the human race, we folks in Quality either relocate or adapt to changed circumstances. Many of the Quality tools are usable in non-manufacturing environments. We just have to be clever enough to move into the new biome to use those tools without creating a war with any existing occupants of the biome.

I recall reading recently that some orcas (killer whales) eat primarily warm blooded prey (whales, porpoises, seals, penguins, etc.), while some eat only cold blooded prey (fish.) I'm pretty sure the ones they use in Sea World shows are from the fish-eating populations, but other than watching their habits, it's impossible to tell if an orca is a fish eater or a warm blooded prey eater.

I imagine an individual from either population would eventually eat the other kind of prey if that was all that was available to sustain it. Therefore, the diet is a learned activity and subject to change or modification.

It seems to me those of us with a good grounding in Quality tools would find it easier to adapt to a changed work environment if, like the orca, we see the task as "getting food" versus getting "fish" or "getting seals." The orca has basic skills (swim, locate food, eat food.) We have basic skills (think, communicate, perform tasks), enhanced by a system to focus that thinking on methods to anticipate and solve problems.

Like many on this forum, I agree the ASQ seems to have lost its' way and also seems to jump on the bandwagon with the latest fad (i.e. Six Sigma).

However, there could be another motivation (besides money) for the interest in changing the title. A couple of years ago, our ASQ Regional Director (liaison between local sections and Milwaukee) indicated that ASQ's survival must include reaching out to non-quality professionals.....the main reason being many companies are doing away with traditional quality depts and quality manager roles. ASQ had seen this demonstrated in year to year reductions in new membership, which could not just be tied to normal career changes or disenchantment with the Society. The reality is more and more companies are incorporating quality responsibilities into key positions, such as Operations personnel, who typically don't join ASQ. In some cases, the word "quality" doesn't appear in ones' title, but is considered an integral part of the position, i.e. Improvement Facilitator, Business Systems Coordinator, etc. ASQ is trying to appeal to all groups involved in quality. The term ASQ gives one the impression that only quality professionals need apply. They are trying to appeal to the masses for several reasons....money, yes, but also because many of us are doing what we are suppose to be doing in this field: making quality so much a part of everyone's job and responsibility, we work ourselves out of a job.

Back on topic:
Certification is a pocketbook item.

We joke and rail a lot about certification, but the fact remains earning the actual certificate does not mean the certificate holder is more knowledgeable than a non-certificate holder. !


Here here!! Our corporate Quality Director has been on site for the past couple of months helping us get this plant in "smooth running order" and in a conversation a couple of days ago she said the EXACT SAME THING!!!

I agree with your statement too that if you are going for certification to help you get a better job (because some companies DO use these as hiring criteria), go for it. But in my mind - if you've the education and / or experience that can benefit our firm, I'll give you a chance.

JMHO,
Karen

A couple of years ago, our ASQ Regional Director (liaison between local sections and Milwaukee) indicated that ASQ's survival must include reaching out to non-quality professionals.....the main reason being many companies are doing away with traditional quality depts and quality manager roles. ASQ had seen this demonstrated in year to year reductions in new membership, which could not just be tied to normal career changes or disenchantment with the Society.

I am a local section officer and here is my impression about what is happening with ASQ membership and certification.

We have seen a large turnover in membership as members transfer out to find a job or transfer in because they found a job. We have seen minimal impact so far due to the creation of the new membership model i.e. members appear to be keeping their full membership.

We have seen some decline in membership, training and certifications since companies have been reducing expenses the last few years. ASQ certified lots of members in the 80's and 90's - the glory days of quality. Not unexpectedly the pool of potential candidates is smaller from the manufacturing areas. Non-manufacturing interest in certifications has been mainly in Six Sigma which can be obtained through non-ASQ organizations.

I have heard anecdotal stories that those individuals with traditional quality backgrounds do better in getting Six Sigma certified no matter how they do it. Those new to quality, have to either learn a lot about statistics and quality tools or find one of the paper mill Six Sigma organizations (including some that exist in large companies). The ASQ Six Sigma test is not easy unless you are a CQE or equivalent.

The reality is more and more companies are incorporating quality responsibilities into key positions, such as Operations personnel, who typically don't join ASQ. In some cases, the word "quality" doesn't appear in ones' title, but is considered an integral part of the position, i.e. Improvement Facilitator, Business Systems Coordinator, etc. ASQ is trying to appeal to all groups involved in quality. The term ASQ gives one the impression that only quality professionals need apply. They are trying to appeal to the masses for several reasons....money, yes, but also because many of us are doing what we are suppose to be doing in this field: making quality so much a part of everyone's job and responsibility, we work ourselves out of a job.

The service industry like banking, insurance, hospitals etc. never really had quality departments but they do have various groups that handle customer complaints or service problems. Consultants are also introducing Six Sigma and other quality concepts mainly to reduce waste or labor costs but also to encourage a "high performance culture". My local section is seeing these individuals join ASQ but they have different needs. They are not into ISO standards, DOEs, sampling plans etc. but do agree with the quality improvement philosophy, will use some statistical and quality tools like FEMA, correllation studies, fishbone, and sometimes control charts but there is more emphasis on the softer side of quality. If they came from a manufacturing background (that is they were downsized and went where the jobs were) they have a stronger background in quality and more likely to keep their ASQ membership and certifications and adapt some of the quality tools and methodologies to the service industry.

Our section is trying to adapt to the new quality jobs but lots of members have years invested in automotive standards, ISO, sampling plans, defect detection, gage R&R etc. and do not know how to relate to worlds where that is not what quality means.

It will be a real journey but I am optimistic that the quality profession will survive even if it looks different.

Bill Pflanz

Sorry, not buying it.

Do I need to explain current quality and trends to employees sometimes? Yes.
Do I have an overwhelming mass of people who blunder around in confusion, not understanding the focus of my position or what I am trying to accomplish?
No.

Quality is not some lost art that manufacturing has no clue about. As far as to the handful of stories that imply that quality is being integrated into other positions and there is no quality department in many companies, I say bull. If someone cares to get some real numbers, run a poll and ask the people on this forum how many work for a company with a Quality department or Quality designation and how many work in a no quality designated atmosphere.

I would suggest people that do not want to work in the Quality discipline find another job.
The world needs ditch diggers too.

Carl-

Sorry, not buying it.

Do I need to explain current quality and trends to employees sometimes? Yes.
Do I have an overwhelming mass of people who blunder around in confusion, not understanding the focus of my position or what I am trying to accomplish?
No.

Quality is not some lost art that manufacturing has no clue about. As far as to the handful of stories that imply that quality is being integrated into other positions and there is no quality department in many companies, I say bull. If someone cares to get some real numbers, run a poll and ask the people on this forum how many work for a company with a Quality department or Quality designation and how many work in a no quality designated atmosphere.

I would suggest people that do not want to work in the Quality discipline find another job.
The world needs ditch diggers too.

Carl-
I get the feeling you are not thoroughly reading these posts.

Who said quality is a lost art that manufacturing has no clue about? I couldn't find that anywhere in this thread.

My point was that manufacturing, while it declines, is giving way to the potential, yet unrealized market of non-manufacturing small businesses. They usially think of quality in a very early sense, like back in early industrial revolution: is is a good service? How do we know? What should we do about it? Certainly not all are reactive, but the majority are.

I'll grant that your impressions on the diversification of skills applications in your field are very likely valid, but only as far as your scope. I don't have time to research career trends and give you data that you have not thus far found enough interest in to read about on your own. I have to spend this evening finding a good visual aide, with which to teach balanced equations in chemistry to special education middle schoolers.

This is because, (trust me on this one) not out of a lack of my desire, there are very few jobs in quality available here, as is true in other places too.

Again, Carl, I do sometimes envy your comfort in not having to ever change how you view the world within your field.

Here here!! Our corporate Quality Director has been on site for the past couple of months helping us get this plant in "smooth running order" and in a conversation a couple of days ago she said the EXACT SAME THING!!!

I agree with your statement too that if you are going for certification to help you get a better job (because some companies DO use these as hiring criteria), go for it. But in my mind - if you've the education and / or experience that can benefit our firm, I'll give you a chance.

JMHO,
Karen


Buying a certificate not needed to work for me???? I wouldn't hire anyone that way either, Karen, but I do give people credit who show some extra motivation in trying to get what added education/skills they think would make them a better asset for a company. The certification process may not be perfect and may not make someone a better Quality Manager over someone that doesn't have the certifications, but you can make the same argument about higher education in this country...just because you have a sheepskin doesn't mean you're better qualified than someone who has hands-on experience. I have to admit I take offense (and I'm sure I'm not alone) that you would claim that people who went in with strictly pure intentions of trying to better themselves through ASQ certifications, have basically "bought" their certificates. That's kinda harsh, coming from a "newbie" quality manager. I know I've worked very hard to maintain the integrity and usefulness of my credentials, whether they be ASQ certifications or IRCA certification or CEU's.

Yes, Carl, and they should be glad they weren't asking for new names for the ASQ, e.g. what word would you replace in "American Society for ???"? Hmmm?


ASQ = Asking Silly Questions

ASQ = American Senility Quotient

ASQ = As&^%les Sneeking Quickly

ASQ = As*&%^les Sleeping Quietly

ASQ = Adding Sorta Quickly

ASQ = Amassing Silly Questions

ASQ = Assessing Silly Queries

Any more?

jc, I have to agree with you, and add this:

We all have our own set of experiences. From this set of experiences, we equip ourselves with tools taken from those experiences. But, because our time on earth is finite, there is no way that we can experience everything, try as we might.

Preparing for a certification exposes one to new ways of looking at things and solving problems. For example, if someone had said "eddy current" to me before I started working toward taking the CQE, I would have thought they were talking about trout fishing. Now, eddy current is another tool that I know something about, and, if the need arises, I know that there is a test that might just be helpful. This is certainly not the only example.

Will I ever pull that tool out of the arsenal for use? Who knows. I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not even know it exists.

Getting ready for the exams forces one to look outside their normal, everyday, experience, and also forces the practice of little used skills.

Preparing for a certification exposes one to new ways of looking at things and solving problems....Getting ready for the exams forces one to look outside their normal, everyday, experience, and also forces the practice of little used skills.

:agree1: Right on, Craig. Even Six Sigma has a different way of looking at things and also some new tools not in the other certifications.

Not to oversell certifications, we are providing a similar service through the Cove.

Bill

Jennifer,

I am not trying to be a smarta$$ here, but if you live in an area where there are no quality jobs, and moving is not an option, why would you persue a career in it?

I mean, why not start taking classes in business management or engineering or whatever is available in your area rather than trying to mask your actual Quality discipline with a broader title?

Carl-

Buying a certificate not needed to work for me???? I wouldn't hire anyone that way either, Karen, but I do give people credit who show some extra motivation in trying to get what added education/skills they think would make them a better asset for a company. The certification process may not be perfect and may not make someone a better Quality Manager over someone that doesn't have the certifications, but you can make the same argument about higher education in this country...just because you have a sheepskin doesn't mean you're better qualified than someone who has hands-on experience. I have to admit I take offense (and I'm sure I'm not alone) that you would claim that people who went in with strictly pure intentions of trying to better themselves through ASQ certifications, have basically "bought" their certificates. That's kinda harsh, coming from a "newbie" quality manager. I know I've worked very hard to maintain the integrity and usefulness of my credentials, whether they be ASQ certifications or IRCA certification or CEU's.

Exactly right! Personnally I never had the time to pursue certifications of any sort. Even as the Electronic Inspection Supervisor at GAC (Goodyear Aerospace) I did not hold any sort of solder certification to any specification even though I supervised 20 electronic, card carrying, inspectors. Never had time to get one.
Later as a QA Engineer in the same shop, I was routinely called by the holders of solder certifications to referree questionable solder joints. My decisions were based on common sense and were considered the final word by both GAC and Customer. In fact at one point in time I represented both the Suadi and Japanese airforces in MRB on the F15 Flight Simulators.
As I look back at it I often wondered why I never found time to acquire certifications in say Weapon Sytems or NASA specs.
Where did I learn about soldering? United States Navy! :applause:

Jennifer,

I am not trying to be a smarta$$ here, but if you live in an area where there are no quality jobs, and moving is not an option, why would you persue a career in it?

I mean, why not start taking classes in business management or engineering or whatever is available in your area rather than trying to mask your actual Quality discipline with a broader title?

Carl-

That's actually a good question Carl, I appreciate your levity.

I've actually noticed some picking up of advertising for quality jobs. More and more, however, they are being used to describe work in non-manufacturing sectors that doesn't much align with what I am familiar with in manufacturing. These sectors, like heath care and financing, want people who are already within their sectors; like RNs. This tells me their quality systems are probably still in the development stages, or they would know that what we do can be applied to very many sectors.

My current position in public education is a new career path, but I don't feel really comfortable in a role of classroom teacher. If you could just be there...I have some pretty rough customers.

But education is a field that really needs what we do. Not in design of experiments or ANOVA, and not in the House of Quality. But there is lots of need for TQM/Baldrige principles and they could use some better problem solving skills.

Why mask my abilities? I do not think of it as masking them; I think of it as adapting them. I find myself utterly unable to wipe my head clean of them. I've tried going into the newspaper industry as a reporter, or in customer service or in circulation. I'm pretty sure I scared them during interviews. They don't understand the value of what we do yet, if they ever will.

And so now I am going incognito. I am learning interesting things about the upcoming work force. It's not your uncle's work force anymore. I will be able to market the skill in helping businesses get the most out of their employees. I can show them how to find the costs in reducing human errors and employee turnover. Is this not also related to Quality? Human performance and making good decisions?

I have four products in publishing house review, aimed at helping small businesspeople accomplish this and maintain it on their own.

And so it will take time, but in my better moments I am still pretty sure I will find a way to make a really good jug of lemonade out of this challenge. That's what life's all about! How well we play the hand we're given.

Buying a certificate not needed to work for me???? I wouldn't hire anyone that way either, Karen, but I do give people credit who show some extra motivation in trying to get what added education/skills they think would make them a better asset for a company. The certification process may not be perfect and may not make someone a better Quality Manager over someone that doesn't have the certifications, but you can make the same argument about higher education in this country...just because you have a sheepskin doesn't mean you're better qualified than someone who has hands-on experience. I have to admit I take offense (and I'm sure I'm not alone) that you would claim that people who went in with strictly pure intentions of trying to better themselves through ASQ certifications, have basically "bought" their certificates. That's kinda harsh, coming from a "newbie" quality manager. I know I've worked very hard to maintain the integrity and usefulness of my credentials, whether they be ASQ certifications or IRCA certification or CEU's.

My appologies - I did not mean to stir up such harsh reactions. I guess I am just not an avid supporter of the ASQ - from experience (I am not new to Quality Management, I am new to the automotive industry) I have had more success with individuals with work experience matching the position I was hiring for - as opposed to just looking for the 'initials'. I admit in the past I was somewhat of an academic snob - having a higher education myself, I was inclined to hire like individuals - I still am to a certain degree. I support my staff that wish to better themselves by persuing accreditation - however, I prefer to have them get their MEng, MBA, or even an undergraduate degree or diploma if they have not already gone that route.

As I indicated in my first post - these are just my humble opinions and I did not mean to raise anyone's hackles. Please do not take my ramblings personally, again JMHO!!

Karen

Emotions flare when it comes to considering how "job hirers" view the careers we have staked out for ourselves.

What happens here in the Cove is that we temporarily glimpse information normally heard in the private conversations behind closed doors.

Instead of getting angry that many (not all) job hirers now devalue degrees and designations we worked so hard to obtain, it should become one more piece of information we use as we contemplate our own futures.

For example, if ALL bosses everywhere decided overnight that they would no longer give value to a CQE (An American Society for Quality Certified Quality Engineer) designation, but would only accept the results from a similar test they administer at the time a person applies for a job, what would we do?

If we wanted to work at that kind of a job, we'd take the test and hope to pass, wouldn't we?

Actually, in my opinion, I'd rather have a clue going in to the job hunt as to what folks were looking for in the way of qualifications than to be continually snubbed without knowing why.

Just as in the spirit of the current generation of ISO Standards, we must always be "customer-centric" in adapting our processes (our lives and skill sets) to the customer's (employer's) requirements.

There is a terrible, trite phrase which covers this situation:
"Change is the only constant!"

Emotions flare when it comes to considering how "job hirers" view the careers we have staked out for ourselves.

What happens here in the Cove is that we temporarily glimpse information normally heard in the private conversations behind closed doors.

Instead of getting angry that many (not all) job hirers now devalue degrees and designations we worked so hard to obtain, it should become one more piece of information we use as we contemplate our own futures.

For example, if ALL bosses everywhere decided overnight that they would no longer give value to a CQE (An American Society for Quality Certified Quality Engineer) designation, but would only accept the results from a similar test they administer at the time a person applies for a job, what would we do?

If we wanted to work at that kind of a job, we'd take the test and hope to pass, wouldn't we?

Actually, in my opinion, I'd rather have a clue going in to the job hunt as to what folks were looking for in the way of qualifications than to be continually snubbed without knowing why.

Just as in the spirit of the current generation of ISO Standards, we must always be "customer-centric" in adapting our processes (our lives and skill sets) to the customer's (employer's) requirements.

There is a terrible, trite phrase which covers this situation:
"Change is the only constant!"

This is a comepetetive employment environment, and I believe the workers are often feeling the fear or stress of not measuring up, of having to justify our existence, and needing to explain ourselves just right so we will get or keep the right job.

Meanwhile, change does march on. For those of us in the current employemnt rip tides, it is hard to know how to market ourselves. We are supposed to make life plans, goals and strategies, but the labor market is changing about as fast as we can change ourselves.

It used to be that taking on certifications was admired because, like correspondence schools, it typically takes a lot of discipline and drive to succeed in those things. It's not something one can just buy. (I know an extremely bright statistics Ph.D. who took the CQE without studying for it and "got spanked". He studied and passed the next time.) It's hard to figure out if, for whom and when these efforts lost their meaning. That kind of second guessing is uncomfortable to me.

Like Wes said, as our environment changes we must also change. It's becoming a place where some of us, as I suspect is my case, will need to be very flexible and inventive indeed.

I've actually considered both options: dropping my certs altogether or certifying for Six Sigma because it is something more often recognized in current management circles. My husband, however, doesn't like the idea of going to this effort and expense--he sees it as persistant digging in an apparently dry well. :frust: