I would like to tell the following tale. I will not name names involved, and I will try to tell it as rationally as possible.

Last week, a national board member decided it would be a good idea if during the Board meeting next week, a panel could be made up of interested ASQ volunteers to discuss with the board their perceptions of the boards' communications. The Regional Directors and Division Directors were asked to come up with likely members who could adjust their schedule to attend next Thursday May 12 to such a session.

On Tuesday, May 3, I was contacted by email by the Region 12 Director (not my region) and suggested that I should try to attend. They said I should contact my Regional Director, and the email listed the Section Affairs Council chair, and an ASQ staffer as points of contact. On Wednesday and Thursday I held lengthy phone and email discussions with all 3 parties, and was assured that this was a bona-fide offer and encouraged me to attend. I did try to call the national board member, but kept getting voice mail, but a generic message of not being at the phone. On Thursday, I made considerable arrangements at work to take two extra days off next week (this included working today, Friday, which was normally a day off as we work 9 hour days and every other Friday is off), and set up kennel reservations for the dogs and I got my wife primed for what we could fit in.

This morning, I was informed the session was canceled. After many (heated, at least by me I admit) phone calls it turns out that on late Monday early Tuesday the national board member involved and another ASQ staffer decided to cancel the session. No one had been able to change their plans that they knew of (and how they thought any would be able to on such short notice I don't know). However, no one was notified, certainly not my RD, the SAC chair, nor the ASQ staffer on the original notice. "Technical Difficulties" kept an all-call email from being sent until late today.

Of course, I am being a bit villified for being less than a happy camper about this.

The senior staff person at ASQ did let me know that ASQ Board meetings are open for ANY member to attend. Currently, I have made the request that I be allowed 10 minutes on the Board agenda during the Communications exercise on Thursday to present the original problem list, plus this latest example of very poor planning. But in order to do so, the President of ASQ (Danny Duhan) must approve.

I think there is a chance we could force this to happen, but I could use the support of the ASQ members here to help push this request through.

I would be foaming. And I would be less than kind while asking people why they did not contact me within one day of cancelling a session that I made great efforts to attend. It's so dissapointing, Steve, but on the other hand why am I not surprised?

Given my last plaintive message to the Living Strategy discussion thread was not responded to (for whatever reason--it appeared faster than usual; is Paul not around these days?) since April 19, you absolutely have my support. My membership doesn't expire until June 30th, I believe it is, so I'm still able to prod and poke as appropriate until that day.

What can I do to help?

What can I do to help?

1. Contact your Section Chair to see if they are responding to the latest version of this effort. The text of the message sent out Friday by ASQ HQ is:

This message is sent on behalf of Connie Faylor, ASQ Board of Directors:

Dear Division and Section Chairs, Vice-Chairs and Chairs-elect:

The ASQ Board is using part of the meeting time for professional development. This year we are focusing on improved communications. To date, we have addressed communications within the board room and communications between ASQ staff and board members. This work is done to improve all that we do. In our May meeting, we will use the time to address communications from the board to our member leaders and our membership. It would be EXTREMELY valuable if you would take a few minutes to send me your thoughts about how well we are doing. We are looking for both positive and negative examples of our communication. We are looking for information that will help us to improve. It will be helpful if you can provide some specific examples of what is working well as well as identify needs and specific areas for improvement. The intent is to help us as a board, as a collective group, to improve how we share information, communicate changes, respond to the field and help our customer base. We want the feedback to provide the real and perceived roles of the board from the sections, divisions and individual members.

You can send your comments directly to me at cfaylor@nep.benfranklin.org

Thank you so very much with your help on this work. I apologize for the short notice. I welcome your comments through 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, 11 May. I believe that this will be a nice learning opportunity for us so that we improve our communication and deployment through the society.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,
Connie
Connie Faylor
ASQ National Director
Regional Manager
Ben Franklin Technology Partners
(phone number removed)

2. Contact your Regional Director, who is a member of the Board and let them know your own concerns with ASQ and with this situation.

3. Contact Connie Faylor, at cfaylor@nep.benfranklin.org, per the message above.

Thanks,

Just builds on my reasoning to not renew my membership in it and other "Professional" organizations.

Attached is the file that I have sent in per the latest request from the ASQ board for communications. I hope to be allowed to present excerpts from it face to face with the ASQ board.

I welcome any comments or additions. Also, I encourage any interested member to send in this file, or their comments to ASQ.

Attached is the file that I have sent in per the latest request from the ASQ board for communications. I hope to be allowed to present excerpts from it face to face with the ASQ board.

I welcome any comments or additions. Also, I encourage any interested member to send in this file, or their comments to ASQ.
I did notice one typo you might want to correct:
You wrote:
"A decision was made in late April to convene a panel of 6 members of ASQ to interface with the Board about communications. Apparently the decision to cancel the panel had been made late Monday/early Tuesday May 10. I was contacted by the Region 12 Region Director on Tuesday about the panel. I held lengthy discussions with the ASQ staff member identified as the ASQ point of contact by the Region 12 Region Director, the Region 6 Region Director, and the Section Affairs Council chair on Wednesday and Thursday. I went to considerable effort to free myself up to make it to the panel. It was not until Friday morning that I was notified that the panel was canceled, well after making considerable commitments, and working unpaid overtime for my job."

I believe you meant
"Apparently the decision to cancel the panel scheduled for Thursday May 12 had been made late Monday/early Tuesday May 2/3, but I was not notified until Friday morning, May 6."

In my opinion, this was a terrible breech of etiquette on the part of ASQ elected officials and the paid staffers who actually did the communicating on behalf of the elected officials.


As a Demingite myself, I am loathe to point a finger at an individual's lapse of performance, but I would certainly expect to see an apology and the results of the Corrective Action and Preventive Action Reviews to fix the current breech and ensure that similar lapses do not occur in the future. As a customer, I would expect my supplier to be proactive in the Corrective/Preventive Action rather than reactive to my complaint. The SYSTEM seems to have failed at every opportunity. The management response appears to be a shrug and "So what!"


I wish I could offer more than sympathy.

I can only imagine that by this time (late Saturday), you feel like you've been "et by a pack of coyotes and pooped over a cliff."

Thanks for the read, Wes, and the typo is corrected and a new version resent.

Any chance you will let us know what you plan to say (or, if afterwards, what you did say)? Just curious about the specifics you want to address.

In large part this is very disappointing because you are very involved with the ASQ. I could better understand it if they did this to someone who basically just pays their dues and doesn't actively participate (like me).

When I described the situation to my husband (an IT manager for a newspaper) he said, "That is so common."

"Yes," I answered, because it is. How many times have we been the last to find out things? "But," I added, "this is a quality organization. The complaint is that the quality organization can't do quality."

He was silent on that. Of course, there is no response that makes it okay.

While on ship, oh so many years ago, my division's second in command told us during morning Quarters, "You are the QA Division. You must look good, professional--better than the rest. You should all be policing each other on their uniforms because we are QA." We all looked at that man, whose shoes were scuffed and dirty, and then at each other--was this a test? He was a very difficult fellow for most of us. We were mostly afraid or wary of him.

After a couple weeks of this, after Quarters I wondered to my shopmates what I should do? I received shrugs all around. I decided to take matters into my own hands: he would either say, "What took you so long?! I said we should all be able to correct each other on our appearance!" or he'd hand me my head on a platter.

I cradled my shoeshine kit in my two hands and entered the office. I said, "Respectfully, would you like to borrow my shoeshine kit?"

He trained his dead fish eyes on me and said icily, "Respectfully, you can do an about-face and leave my office."

I did. When I re-entered the NDT lab I shuddered and the Command Examiner asked me what was wrong. I told her. Everyone there was delighted, but Senior Chief remarked a few days later that he had looked around the Chief's Mess and noted many chiefs' shoes were not shined. So his were still better and we should still look better than our peers because we were QA.

We all looked at each other again. Um, okay. There was nothing more about this matter but Senior Chief shined his shoes from thereout and I enjoyed a heightened sense of comraderie for my nerve.

True story. But what's the moral? Dunno, except such misfortunes are immortal, the little guy typically sweats a bit more over it, and we just do what we can in spite of it and try to do better when we are able. Not everyone makes so much effort or recalls that the little things can matter so much. :2cents:

I can see sucking up to "brass" when your job or next promotion is on the line. I absolutely can't see sucking up when you are the customer. I consider myself the ASQ customer. I consider myself the virtual employer of all the paid staff at ASQ.

Similarly, I can't see sucking up to an elected politician or a paid bureaucrat when I am the citizen who pays for them to be in office.

When the politician or bureaucrat acts with hubris toward the constituents, it is not only acceptable, but, in my opinion, MANDATORY, to lobby for a change in the regime. Lobbying means getting others to espouse your cause along with you. As I write this, I am lobbying all ASQ members who read this to feel as outraged as I over the cavalier attitude presented by top paid ASQ staff and the elected officials who sit back and bask in glory while they allow the paid staff to make all real decisions.

I do not see an instant resolution to the problem. If, however, the by-laws change, it will be much easier to present an entire new slate of ASQ officers to "vote the rascals out" in ensuing years.

"Revenge is a pie best tasted cold." Just because these children of female curs are apparently winning this battle, does not mean I have ceded the war.

So - did you have your conversation with Paul Borawski?

Anything you can share?

No conversation yet with Paul. Generally been pretty quiet. I am going to initiate a call.

I just got off the phone with Paul. Danny Duhan, who controls the agenda for the board, has refused to allow me 10 minutes to present the issues in the paper I have posted here. Their point was that the original panel format was to allow the board to ask questions of volunteer leaders. So, I have withdrawn that "demand".

Paul did agree to investigate the timing of this scenario. He does feel the person who came up with the idea for the panel has been unfairly blamed. I have stated I think they did a great service in coming up with the idea for the panel, but the implementation absolutely failed due to a lack of planning. There were a lot of handoffs of information and obviously (in retrospect) this is a textbook example of the lack of communication (and more importantly lack of planning) that the board is interested in finding out about.

I have left it so far with:

1. A request for an investigation into the time series of events.

2. An apology better than the apology for "confusion" that I have gotten so far.

3. I am still going to visit the board as an observer Thursday afternoon. I have expressed the hope that the board will "ask" me about my experiences with ASQ.

Not a very good resolution so far.

This is really so very disappointing. You will be asked questions, perhaps, but not be invited or even permitted to bring your own concerns out for 10 minutes? It sounds so political. Why should they feel the need to keep su ch a sterile proceeding? It's not me they were inviting! :naughty:

..... :censor: ........... :censor: ........... :censor: ..

..See no evil ... Hear no evil ... Say no evil

...have no clothes on.

Why do you suppose Mr. Duhan is so inflexible?
ASQ President
Daniel M. Duhan (http://www.asq.org/join/about/bios/dduhan.html)
Northrop Grumman

Nothing about this scenario is reasonable in my opinion.

Perhaps, Steve, you can reach "Danny" through a mutual interest in model trains.When not attending to his day job, Danny spends time with his wife of 17 years, Laurie (a future Six Sigma Black Belt), and children, Ali and Drew. In addition to his own hobbies of model trains, cars, and genealogy, Danny encourages his daughter's love of art and ice skating, and his son's love of horses and involvement in the Boy Scouts.

It seems pretty obvious he's on the other side of the fence when it comes to 6S.

You spent a year getting a series of polite blowoffs from Chairman Case and now the incoming Chair seems determined to stonewall you, without the "polite" part. Wouldn't it be nice if "Danny" were to stand up and face the "voice of the rank and file?"

Strangely, except for the fact our agenda is the one being buried, this would be a good strategy to "manage" opposition:
Promise them anything, right up to the last moment, and then blindside the opposition with a cancellation once it is too late to muster a voting block to force an issue.
I've even used it myself. Classic, classic abuse of power!

"Brilliant" as they say in the Guiness commercial (man, I could really use one right now) :drunk:

I sent Danny the following email:

Just found out through a source you are interested in model railroading. Aside from my volunteer work with ASQ, I am the "Office Manager" for the Pacific Northwest Region of the National Model Railroad Association. I do have a website of my home model railroad at http://users.owt.com/prevette

I still hope you will reconsider allowing me some interaction with the board. I hope you will consider that if the tables were turned, if I had invited you as the ASQ president to a Section 614 Dinner Meeting with as short a notice, and you rearranged your schedule, and then found out that I had canceled the Dinner Meeting prior to even inviting you, you would feel as I do.

Steve Prevette
Occupational Safety and Health
Fluor Hanford, A Fluor Government Group Project ASQ Certified Quality Engineer steven_s_prevette@rl.gov
509-373-9371

Aren't you glad there's a smiley with fingers crossed?:cfingers:
It may mean there is some hope in the world after all.

I would have only added "I hope we can meet for dinner (whatever) after the board meeting, so we can talk about train things! I have seen some really neat displays in the (xyz) show."

Bring it full circle...

Like discussions about the future of Britain's IQA as well as other similar "national" bodies, what is forgotten by those who accede to "high office" and "lofty" positions with grandiose titles is the simple fact: they need the quality practioner far more than does the quality practitioner need them. It is always rather touching to see people seduced by their own impressions of their self supposed importance running organizations that depend totally on the goodwill and charitable provision of the "members" discretionary expenditure.

In any market, the sensible way of communicating to those requiring your funds is to withhold those funds and withdraw your support. Then see how quickly dinner engagements are requested, honoured and appreciated.

I am convinced that the old fashioned "bricks and mortar" model of quality society is unsuited to today's needs, today's quality practitioner, today's economy and business service requirements. It is time it was abandoned.

Like discussions about the future of Britain's IQA as well as other similar "national" bodies, what is forgotten by those who accede to "high office" and "lofty" positions with grandiose titles is the simple fact: they need the quality practioner far more than does the quality practitioner need them. It is always rather touching to see people seduced by their own impressions of their self supposed importance running organizations that depend totally on the goodwill and charitable provision of the "members" discretionary expenditure.

In any market, the sensible way of communicating to those requiring your funds is to withhold those funds and withdraw your support. Then see how quickly dinner engagements are requested, honoured and appreciated.

I am convinced that the old fashioned "bricks and mortar" model of quality society is unsuited to today's needs, today's quality practitioner, today's economy and business service requirements. It is time it was abandoned.
That was very gently said.

The only point I would argue is that of renewal. Newer members, especially in a competetive and defensive labor environment, will grasp at the traditional wisdom of a professional association to help them grease their way in the professional realm in every reasonable way. Networking is still the best path to employment, after all. The local member ships may hold more value among the masses than the higher tier structures do.

And for a great many, it works just fine. I have often thought about why it didn't work for me; I must be too abrasive, impatient, or whatever. Or maybe it's just destiny, a cosmic thing that my membership amounted to naught in particular. Maybe I should have pursued the medallion of accomplishments; maybe, by not buying into Six Sigma, I didn't play along and missed key opportunities. Whatever the case, here I am and I continue to feel I am either before my time or behind it; I can't tell which, or neither, but one thing seems sure: it just doesn't seem like an investment worth continuing.

And that's too bad because there's a certain comfort in the validity of claiming to me someone of accomplishment. A long while ago, I looked at CQE like it was something to aspire to.

I don't lament the time or effort teaching myself statistics at my kitchen table, all those meetings I went to, or any of that. I will yet (you'll see!) make good of my ambitions, and my training will not be forgotten.

I guess I just still mourn the loss of what could have been. We've lost so much manufacturing, and the other industries are not speedy to catch up; there is less demand for what we do, and ASQ can't be faulted for that. They can, however, be faulted for looking at growing the organization through the antique lens. They have apparently been passive on education and losing a key opportunity. My voice has just about died out there. I can do little more than I have, messaging on their forums.

It's up to the leadership now. If they are content to nurture the newer members until they feel disenfranchised, and just keep fishing for new ones, then that's what they should do.

I am convinced that the old fashioned "bricks and mortar" model of quality society is unsuited to today's needs, today's quality practitioner, today's economy and business service requirements. It is time it was abandoned.

Ah,
But bricks and mortar do have their place my dear fellow.
I do miss the true institutions though.
Wallace.

I'm old enough to know it's not smart to blow any idea out of the water until you are close enough to see whether the folks on board are aiming or waving/

Let's have a little more elaboration, Allan, on a "non-bricks-and-mortar" Professional Association model.

Some "affinity groups" seem to be exclusionary, while others are "inclusionary."

The real membership of ASQ seems to be dropping every year, even after the merger with the folks from Steve's horrible experience in the wilds of Washington.

One "affinity group" (certainly not a professional organization by any means) seems to have found a success model beyond anyone's wildest dream. I mean, of course, the Red Hat Society, (http://www.redhatsociety.com) which has grown from a cadre of 18 women "of a certain age" [50+] back in the late 90's to over one million at last count, with countless "Pink Hats" [less than 50 years old] in waiting.

Anyone interested in "realpolitik" about revamping or "re-engineering" ASQ?

realpolitik (ray-ahl-poh-li-teek) Governmental policies based on hard, practical considerations rather than on moral or idealistic concerns. Realpolitik is German for “the politics of reality” and is often applied to the policies of nations that consider only their own interests in dealing with other countries.

Let's have a little more elaboration, Allan, on a "non-bricks-and-mortar" Professional Association model.


In due course, Wes.

And, yes, Wallace, bricks and mortar do indeed have their place. There used to be one such structure on the corner of St Vincent Place and Buchanan Street which brought relief for those in Glasgow experiencing pressure and strains. But the bricks and mortar structures to which I aver create that kind of pressure and strain.

:topic: It is interesting to note that because Wes mentioned the Red Hats, there is now a google advertisement for Red Hats on this page. Get your red and pink hats now!

:topic: It is interesting to note that because Wes mentioned the Red Hats, there is now a google advertisement for Red Hats on this page. Get your red and pink hats now!

So you've finally figured the Cove out Steve. :rolleyes:
Wallace.

Steve, GOOD LETTER!

I've just come through two weeks of outside audits and am just today catching up on The Cove. I wish I'd seen your letter earlier, because I did not have time to respond to the short lead time request from ASQ for comments. Also, having just been through the (many) conversations with them on the changes to the By-Laws, I felt I'd already expressed myself and my concerns.

What a slap in the face to someone who is genuinely willing to make the effort to join in and help identify the issues. It boils down to: we need to discuss this because it's come up as an issue. However, we aren't really willing to address it, so we'll SOUND like we're willing to discuss it and avoid any opportunity to actual do so..

It's Sunday and I'm at the WCQI. They have an internet cafe.

I did attend the board meeting Thursday as an observer. I can postively address that the board has received the message. Each board member was given a complete hard copy of my statement. I was not allowed to speak, but several folks did come to the back tables (I hesitate to say "peanut gallery") and spoke personally with me. I did get a chance to talk with Paul Borawski personally.

There were several emails received in addition to mine. The vast majority were negative, and told even worse stories than mine. The board did spend about 90 minutes reading and discussin the inputs. They did break into small groups for group discussions, and did do a debrief. At first they were not going to give me a copy of what the board got, but better minds prevaled. This is how I know about the 24 pages and my input.

I did receive an apology stated to the whole board for my experience. So, I feel I accomplished the mission. The Board has received the input. Now, what they do as a result is the key.

I did get a chance to sneak a peak at the 2005 business plan. I do want to extract two interesting things - ASQ has been deficit spending for 6 of the past 7 years, and they are wary of losing their credit status. Also, they have been losing membership at about a 4 to 5% rate per year.

Well, that's enough for now.

It's Sunday and I'm at the WCQI. They have an internet cafe.

I did attend the board meeting Thursday as an observer. I can postively address that the board has received the message. Each board member was given a complete hard copy of my statement. I was not allowed to speak, but several folks did come to the back tables (I hesitate to say "peanut gallery") and spoke personally with me. I did get a chance to talk with Paul Borawski personally.

There were several emails received in addition to mine. The vast majority were negative, and told even worse stories than mine. The board did spend about 90 minutes reading and discussin the inputs. They did break into small groups for group discussions, and did do a debrief. At first they were not going to give me a copy of what the board got, but better minds prevaled. This is how I know about the 24 pages and my input.

I did receive an apology stated to the whole board for my experience. So, I feel I accomplished the mission. The Board has received the input. Now, what they do as a result is the key.

I did get a chance to sneak a peak at the 2005 business plan. I do want to extract two interesting things - ASQ has been deficit spending for 6 of the past 7 years, and they are wary of losing their credit status. Also, they have been losing membership at about a 4 to 5% rate per year.

Well, that's enough for now.
Two interesting observations from Steve:

Deficit spending
Membership drop of 4% to 5% each year
Any speculation as to where the finances have broken down?

What kind of comparison would there be to deficit versus membership drop? Is the shortfall 1% of gross income? 5%? or 10%?
What expenses have been rising?
Will ASQ resort to the same tactic as many organizations by raising the income of the top paid employees and firing the lowest echelons?
Have they (elected ASQ officers) gone to expensive outside consultants for answers or have they surveyed current members for FREE suggestions on how to stem the outflow of money?
Why has it been so difficult for rank and file members to have access to the info Steve provided today? Who is responsible for "hiding" the information from average members? Elected officers or paid staff? Why?
Any other Cove readers have an opportunity to be at the same meeting? Any of you on the Board? If so, could we have your view?

The interesting thing is that the ASQ leadership thinks all this stuff is in the open. Any member can sit in the "peanut gallery" at the board meeting, though I seemed to be the only person there not in the capacity of a board member, incoming board member, or presenter. For the Hitchiker's Guide fans, this is about like the joke about the order to destroy Earth being posted for years at Alpha Centuri. Certainly no attempt is made to advertise the open Board meetings.

I would suggest that any interested member request a copy of the "2006 business plan". This is the budget for the next ASQ year. There was a copy laying on the table I was at. I was told I could look at it, but not have a copy as it had not yet been approved by the board. In fact, in nearly was not approved by the board. It sounded like there had been quite a controversy that morning, which I was not there for. I did scribble down some notes which I will transcribe, but they are in my luggage at the hotel. I don't know if I have permission to do the transcription, but there were some revealing things that say ASQ leadership is getting the message, but aren't apparently doing much of anything about it.

By the way, there appears to be an across the board staff raise of 3 to 4% this year. But I could be wrong, I didn't have much time to digest the document, and the person beside me was surprised I was even attempting to make much sense of it. No, they didn't see me madly scribbling notes.

Board meeting is reminiscent of many public/political boards - meetings are open, but no public comment is allowed (under penalty of expulsion from the chamber.) Board takes break and retires to private room for "executive session" (squabbling is kept out of sight), returning with a "decision" (or not) which is "fit for public consumption."

I am reminded of the truism that people should not be allowed to watch politics or ketchup manufacture for the sake of public health. (think of all the "protein" from creatures living or dead which shared the tomato biome.)

I hope we can learn some more about the process at ASQ's Board and who backed which view.

Board meeting is reminiscent of many public/political boards - meetings are open, but no public comment is allowed (under penalty of expulsion from the chamber.) Board takes break and retires to private room for "executive session" (squabbling is kept out of sight), returning with a "decision" (or not) which is "fit for public consumption."

I am reminded of the truism that people should not be allowed to watch politics or ketchup manufacture for the sake of public health. (think of all the "protein" from creatures living or dead which shared the tomato biome.)

I hope we can learn some more about the process at ASQ's Board and who backed which view.

I haven't been a member for several years now - got a bit upset by the whole 6S (support of Mikel Harry) issue back in about 2000, but would be intersted in finding out where the money is going (or why they are running in the red). It would also be interesting in watching what steps they initiate to get to the root-cause, and how they go about determining corrective action - will any of the "quality" tools be implemented?

BTW: The reason there is a label around the top of the ketchup (or catsup) bottle was originally to hide the floating "protein" which would rise to the surface after the bottle sat for a while.

Whenever I am a shareholder of any firm and discover the kind of financvial situation described by Steve, I look at who has been the executive throughout the period and who have been the board members. Replacement is the correct path to take for incompetent performance.

Yes, where indeed has the money gone? Bygone years when membership was at about 130K, donations to fund the HQ, conferences with strong attendance, revenues from sales of books and course materials, from courses and so forth, advertising revenues from QP, sponsorships and corporate largesse. What a cash cow for a "not for profit" concern. But whose hands were on the teets and where did the milk pail disgorge its contents.

Wise up!

Whenever I am a shareholder of any firm and discover the kind of financvial situation described by Steve, I look at who has been the executive throughout the period and who have been the board members. Replacement is the correct path to take for incompetent performance.

Yes, where indeed has the money gone? Bygone years when membership was at about 130K, donations to fund the HQ, conferences with strong attendance, revenues from sales of books and course materials, from courses and so forth, advertising revenues from QP, sponsorships and corporate largesse. What a cash cow for a "not for profit" concern. But whose hands were on the teets and where did the milk pail disgorge its contents.

Wise up!That's been my rant for about one year now. We need a thorough housecleaning at the top! To continue the farm metaphor:

My take has been that the hogs (top ten highest paid staffers) have been entrenched at the trough too long and have found a willing and compliant bunch of drones as elected officials who have been only too glad to be "Al the Pal" types who go along to get along and who let the hogs continue to feed instead of shipping them off to the slaughterhouse.

If any of you members are willing to take on a little effort and work to change ASQ to a more viable model, contact me off-line and help me form a political party of ASQ members who will work to bring about change.

We already have the beginnings of a successful change: we have a lot of folks dissatisfied with the status quo. We need to expand that dissatisfaction to more folks. Knowledge is Power. If we create a transparency to the inner workings, we may expose and correct any corruption.

I am reminded of the truism that people should not be allowed to watch politics or ketchup manufacture for the sake of public health. (think of all the "protein" from creatures living or dead which shared the tomato biome.).

Can't remember if I've posted this before, but years ago I attended a meeting in which one of the local politicians said something to this effect:

"Laws are good... and so is sausage - but you don't want to see how either gets made!"

Today's news (available at ASQ.org) - the by-laws passed.http://www.asq.org/newsroom/news/2005/05/20050516approve_bylaws.html

ASQ Members Approve Changes to Bylaws

SEATTLE, May 16 – ASQ members have overwhelmingly approved changes in the organization’s bylaws that were proposed by the Board of Directors.

Of the 6,733 valid proxy votes cast by members, 93% approved the amendments, said Mary Strutzenberg, who chairs ASQ’s Tellers Committee, which oversaw the voting.

Some of the changes include:

Changing the composition and reducing the size of the Board.
Relaxing qualifications for service on the Board.
Changing the process for nominating candidates for the Board.
Simplifying the process for members to bring items to the Board for consideration and vote.
Movement of certain details from the bylaws into policies.
The results were announced yesterday at ASQ’s annual business meeting, which is held in conjunction with the World Conference on Quality and Improvement.

The Board formally accepted the Tellers Committee report and declared the proxy balloting valid, putting the revised bylaws into effect immediately.

The Board had urged approval of the changes to help ASQ become more flexible by streamlining governance operations.

Balloting took place in the form of proxies submitted from March 11 through April 16.

Actual new by-laws are available here
http://www.asq.org/members/leadership/bylaws/sb/bylaws_051505.pdf

Does it seem strange to anyone that only a few of the 80,000+ members actually voted?
"Of the 6,733 valid proxy votes cast by members, 93% approved the amendments, said Mary Strutzenberg, who chairs ASQ’s Tellers Committee, which oversaw the voting. "

I will say this:
the passage of the new by-laws will make it much easier for a small, but determined group of members to band together and USURP the current regime, all through perfectly acceptable paliamentary procedures.

Now is the time to start forming alliances and voting blocs to initiate and implement change!

Now is the time to start forming alliances and voting blocs to initiate and implement change!

The sentiment is right. But the direction seems wrong. The most powerful and important alliance is the one comprised of people who are not members of the ASQ, those who are no longer members of the ASQ and those who are disaffected and willing to join those outside the ASQ.

That is the one alliance that will force change. And, as many will be expected to renew their membership dues in a month or so, I would suggest they withhold payment pending advice on where they could be better spent. And I would suggest those people also email others ithey know who are also in the ASQ such that the best "vote" of all is plain to the ASQ, its HQ and its board. Those figures would be indisputable. Money does talk!

The Cove can do much to facilitate the changes necessary and substantially raise the service quality practitioners and quality professionals, their employers and clients receive. More of which later.

Allan, I am going through just such a decision right now. My membership expires on the 30th of next month, and that membership has had very little value to me so far. So, do I give up, shrug my shoulders and walk away, or stick around in the hope that changes, major changes, can be made?

The problem, as I see it, is finding an organization that has the same "clout" as ASQ. As much as many of us "in the know" are disgusted with recent events, IMO those outside the profession still give the society some respect. For now, anyhow.

So, I suspect I will hold my nose and send in a check.

The sentiment is right. But the direction seems wrong. The most powerful and important alliance is the one comprised of people who are not members of the ASQ, those who are no longer members of the ASQ and those who are disaffected and willing to join those outside the ASQ.

That is the one alliance that will force change. And, as many will be expected to renew their membership dues in a month or so, I would suggest they withhold payment pending advice on where they could be better spent. And I would suggest those people also email others ithey know who are also in the ASQ such that the best "vote" of all is plain to the ASQ, its HQ and its board. Those figures would be indisputable. Money does talk!

The Cove can do much to facilitate the changes necessary and substantially raise the service quality practitioners and quality professionals, their employers and clients receive. More of which later.
I respectfully disagree, Allan. The simple fact of the matter is that 5% decline in membership per year is not fostering change simply because once gone, they are ignored as if they never existed. If a member is frozen out and gagged at an ASQ meeting, at least he's at the meeting. A non member can be completely excluded from the process.

I submit that if only 6 thousand plus members submitted ballots on an issue as important as changing bylaws, there is a vast, unreached number of folks out there who need only to "wake up and smell the coffee" when offered an alternate slate of candidates to change the face of ASQ completely in one fell swoop.

Our task, as agents of change, is to foster the ennui which exists and goad it into actual dissatisfaction with the status quo. Once we have a small cadre of dissatisfied members, they will help spread that dissatisfaction across regional borders. Eventually, real leaders will emerge who are capable and able to accept nomination to the offices as an opposition slate.

We can and should work within the system to demonstrate we are responsible members, not a rabble whining for "bread and circuses" or a little kid who says, "if you don't play by my rules, I'm going to take my ball and bat and go home!"

I hope each of you has input into these threads:

If I was given the ASQ to 'Reform', I would... (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=11589)

and

What has the ASQ done for you? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=11607)

IMO those outside the profession still give the society some respect
In my experience, there's more ignorance of ASQ outside the profession than there is respect, and the respect that does exist is largely undeserved and based on ignorance. Having not been a member for quite a few years I don't feel comfortable in giving members advice about how to proceed at this point, but the story of the reluctant mule comes to mind:

A farmer is guiding walking a mule down the road when it suddenly stops and refuses to move. Despite the farmer's best efforts at pleading, cajoling, threatening and shoving, the mule won't budge. Just about the time he's ready to give up a man comes along who'd seen some of the proceedings as he was approaching, and offers to help. "I know how to talk to mules," he told the farmer. At this point, the farmer had nothing to lose, and thought that it would at least be amusing seeing the stranger trying to talk the mule into moving on. "Go ahead," he said, "knock yourself out." The stranger looked around and found part of a fencepost lying by the side of the road. He picked it up, walked over to the mule and slammed it across the head with the fencepost and said, "Move, you sonuvab*tch!" The mule started to move forward, while the farmer was aghast. "Jeez," he cried, "It thought you said you knew how to talk to them!"
"I do," replied the stranger, "but first you have to get their attention."

In my experience, there's more ignorance of ASQ outside the profession than there is respect, and the respect that does exist is largely undeserved and based on ignorance.

This is my point, in a way. The top management of ASQ have managed to pretty much stay off of the radar, and other than the quality index updates folks outside of the profession really don't give the ASQ much thought, good or bad.

Which is, of course, one of the problems. But, at least non quality folks generally don't know enough to have a negative predisposition towards the ASQ. Maybe that is the biggest thing ASQ has going for it right now?

Although it is possible to replace ASQ, it would not be easy. Those who are not active in their local sections much less on a national level, do not fully appreciate what drives ASQ. Within the quality profession, ASQ is known. An ASQ certification is accepted as evidence of knowledge in the tested quality area. ASQ also provides an excellent quality magazine, sponsors quality conferences and courses and is a source for quality education material. ASQ has also withstood the test of time (so far). It has a long history and was founded by the past leaders in quality.

Local ASQ sections provide re-certification services to their members, inexpensive local courses, networking opportunities and contact with the national headquarters. All done by volunteers.

Starting another organization or letting ASQ die because of lack of involvement is probably not a good idea. ASQ got where it is over time and it will probably take time to move it back in the right direction. Dropping out will not do much to get it to improve. Until there is a better alternative, ASQ is still the only choice for quality professionals.

Bill Pflanz

The truth about whether "outsiders" still accord the ASQ some respect is based solely on the outsider's perception of folks he knows to be members.

When you have folks like Steve Prevette presenting his Red Beads program identified as ASQ members, the audience members unconsciously equate ALL ASQ members as bright, erudite folks like Steve.

When one of our members is a slackard and a fool, folks who see him also unconsciously equate ALL ASQ members as slackards and fools.

I am reminded of the impression some folks have of college graduates and MBAs: When a college graduate or MBA looks like a goof in front of coworkers, those who do not have a similar degree will unconsciously transfer their scorn for the individual to ALL folks who have such a degree.

Same goes for every institution from MENSA to Boy Scouts. Perception of outsiders is based on inferring characteristics of all members from the actions of the one or two institution members the person has met.

It isn't fair or scientific, but it is how many people develop bias and prejudice.

Until there is a better alternative, ASQ is still the only choice for quality professionals.

I've gotten along just fine without ASQ for 8 or 9 years now, so it's not the only choice.

I've gotten along just fine without ASQ for 8 or 9 years now, so it's not the only choice.
The difference is that some folks who are successful in quality have the grace to be Mentors to folks outside their own companies by networking and teaching at the Section level rather than keeping all their expertise to themselves. Without such Mentors, there would be a lot fewer ASQ members than even at present. Part of the reason for decline in membership is the dearth of Mentors at the Section level because they have either been displaced at their jobs or overburdened at work because of the displacement of others in their company.

The cycle of job erosion and ASQ membership erosion is vicious. It's tough to say to a young guy just starting out, "Yeah. You need to join ASQ. Just give up the equivalent of one car payment a year."

The difference is that some folks who are successful in quality have the grace to be Mentors to folks outside their own companies by networking and teaching at the Section level rather than keeping all their expertise to themselves.
Another difference is that some people who do not have the "grace" to be mentors to people outside their companies do have the "grace" to be mentors to people inside their companies, and also have the "grace" to spend their outside time in endeavors that are more likely to have a positive impact on the community than ministering to a bloated, arrogant and top heavy organization whose contributions have become more and more self-serving and arrogant over the last several years.

Many good points are being made. Naturally, few of us would agree with every single argument raised. But, the solution to the problem is blindingly obvious and lies within a new rationale incorporating many of the points raised but, in a modern context. I suspect some of the Covers know what I am hinting at and I invite them to PM me if they do. Perhaps CraigH will be the first to do so?

The truth about whether "outsiders" still accord the ASQ some respect is based solely on the outsider's perception of folks he knows to be members.
Absolutely. That's why I said that the perceptions are based on ignorance. Some people, in seeing a handsome framed certificate or diploma will be impressed regardless of whether there's any known substance involved, while others will react negatively, also without knowing. The net effect from outsiders is effectively zero. Speaking only for myself, I always felt it to be somehow disingenuous to tout my ASQ membership and certification to potential employers who didn't understand the significance of either, but were likely to be impressed for purely superficial reasons. On the other hand, I've done my best to steer clear of companies who list membership or certification among the requirements for employment, mainly because there is no good reason to believe that all else being equal, a certified individual is more knowledgeable or suited to a given position than an uncertified person.

I suspect some of the Covers know what I am hinting at and I invite them to PM me if they do.

Thank you for the PMs - keep them coming: the more the merrier.

I hope each of you has input into these threads:

If I was given the ASQ to 'Reform', I would... (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=11589)

and

What has the ASQ done for you? (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=11607)
You betcha.

I did give a lively stats presentation to 25 folks this morning, and appears to have been well-received.

I will say that I have received confirmation the the Board has received the message presented to them. It does appear that it was pivotal that I actually showed up, was present. I have also had the opportunity to meet many Board members, national volunteers, and staff. I will say that all the folks I have met are very committed to "quality" per se. There are certainly no "slackers", no lazy bodies, nobody just there to ride the "glory" of being a board member (did not appear to glorious to me from what I could see).

On the down side, I think we have a clear case of "best efforts" going on (using this phrase in a Deming context). There really is not a sense of community nor a sense of a single aim.

No, I do not chose to walk away, I hope those folks that are members won't walk away. A lot remains to be seen as to what "ASQ" now does, but even in the "state of the society" the leadership is taking credit for the "openness" initiative that some of us Covers had to apply quite a force to make happen. So things can and do happen.

I will write more when I get back to home. My wife and I are heading from Seattle tomorrow morning to Vancouver Island (British Columbia) for an exteneded weekend, and I really, really, really, will be away from computers.

Allan, I am going through just such a decision right now. My membership expires on the 30th of next month, and that membership has had very little value to me so far. So, do I give up, shrug my shoulders and walk away, or stick around in the hope that changes, major changes, can be made?

The problem, as I see it, is finding an organization that has the same "clout" as ASQ. As much as many of us "in the know" are disgusted with recent events, IMO those outside the profession still give the society some respect. For now, anyhow.

So, I suspect I will hold my nose and send in a check.I resemble this remark, only at present I see no reason to part with a check. For me, perhaps the same sum would be better spent in membership with my state's consultant registry. They have training in subjects I know I need.

I found zero recognition of ASQ in most places I worked in. Almost no advertisements include requirements for certifications in this discipline. The doings in our reasonably active section do not make overt publicity that would spread awareness, so I don't expect changes without some force to break the pattern.

So, I am back to the office. I did appear in the Board Room, though could not say anything. A 24 page document including my input and email input from several others was given to the Board.

I would recommend to any ASQ member to request from ASQ a copy of the

"FY 2006 Business Plan, ASQ Board of Directors Meeting, May 16 - 18, 2005"

In attachment A3, page 11, it stated (Begin Quotes):

Membership is declining at 4 - 5% per year. Currently Loyalty is at 18% with 82% of current members in the positive, hesitant, to at risk activiies.

ASQ needs to create an environment that sustains a sense of belonging and relationship. The current atmosphere does not support new forms of community.

ASQ has operated in a deficit position six out of the last seven years forcing the use of reserve funds to supplement operations.

The growth and management of information (knowledge) on the subject of Quality is crucial to the success of ASQ. The management and the current dissemination of this body of knowledge is not providing customer value.

ASQ lacks sufficient market and customer knowledge in order to drive a customer focused enterprise. It soes not have a systematic market and customer segmentation approach or model for the organization to follow.

(end quotes)

I scribbled these notes down from a copy of the plan that was laying around. I did ask if I could have a copy, and the person said that the board had not yet approved the plan. I believe it did so (but was hard to tell).

The good news is:

The message has been received by ASQ leadership.

What remains to be seen is:

What happens next.

In attachment A3, page 11, it stated (Begin Quotes):

ASQ has operated in a deficit position six out of the last seven years forcing the use of reserve funds to supplement operations.

ASQ lacks sufficient market and customer knowledge in order to drive a customer focused enterprise. It soes not have a systematic market and customer segmentation approach or model for the organization to follow.

(end quotes)



Thanks Steve,

It is pretty scary that an organization would run in the red for six out of seven years before they realized there was problem. What's even scarier is that it seems they haven't had a plan, and are admitting they don't even know what the market needs.

What's kind of funny is when you open the Quality Press catalog you find topics such as: Customer Relationship Management, Management and Leadership. The Customer Relationship Management section takes up four pages and has 27 offerings (just in case it becomes a Jeopardy question). Maybe the leadership of ASQ should purchase themselves a few copies. They might learn a few things and help ASQ get back in the black.

Wayne

A 24 page document including my input and email input from several others was given to the Board.



I am not sure if the Reading Room is an appropriate place for that document to be posted, but perhaps Steve may care to share it with Cove members.

I am not sure if the Reading Room is an appropriate place for that document to be posted, but perhaps Steve may care to share it with Cove members.
I don't mind sharing the input which I gave to the Board (and that is an attachment earlier in this thread). However, the 24 page document does contain the names of those who provided the comments, and they provided those comments with the understanding that the comments were going to the ASQ Board. So, I don't think it would be ethical of me to scan the document and post it to the public. Some of the contributions were from Cove members, but I think I should leave it to them to decide if they want the comments posted to the "world".

Yep. Tough call. If any of my comments are there, I give permission to release.

I appreciate your sense of ethics. If any of my comments are present, I also give my permission to post them.

I don't mind sharing the input which I gave to the Board (and that is an attachment earlier in this thread). However, the 24 page document does contain the names of those who provided the comments, and they provided those comments with the understanding that the comments were going to the ASQ Board. So, I don't think it would be ethical of me to scan the document and post it to the public. Some of the contributions were from Cove members, but I think I should leave it to them to decide if they want the comments posted to the "world".

It is nice that Mr Bucey and Ms Kirley graciously give permisssion to use their comments if applicable. Hopefully, others will follow and you are free to use any of mine.

Perhaps, Steve, you will recall in his exemplary QC Handbooks, Joseph Juran used to include information received from others. He would merely refer to it as "private communication". And, government authorities and businesses often "black line" through names to protect the identity of individuals when reproducing the document.

Maybe these devices will assist in your deliberations about posting the document in the Reading Room.

Re: "private communication"

I would be surprised if current publishers would allow unattributed material. Most of the scholarly papers I see now refer to "private communication" in detail, such as "in a private email received from John Doe, Professor of Folderol at Anywhere State University, Anytown, Anywhere on May 1, 2000."

In the less rigorous atmosphere of the Cove, maybe it might be OK, but I would make the effort to email some of the other writers to ask permission to include or instruction to delete.