I am considering pursuing the ASQ CQM certification BUT I would love to hear some feedback from those who have attained certification, those who are currently working towards it, or those who started but decided not to pursue. Any horror stories? Has it helped you in your career or in you daily work efforts?

I am slightly intimidated by the process for two reasons. First, from what I have seen the testing is based on knowledge already accrued during one’s working career in quality. It is not a traditional school setting with classes and exams given at the end of the education course. Second, I recently tried taking both the sample CQM and CQT tests (just to see the difference) online and I really did poorly on them, racking up a score around 67%. I must admit that while I am currently a Quality Manager by title, I work in a company where quality requirements and methods are extremely watered down. All the methodologies that are tested on the exam are foreign to me and the use of such concepts within this company would be considered voodoo.

The reason I am looking into certification is to jump-start a dead career in a stagnant company. (No offense to all those quality professionals out there but I’m a Electronic Technician and Computer Science major who was shoe-horned into a Quality Manager position.) I have had a few people say that I do a good job in my quality position so I guess I’m not totally clueless.

I really respect the knowledge base that the Cove forum supports so let me have it people.

RCW:

Don't feel badly about your score. One of the things that I liked about preparing for the exam was the exposure to testing methods and such that I didn't know existed - they are used outside of the industry I am in. However, now that I do know something about them, I see references to some of them every once in a while.

The CQE, and to an even greater extent the CQM, go past the day to day things we do and delve into the more academic, IMO. So, there are certainly things that many working quality professionals may not have come accross much, especially in a situation like mine where I am the "Lone Ranger" quality assurance type at this company.

I wish there was a good answer to the question about the value of certification when looking for a new job. It depends on the company. But, will the extra knowledge gained help? Absolutely. Will having the certification hurt your chances? Well, not at any company I would want to work for. I'd say be prepared for the investment of your time, and go for it!

Hope this helps.

Some thoughts from an old hand who "knows" almost everything contained on the CQM (note it is changing both title and exam in the near future) and can do all the calculations in the CQE (but maybe not in the time alloted):

Employers care about WHAT you can do for them. Most of the managers who do hiring of Quality Managers have only a very vague concept of the Body of Knowledge behind an ASQ Certification. In most cases, therefore, they want to know how your possession of a certificate is going to contribute to their company. They are not going to "assume" three initials behind someone's name will be the answer to their problem. Just as not every MBA can save a company, not every CQM will produce zero defects.

That said, "Knowledge is Power." The very act of studying on your own and taking courses through local ASQ Sections in preparation for the various certifications will give you knowledge which may give you an edge when looking for a new job.

The very fact an organization is unsophisticated about Quality techniques may give a knowledgeable Quality practitioner an opportunity to develop efficiencies using Quality techniques. The key to having the knowledge is being able to recognize opportunities to apply it. A true Quality Manager is an innovator, not a guardian of the "status quo!"

ASQ has done salary surveys for several year which shows that those with certifications make more than those without ... usually several thousand dollars a year. However, I would not say that companies pay a certified person more, but instead that someone who pursues certfication has more initiative towards learning, and therefore increased knowledge and capabilities, over those who don't. They are therefore more likely to perform better, etc.

As someone who has taught many ASQ certification refresher courses (CQIA, CQT, CQA, CQE, CQMgr) I can tell you that 65% is very typical for someone who first sits down and takes a sample exam. It is likely due to two major reasons, which exam preparation must address:

- test taking skills: one must learn techniques for sorting out good from bad answers, leaving behind their own experience and answering from an ASQ perspective, effective use of test time, etc.

- breadth of knowledge: many folks in the quality profession only use a small proportion of the body of knowledge, especially for the CQMgr. Many people with the title quality manager are actually performing primarily quality engineering tasks, since the CQMgr is more of a Baldrige-level manager (and one of the reasons it is being renamed)

I hold several ASQ and other certifications, and can say that I don't know whether anyone else (employers, clients) has really given a hoot about any of them. Nor do I care. They are important to me as a way of validating my knowledge, giving me a benchmark, and expanding my breadth and depth of knowledge. In my view all learning should be viewed this way. If you want to learn/earn it, then do it. If you're doing it for someone else, you're living their view of your life, rather than your own.

ASQ has done salary surveys for several year which shows that those with certifications make more than those without ... usually several thousand dollars a year. However, I would not say that companies pay a certified person more, but instead that someone who pursues certfication has more initiative towards learning, and therefore increased knowledge and capabilities, over those who don't. They are therefore more likely to perform better, etc.
So in the grand scheme of things, there's no causal relationship between certification and rate of pay, which is the exact opposite of the way ASQ markets certification.


leaving behind their own experience and answering from an ASQ perspective
Meaning that it's not important whether you get the answer right, just that you agree with ASQ's often questionable perspective on things.

many folks in the quality profession only use a small proportion of the body of knowledge, especially for the CQMgr.
So does this mean that the BOK is poorly defined?
Many people with the title quality manager are actually performing primarily quality engineering tasks, since the CQMgr is more of a Baldrige-level manager (and one of the reasons it is being renamed)
What the heck is a "Baldrige-level manager"? I think most quality managers perform quality management tasks, and never get closer to anything having to do with Baldrige than I presently am to a weekend toot with one of the Desperate Housewives.
I hold several ASQ and other certifications, and can say that I don't know whether anyone else (employers, clients) has really given a hoot about any of them. Nor do I care. They are important to me as a way of validating my knowledge, giving me a benchmark, and expanding my breadth and depth of knowledge. In my view all learning should be viewed this way. If you want to learn/earn it, then do it. If you're doing it for someone else, you're living their view of your life, rather than your own.
Yes--the best reason to pursue certification is satisfaction of one's own desires in that regard. Personally, I feel that seeking professional validation from ASQ is akin to seeking guidance in personal hygiene from Pigpen, but to each his own.

If one identifies himself (herself) as "Baldrige-level," is that "overweening?":rolleyes:

I suppose the context of not using ALL the BOK for CQM refers to majority of folks engaged in Quality practice, including the lady who puts the inspection tags in Haynes underwear.

The curse of a test is that many folks infer a general rule from their limited experience. Frequently, we see posts here in the Cove and in the ASQ Forums where folks arrogantly insert, "This way worked for us, therefore it must be the ONLY way to do it."

Further examination of the situation usually discloses the writer deluded himself about whether the factor he cites was truly the key to resolving a situation. This is most especially true where "managers" advocate harsh measures in dealing with employees.

The admonition
"leaving behind their own experience and answering from an ASQ perspective"
may more properly be phrased as
"answering from a generally accepted perspective"

Frankly, most folks today would find greater recognition of Six Sigma and Lean credentials than CQE or CQM ones by many prospective employers, simply because they have greater current "buzz," NOT because of the relative merits of the BOK behind them.

I tend to agree there may be a statistical relationship between salary and certification, but not a causal relationship.

If you pursue an ASQ certificate simply to position yourself for a better job, you need to determine beforehand whether that is the primary qualification at the employer you target. If you are not targeting a specific employer, you are probably making other, even more severe, errors in your career path.

The admonition "leaving behind their own experience and answering from an ASQ perspective"
may more properly be phrased as
"answering from a generally accepted perspective"


The mistake here is in the assertion that to disagree with the "ASQ perspective" is (forgive me) overweening. (I think we may have a new buzzword!) My experience with the ASQ materials and tests is that there are many instances of multiple choice questions with more than one correct answer, and ASQ seems to almost arbitrarily decide which one is the most correct. I would rather be arrogant (or perceived as such) than kiss ASQ's :ca: and agree to something I think is wrong.

[/i]

The mistake here is in the assertion that to disagree with the "ASQ perspective" is (forgive me) overweening. (I think we may have a new buzzword!) My experience with the ASQ materials and tests is that there are many instances of multiple choice questions with more than one correct answer, and ASQ seems to almost arbitrarily decide which one is the most correct. I would rather be arrogant (or perceived as such) than kiss ASQ's :ca: and agree to something I think is wrong.
I think the situation is simply some test takers may have an "overweening" opinion their answers are more correct than the selection by a panel of Quality practitioners who examined each question and the array of answer choices before allowing the questions to be included on a test.

Several of our Covers have been members of those panels and report the process is relatively straightforward - "if it doesn't get the votes, it doesn't get in." Further, when test takers complain about a particular question or a disparate (sometimes "desperate") number of test takers choose the same wrong answer, the question is removed from scoring.

There is no concerted effort to make "trick" questions, but, as in real life, sometimes the distinction between a wrong answer and a correct answer can be subtle. This subtlety is easily lost in the frenzy of trying to complete a test within the time alloted.

If there is ANY valid criticism of the test, it is the emphasis on being able to make decisions under strict time pressures. In real life, the problems may be crucial and time sensitive, but rarely are we forced to make a crucial decision in 90 seconds (a typical average time for answering each question to complete a 3 hour exam.)

:topic: If it seems strange to some readers that I seem to be defending ASQ, my point is that I am defending the ability of my colleagues to frame a fair question. I do not advocate that a majority of practitioners need a certification to perform an adequate job in most Quality fields, up to, and including, Quality Manager.

I think the situation is simply some test takers may have an "overweening" opinion their answers are more correct than the selection by a panel of Quality practitioners who examined each question and the array of answer choices before allowing the questions to be included on a test.
Well, do you want to talk about group psychology and the outlandish things people will agree to in order to get along? The fact that questions are authored by committee is not much of a recommendation.

Geez ... if you don't like ASQ or their exams don't mess with them. But that doesn't mean that those who do participate are any less adept at making decisions in their own interests.

Answers for each exam question can be tied to a specific reference, such as books on quality management, leadership, strategic planning, etc. They aren't arbitrary, although much of management decisions are.

The BOK is much broader than what many quality managers do for the same reason that the BOK for medicine is much broader than most physicians do. Each of us finds a small niche in a large field.

Thanks, Wes, for point out the difference between correlation and cause & effect. When more ice cream is eaten there are more deaths from drowning, but that doesn't mean there is a C&E relationship. There is a 3rd variable at play that creates both ... high temperatures which increases ice cream consumption and incidences of swimming. Higher personal competencies improve the probability of both passing an ASQ exam and a higher salary.

And a Baldrige-level quality manager is one who is working on big-Q instead of little-q (see Juran's Handbook for a definition). Baldrige is about whole company quality, ISO 9001 is about product quality. A pretty significant difference in the breadth of knowledge required.

Well, do you want to talk about group psychology and the outlandish things people will agree to in order to get along? The fact that questions are authored by committee is not much of a recommendation.
Individuals I know (admittedly I don't know "ALL") who participate on the panels all seemed to have their heads screwed on correctly before and after the experience. Could they have been persuaded to accept poor questions and allow multiple correct answers? Maybe, but there is still a final "fail safe" of re-examining the test if a question results in a "significant" number of people selecting the "wrong" answer.

I'm taking on faith the primary reason for a delay from test date to pass/fail report date is due primarily to this activity. I have no idea what metric the psychometricians use in determining a "significant" number. Perhaps a Cover has the answer.

I would like to take the concept of a "poorly constructed" test off the table as the primary or even significant reason for failure to pass. If a practitioner is knowledgeable enough to split the hairs and recognize two answers may both be correct, I believe that individual will have sufficient correct answers to other questions to make the "suspect" questions and [multiple] answers a moot point in determining pass/fail.

More likely reasons for failure revolve around poor time management (I am conflicted about the time table, even in the "open book" venue allowed for ASQ tests.) Tied with poor time management while taking the test is poor preparation for the test. I understand college and high school professors world-wide are reporting a trend for students to deny responsibility for failing exams, using excuses like, "I know the material; the test was unfair." Oddly, those same students are unable to write a free-form essay to demonstrate their knowledge of the subject matter to a dispassionate third party arbiter.

I spent many years in academia, both as student and teacher. In all that time, I only met five teachers who deliberately tried to humiliate students in crafting their tests. I find it hard to believe they all ended up drafting ASQ tests. Besides, once the word got out about the unfair tests, students devised "work-arounds," which may have included cheating, to offset unfair tests. Some of the best lock pickers I ever met were high school students who honed their craft on the locked file cabinets of teachers. Certainly, the student victims of such unfair teachers passed the word to the next crop who could be on the alert for arcane facts or sentence structures to protect against the teacher's unfairness.

On the other hand, some folks get a perverse pleasure out of bashing the work of others, extending the bashing to TV, movies, books, politics, sports teams, education, test creators, etc. I don't try to figure out why. It's enough to know such people exist. The hallmark of a basher is the bashing rarely is accompanied by a viable suggestion to improve the process.

[QUOTE=Wes Bucey]....There is no concerted effort to make "trick" questions, but, as in real life, sometimes the distinction between a wrong answer and a correct answer can be subtle. ....QUOTE]

Very interesting topic. One persons trick question is anothers...well, analogies fail me.

I found there were many questions of the type "which is NOT the best...". This forces the student to get the right answer, negate it, and then chose. So even if you know the right answer, you could still get it wrong due to the question format.

Another type was the group answer "abc, bcd, cde, not e".

I took a correspondence course which provided advice and practice on how to handle these "not trick" questions. It really helped. So I agree you need to study the BOK AND hone your test taking skills.

Perhaps the examiners are just trying to provide some variety, but under the intense time pressure, it is hard enough to come up with the right answer, never mind trying to think through the logic of "the right wrong answer" type of question.

So to any ASQ test setting people out there, what is the thinking behind other than straightforward questions? Do people struggle with these types
or do they have the same pass rate as a straight question? Let's speak with data. I could be full of hot air on this.

I agree with the comment that the value of certification is personal development alone.

I would like to take the concept of a "poorly constructed" test off the table as the primary or even significant reason for failure to pass.
Go right ahead, as it appears that you're the one putting it on the table to begin with. I never suggested that poorly constructed tests are a reason for failures. I think the reason for most failures is ignorance, of one kind or another, and because the tests are supposed to detect that sort of thing, I guess I can agree that some of the tests are successful.

I spent many years in academia, both as student and teacher. In all that time, I only met five teachers who deliberately tried to humiliate students in crafting their tests. I find it hard to believe they all ended up drafting ASQ tests. Besides, once the word got out about the unfair tests, students devised "work-arounds," which may have included cheating, to offset unfair tests. Some of the best lock pickers I ever met were high school students who honed their craft on the locked file cabinets of teachers. Certainly, the student victims of such unfair teachers passed the word to the next crop who could be on the alert for arcane facts or sentence structures to protect against the teacher's unfairness.
You have quite an imagination. How the heck did teachers deliberately humiliating students get into this?

On the other hand, some folks get a perverse pleasure out of bashing the work of others, extending the bashing to TV, movies, books, politics, sports teams, education, test creators, etc. I don't try to figure out why. It's enough to know such people exist. The hallmark of a basher is the bashing rarely is accompanied by a viable suggestion to improve the process.
I'm just going to let this pass. It's not worthy of you, and I won't dignify it with the response it deserves.

I am considering pursuing the ASQ CQM certification BUT I would love to hear some feedback from those who have attained certification, those who are currently working towards it, or those who started but decided not to pursue. Any horror stories? Has it helped you in your career or in you daily work efforts?

I am slightly intimidated by the process for two reasons. First, from what I have seen the testing is based on knowledge already accrued during one’s working career in quality. It is not a traditional school setting with classes and exams given at the end of the education course. Second, I recently tried taking both the sample CQM and CQT tests (just to see the difference) online and I really did poorly on them, racking up a score around 67%. I must admit that while I am currently a Quality Manager by title, I work in a company where quality requirements and methods are extremely watered down. All the methodologies that are tested on the exam are foreign to me and the use of such concepts within this company would be considered voodoo.

The reason I am looking into certification is to jump-start a dead career in a stagnant company. (No offense to all those quality professionals out there but I’m a Electronic Technician and Computer Science major who was shoe-horned into a Quality Manager position.) I have had a few people say that I do a good job in my quality position so I guess I’m not totally clueless.

I really respect the knowledge base that the Cove forum supports so let me have it people.

I believe that my CQM and CQA in addition to my other qualifications made it easier for me to get an interview for my present position.

My education is in mechanical and structural engineering with an MS in Quality Systems. My work experience was in Power Systems and Aluminum Extrusion.

I applied for a position in the medical device industry and was told by my boss that my ASQ certs helped me get to the interview stage. But that was it. I had to carry off the interview by myself.

So I feel that it is better to be certified than not to be certified. One must play the game.

I was a former CQE (let my certification run out) who became a Quality Manager. I took a class preparing for the test with the intention of not taking the test but to learn more about what a Quality Manger should be doing. Just like ISO, took lead auditor training with no intention of being certified, just to understand the standard from the eyes of the auditor. At the completeion of the class my boss encouraged me to take the test with the company paying. I passed and what I got out of it was a piece of paper. I didn't expect anything else. I since have encouraged an engineer to take the same path. The reason we should want to continually learn is to better myself, not just for the money. By the way since I have changed jobs, the CQM looks nice on a resume, but the majority of small companies don't know what it is. Actually a lot don't even know what ASQ is! Good luck!

About 20 years ago, I decided to give a try at the CQE thing. I failed miserably, but I learned a lot.

Most of what I learned I have never used. But when a conversation with a customer turns to, for example, statistics…I am the only person here that can answer those questions with some resemblance of knowledge. And I tell you….the president sure likes to have someone that can speak their language.