I just received my latest issue of ASQ Wire and noticed a feature article which brought some questions to mind
On-Site Training Topics
Benefits of On-Site Training
(http://www.asq.org/on-site-training/topics/index.html)

If you are training groups of six to twenty-six or more... then ASQ On-Site Training is a cost-effective option. Train your team at your facility on the most current quality developments. There are significant benefits (http://www.asq.org/on-site-training/benefits.html) of bringing ASQ On-Site Training to you.

ASQ offers dozens of training topics (http://www.asq.org/on-site-training/topics/index.html), from auditing to ISO 9001:2000 to Six Sigma... and all can be customized to match your specific training requirements. Take a look at some of the world-class organizations (http://www.asq.org/on-site-training/customer.html) that have brought ASQ On-Site training to their facility...and take a look at what our past clients (http://www.asq.org/on-site-training/testimonial.html) have told us about their experience.

If your organization or team has a training need, tell us about it. Simply submit our online inquiry form (https://secure.asq.org/inhouseinquiry.html) and tell us what you are looking for. It's that simple. If you would prefer to speak directly with our On-Site expert, call Warren Hojnacki at 800-248-1946, ext. 7631.

If you are a consultant, I'm curious at your reaction to ASQ's foray as a not-for-profit into your marketplace.

Do you welcome or fear the competition?
Did ASQ invite any of you to participate in its business or is it strictly for "favored insiders"?
Do any of the list of clients writing testimonials include YOUR clients? Have they written similar testimonials about your work?
How does the list of topics compare with your list?
If you are NOT a consultant, but a potential purchaser of this service, do you have any comments about this issue?

For anybody:
Want to comment about not-for-profits intruding on for-profit consulting firms?

I have never used ASQ for training purposes with my staff - however----

I have used Califiornia Manufacturing Technology Center for training a small group of folks (22 - 29). CMTC is the state budgeted NFP for manufacturing. They were in a bid competition for "my" business with three other consultants on SMED Training and Demand Flow Technology. As their bid was $0.00 they of course won out with the owner.

While their presentation was impressive and chock full of great information, it was a little over the heads of the audience. The audience consisted of 75% factory floor team members from all departments and the rest being office and engineering staff. This was to be an introductory class on implementing an aspect of "Lean Manufacturing" and 75% of the audience was lost. The presenter had an MBA from UC-Irvine and a great presence, however very little real world experience. He was a fantastic presenter, but only followed his "script" that someone else had designed and written.

Had we hired an independent consultant, I think we could have noticed that we were talking over most of the folks and could have immediately changed tactics and presentation ideas within the group.

That would be my fear of hiring ASQ to conduct training - someone fresh out of college would be creating this PowerPoint presentation in an office somewhere and then someone completely different would show up to conduct the presentation and read the "script"

Every manufacturing plant is different, every company culture is different - consultants can adapt to that on the fly, whereas a large company - well you get the idea

Just some thoughts......

In June 2001 I did a federally sponsored research project on the concept of an umbrella organization offering training that consultants currently offer on their own. I proposed that offering better consistency of business model and approach to consulting, as well as umbrella marketing and greater awareness, could help budge state economies by elevating small businesses, which comprise about half the GDP, to a greater level of profitability and growth capability.

So ASQ's model is not new to me, and I don't disapprove of it as a whole but I agree there are a number of critical considerations, among them:

1. The consultants should not be a small core of well traveled professional trainers, but should be local so they can remain available to their trainees for that very important follow through.

2. I think the consultants should own their own operations, but branding and a recognizable business model with its assurance of reliability and accessability seems optimum. Think H & R Block.

3. Given the operators would be more intimately familiar with their clientele and demographic influences, there could be greater flexibility in material and its delivery. While materials could have some consistency, there should be a variety among which to select appropriate depths and applications. NxLeveL is a good example, with several different versions of business planning seminar materials beginning with a set for teenagers.

As it is, ASQ believes it is serving the community by making "expert" training available, but the community is not well served by a trainer that vanishes as soon as the evaluations have been returned.

If ASQ did a better job of marshalling its members and creating a true umbrella organization instead of sticking to a favored, centralized few (which it arguably no doubt deems important to control their quality) I believe both the area consultants and the organization could benefit. In my view they needn't be mutually exclusive.

However, based on my research (the final SBIR report is on my web site) there is a very large knowledge gap among clientele. Most nonmanufacturers don't understand their troubles well enough to recognize there is a pragmatic approach to what they view are unique problems. Hence they don't recognize the potential investment in developing those pragmatic approaches. A massive Catch-22 situation exists, which ASQ needs to address but has so far not managed. The organization will thus continue to compete with independent consultants for the business clients that have enough awareness to recognize need, but still hesitate because they are unsure of value.
:2cents:

........Want to comment about not-for-profits intruding on for-profit consulting firms?

I am a consultant from India and have a for-profit (FP) consulting firm. I have not had any inteface with ASQ but would like to comment on the issue raised in your message.

There are some organizations in India who advertise about their not-for-profit (NFP) training and consultancy. They do not charge any fee, but their travelling, boarding and lodging expenses (to be borne by the client) are huge. Also they plan their visits as per their scheduled convenience and as per the needs of the client. They select few white-collor senior empolyees to work as their information conduits. They hardly reach the shop-floor working level in the client's organizaion. In the process they prove to be much more costlier than a private FP consultant. In India they do not pose any serious competition to FP consultants.

I, as a FP consultant, welcome healthy competition.

In India there are so many consultans as it is impossible to keep their count. Any individual who gets some knowledge about ISO 9000 starts providing consultancy. To enter and to remain in the market, they lower down their fee to an absurd extent. It has given birth to an unhealthy competition and lowered the quality of consultancy, reflected in documentaion and implementation. They have roped in some certfication agencies who grant across the table certificates. It is sad that some of these agencies have been accredited by world's famous accreditation bodies. Any complaints made to these bodies do not result in any improvement, rather with each passing day they become more bold. Such people and agencies are posing a threat to quality movement in India.

In India, clients generally don't write testimonials. They will no doubt appreciate the work orally.

In short, I will say that I welcome healthy competition, which forces me to further improve the quality of my training and consultancy. I do not welcome such competition under which I have to lowerr down he quality of my services just to get a contract at absurdly low price or no price. I work on the principle of RIGHT CONSULTANCY AT RIGHT PRICE.

The big money is in training. That said I don't expect anything less of the ASQ.

Anyone with comtemporary comments?

As a member of ASQ since the early 80's and a quality practitioner for over 20 years I believe that they have lost their focus. Their primary mission should be to support and promote quality through nonprofit activities.

By straying from the original purpose of the organization they jeopardize the credibility of the organization and profession.

This is evidenced by the number of "Certification" programs that ASQ has. They create new certifications because they are revenue generators but I have to question the number of certifications as well as their value. In my opinion this leads to a lack of credibility of the entire certification process. A shame because some certifications like the CQE and CRE and needed.

As a consultant that provides training I object to ASQ competing with me since this is an organization that I helped build. In some cases they have even taken material that was developed by the members at no charge and are now using for paid courses.

In order to become an ASQ Certified trainer you are required to pay a substantial fee up front and then split the profits of the courses with ASQ in exchange for advertising the courses. Because of this practice you are not always getting the best and most qualified trainers. The most qualified see no point in paying ASQ a qualification fee of 10k especially when they take 50% of the course income.

I also object to ASQ using my membership fees to pay for advertising as well as the "ASQ credibility factor" something which I contributed to and help build free of charge.

This is why you have so many "old timers" electing not to renew their membership. ASQ has become a "marketing organization" bent on making a profit unfortunately they are doing this at the expense of the members.

I have no 1st hand experience with ASQ training, though I've met tons of folks who have told me their individual tales. Personally I was told by the ASQ and the primary organization they were using at the time that I was not qualified to deliver training for ISO 9001 and ISO 14001.

This is why you have so many "old timers" electing not to renew their membership. ASQ has become a "marketing organization" bent on making a profit unfortunately they are doing this at the expense of the members.

:agree1: Well said. When the "strategy" consists of taking membership fees, chewing them up and then spewing the result back in members' faces, it's not surprising that many would choose to just stop feeding the ungrateful monster.

The only ASQ training I have ever been to was my ISO Lead Auditor back in 1999 or so. ASQ marketed it, but it was actually delivered by another consulting company (Applied Quality Systems I think). I thought the training was good. I saw it as a win-win-win. ASQ gets some revenue and does not have to keep full time trainers hanging around. The consulting firm gets the marketing power of ASQ (for a fee of course). The trainee has some assurance that the trainer is decent if they have some oversight by ASQ.

I don't see where a "non-profit" equals "non-revenue". All non profit groups bring in revenue - churches, schools, hospitals, charities..... The difference is what happens to the excess revenue.

The local community college offers quality systems training. I'm sure they are a non-profit. Would this be any more offensive for the competition than ASQ doing it? How about AIAG that has a monopoly on some training - they are non-profit too.

Who do you think does the training? Consultants! The conflict of interest is that many of these consultants hold positions of authority within sections, divisions and the society. ASQ pays them an honorarium to teach the course. ASQ takes a profit for using their name to promote the cost (marketing costs).

As a consultant, I feel it is unfair competition unless you are in the know, and can get the gig!

The only ASQ training I have ever been to was my ISO Lead Auditor back in 1999 or so. ASQ marketed it, but it was actually delivered by another consulting company (Applied Quality Systems I think). I thought the training was good. I saw it as a win-win-win. ASQ gets some revenue and does not have to keep full time trainers hanging around. The consulting firm gets the marketing power of ASQ (for a fee of course). The trainee has some assurance that the trainer is decent if they have some oversight by ASQ.

I don't see where a "non-profit" equals "non-revenue". All non profit groups bring in revenue - churches, schools, hospitals, charities..... The difference is what happens to the excess revenue.

The local community college offers quality systems training. I'm sure they are a non-profit. Would this be any more offensive for the competition than ASQ doing it? How about AIAG that has a monopoly on some training - they are non-profit too.


Below is a link to the definition of not-for-profit.

http://www.not-for-profit.org/page2.htm

The ASQ Organization, has like many other companies/organizations, a lack of proper direction (maybe Leadership), in my opinion.

I am neither a consultant or a current member (expired) of ASQ. I hope the new leadership in ASQ does their best to get back on track with what they were originally created for to achieve a better understanding and assist members in their endeavors like continuing education, sections which are specific to certain groups or industries. The ability to discuss issues or provide guidance for their members by utilizing other experienced people in the Quality Realm.


Coury Ferguson
Program/Contracts Manager

:biglaugh:
Yes I will have to agree with Statisyical Steven only certain favored consultants work with ASQ and most cases that I know of ASQ is providing marketing using the ASQ name and reputation.

In so far as comparing ASQ to AIAG and/or a Community College. AIAG is an industry organization that only uses volunteers for input such as standards generation and with a community college they are getting an education in return for fees with little or no volunteers be asked to contribute. I would say a poor analogy. ASQ would not survive without the volunteers doing the work.

I think the members and general public will have the final say. For many years ASQ was not a profit generator and the membership swelled because they focused on their core mission and value to the members.

Over the past several years new membership has fallen off along with renewals. Both existing members and perspective members are questioning the ROI and value.

As I travel around the country and attend chapter meetings I agree that at both the section and division level the leadership seem to be populated with consultants looking for their next customer rather than fostering the profession.

The direction or status of ASQ is, IMO, off topic in this thread. If everyone were happy with ASQ, memberships up 20% year after year, etc., would it change opinions on if it is right/wrong for them to provide training.

From the link cited: However, a nonprofit corporation is not prohibited from making a profit, but there are limitations on what it can do with its "profits."

I think the community college example is even more "wrong" than ASQ (not that I really think it is an issue). Lets say I'm a consultant trying to sell auditor training. Macomb Community College has courses anyone can register for in this topic. There is a property tax assement on my house directly related to MCC - therefore I am paying my competition to compete against me, and I have no choice in the matter (other than to move).

AIAG also collects dues (from companies, not sure about individuals), charges for training, etc. I'm not up to date on the relationship between AIAG, IATF, IAOB, etc - but I believe they are all non-profits and have exclusive rights for accredited TS training.

Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center (mmtc.org) is also a non-profit, competing with for profit consultants. Their website even mentions they receive funding from NIST, so there could be more of your tax dollars going to work for your competition. (Again, not sure if NIST is funded by tax dollars).

I'm sure you would have to be "in the know" in some fashion to get into any of these organizations as a trainer.

I have no issue with any of these organizations, but if you want to make the "unfair competition" claim, you have to look way beyond ASQ.

As I was browsing the forum I came upon this thread. Oddly enough (or is it) I was pondering the same questions about ASQ training just yesterday as I received the ASQ wire e-mail. It occurred to me that this is supposed to be the support group for me and my colleagues who are out there trying to make a living. And here is my support group directly competing with me for that living!! Astounding to say the least. And what great advertising they have using my own membership money!

As if it weren't enough to compete with the state subsidized ISO group, now there is a member subsidized group as well. It wouldn't be so bad if ASQ made a concerted effort to utilize the local help, but there seems almost no way into the club and the terms are not the best. As my dues are soon upon me, I have to reconsider the benefits derived from continued membership in an organization that has now become my very obvious competition.

Ah life just keeps throwing those interesting dilemmas at us.

Happy spring!! :confused:

There is another choice. Work with your local section to provide training. Many ASQ sections already offer refresher training for certification exams and they are normally taught by consultants or members who do get paid as the instructors. What it would take is for your local section to develop a marketing plan for contacting large companies for the training. There is the additional issue about how much the local section should get paid if they sponsor and market the course.

Bill Pflanz