Elsewhere, some have written there is a lot of controversy about what is contained in the Six Sigma BOK offered by American Society for Quality.

Some of the views are tempered by prejudice against anything offered by ASQ. Other views are knee jerk reactions based on seeing inept 6S practitioners.

Some views are self-serving by 6S practitioners who make a good living wearing a black belt.

Is there a way to systematically review the ASQ SSBB BOK to see what, if anything we actually disagree with and what is merely poor execution by some folks in our personal experience?

For starters, at least read through the BOK, offered free as a pdf file here
http://www.asq.org/certification/docs/sixsigma_bok.pdf

Then, list a specific item that seems off the mark and why. Frankly, I don't see much correlation between ASQ's SS and Neutron Jack Welch's (of GE) implementation, but I try not to let my distaste for some of Jack's tactics influence my view of the ASQ SS BOK.

Note the way the BOK is laid out is really a series of study topics for the certification test offered by ASQ. The way the topics are described gives the flavor of what ASQ's BOK committee had in mind when creating the BOK and an indication of what they considered important and testworthy about 6S concepts.

I have no opinion as to what should be in or out of the ASQ six sigma body of knowledge. The only concerns I have are

1. Why does it have to exist?
2. Does this imply there will be a "Lean" BOK, a "5S" BOK, a "whatever is the next fad" BOK?
3. The addition of these various certifications (which I assume if you develop a BOK, that implies it is for an ASQ certification) continue to "cheapen" the existing traditional certifications such as CQM and CQE.

The thread is based on a questionable premise that's being assumed as fact: that SS is a good thing, and ASQ has endorsed it (which is perhaps being offered as evidence of the assumption). SS itself is a misbegotten strategy, so what good will commenting on the alleged merits of the BOK do?
Elsewhere, some have written there is a lot of controversy about what is contained in the Six Sigma BOK offered by American Society for Quality.

Some of the views are tempered by prejudice against anything offered by ASQ. Other views are knee jerk reactions based on seeing inept 6S practitioners.

Some views are self-serving by 6S practitioners who make a good living wearing a black belt.
How about, "Some views are from people who are concerned that the ASQ has been hijacked by revenue-crazy bandwagon-jumpers, and see the endorsement of SS as evidence."

I have no opinion as to what should be in or out of the ASQ six sigma body of knowledge. The only concerns I have are

1. Why does it have to exist?
2. Does this imply there will be a "Lean" BOK, a "5S" BOK, a "whatever is the next fad" BOK?
3. The addition of these various certifications (which I assume if you develop a BOK, that implies it is for an ASQ certification) continue to "cheapen" the existing traditional certifications such as CQM and CQE.
This (#3) is an absolutely valid criticism, in my opinion. I will make sure it gets voiced to George when discussing a Lean BOK. It certainly seems that a BOK is a precursor to a certification exam.

This begs the question, "What can we do to revive the exisiting certifications to make them more viable in today's business climate?"

The follow-on question might then be, "Should we pare down the list of existing certifications to a more manageable core number?"

Maybe even, "Do certifications serve a valid purpose today or is it primarily an ego trip for the certificate holder?"

Wes,

Here are my responses to your questions.

This (#3) is an absolutely valid criticism, in my opinion. I will make sure it gets voiced to George when discussing a Lean BOK. It certainly seems that a BOK is a precursor to a certification exam.

I know that you are in the Lean Manufacturing forum of ASQ but I am concerned that the ultimate outcome of determining a BOK will result in another certification opportunity for ASQ and more revenue generation.

This begs the question, "What can we do to revive the exisiting certifications to make them more viable in today's business climate?"

One way would be to make them more like the Professional Engineering license. That would require proof of education in the discipline and documented experience besides passing the exam. More than likely that would severely reduce the number of those certified since Quality degrees are rare compared to Engineering degrees and experience is not normally required for an applicant.

The follow-on question might then be, "Should we pare down the list of existing certifications to a more manageable core number?"

The obvious answer is yes unless you are ASQ and benefit from the proliferation of certifications. Once the BOK is determined and the exam questions created, maintenance of the exams is probably not significant.

If you think a certification will help you distinguish yourself from others, than the number of certifications is dependent on your specialty. That is one reason why the number is growing. ISO has the same problem as each industry creates their own technical standards.

Maybe even, "Do certifications serve a valid purpose today or is it primarily an ego trip for the certificate holder?"

There is no ego in spending countless hours studying the body of knowledge. The exam merely verifies that you have learned a BOK that was created by a panel of "quality experts". It is easy to say that you know the BOK but proving it by exam is different. I know your argument will be that someone that knows the BOK does not need to be certified to apply the knowledge. True but in a world where resumes may only be given a cursory review, the certifications do stand out.

Certifications have become more widespread in many areas, just not quality. The problem is that a college diploma now means less since your degree may not have anything to do with what you do in the workplace. For those without a degree, the certifications can at least show familiarity with the published BOK and demonstrate qualifications for a job. As you have noted in your job hunting posts, getting to the interview part where you can describe your experience is the hard part. Like it or not, a certification can help open the door.

Bill Pflanz

Let's be clear. I don't have a vested interest in creating a Lean certification - I am past the stage in my own career where any new certification or designation would add value.

My view is that the BOK for any of the subsets of Quality (including ASQ SSBB) should be a guideline in skills and functions that an employer should be seeking from an employee so that employers are more effective in creating job descriptions.

The BOK should serve as a guideline in gaining knowledge and skills for prospective employees.

All guides, Standards, BOK, etc. are ultimately a compromise among folks who have a vested interest in the topic. By compromising on a set of skills and competencies, the framers have set the MINIMUM requirements. It is up to the candidates to show how they EXCEED that minimum in order to set themselves apart from competing candidates.

I am reminded of the standard joke nurses tell each other:
"Do you you know what they call the guy who graduates dead last in medical school?"
"No. What?"
"Doctor."

Excuse my query but is the discussion on what one should know as a minimum to enable you to be competent in a task or if the ASQ have a right to decide on the criteria.

ASQ have a right to decide for their certificate but does this mean anything apart from the ASQ have decided on it. One can argue whether the ASQ certificates mean any thing or not.
If we look at auditing the BOK is ISO 19011 whether the ASQ say or not.
I have no feelings here or there for the ASQ. I passed the CQM with out understanding the importance of the term BOK. This to me was the syllabus of the course I did. Each organisation can choose their syllabus. Please can we not argue about whether ASQ is right or not. It really does not matter.
If I have trod on toes I am sorry but that is how I see it.

Excuse my query but is the discussion on what one should know as a minimum to enable you to be competent in a task or if the ASQ have a right to decide on the criteria.

ASQ have a right to decide for their certificate but does this mean anything apart from the ASQ have decided on it. One can argue whether the ASQ certificates mean any thing or not.
If we look at auditing the BOK is ISO 19011 whether the ASQ say or not.
I have no feelings here or there for the ASQ. I passed the CQM with out understanding the importance of the term BOK. This to me was the syllabus of the course I did. Each organisation can choose their syllabus. Please can we not argue about whether ASQ is right or not. It really does not matter.
If I have trod on toes I am sorry but that is how I see it.
I THINK the question is whether a non-ASQ person employer or employee (especially one not seeking ASQ certification) is justified in looking at the ASQ BOK for any of the ASQ certifications as a guideline for minimum good practices in that subset of Quality.

Alternately, is ASQ as an organization so flawed that the ASQ BOK are similarly flawed and are a bad guideline for prospective employers and employees?

What's happened, it seems to me, is prejudice against the ASQ organization is coloring judgment about the various BOK offered by ASQ. If so, is this fair and justified or not?

If the BOK are actually flawed as guidelines for folks NOT seeking certification, what are the specific bones of contention? Perhaps we can work to create a more acceptable BOK. [The Cove version of 6S BOK?]

In the case of Lean, we have an ideal situation to be part of the process in creating the ASQ BOK to our satisfaction. Why should we avoid that opportunity?

In the case of Lean, we have an ideal situation to be part of the process in creating the ASQ BOK to our satisfaction. Why should we avoid that opportunity?
Perhaps because ASQ has never demonstrated its own competence in setting standards, and because there is no reason that ASQ should be considered the final arbiter in these areas? Or maybe because ASQ has proven that its own machinery--certification exams--is not sufficiently capable of separating wheat from chaff?

IMO ASQ is the same as any other for profit business....They can do anything they think should to be done. The market they pursue determines if it is successful or not. I think ASQ in the past has been beneficial for some of the reasons mentioned above. I am glad to have a CQE designation for over 20 years because it has opened doors and provides a measure of competence needed in industry.

IMO ASQ is the same as any other for profit business....
Except ASQ isn't a for-profit business.
They can do anything they think should to be done.
Within their own rules and bylaws, certainly.
I think ASQ in the past has been beneficial for some of the reasons mentioned above.
I think ASQ membership continues to be beneficial for some.
I am glad to have a CQE designation for over 20 years because it has opened doors
More power to youhttp://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/biggrin-a1.gif
and provides a measure of competence needed in industry.Now here's where we'll part companyhttp://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/bigwave-d2.gif

IMO ASQ is the same as any other for profit business....

ASQ is not a for profit business. It has a 503 (c) nonprofit status with the government making it tax free. As an ASQ section officer, I have been instructed to call income that exceeds cost as "excess revenue".

Bill Pflanz

ASQ not for profit..Ok my mistake, but obviously some profit for some there.
Jim, at least as a CQE I can do some math, and stat, gather data, do something with it, and make decisions.Plus I learned how to carry a slide rule and peanutbutter and jelly sandwich in my breif case when I went out of town. :D

Jim, at least as a CQE I can do some math, and stat, gather data, do something with it, and make decisions.Plus I learned how to carry a slide rule and peanutbutter and jelly sandwich in my breif case when I went out of town. :D
I can do all of those things and I'm not certified (not CQE, anyway), but I've met CQEs who can't, except perhaps for the sandwich:eek: and therein lies the rub, imo.

Personally, I'll just say I have found the CQE certification to be useful when dealing with those folks that find value in those sorts of things. There is not a "professional engineer" rating for statisticians, so this is a reasonable thing to have. Fortunately, I paid for mine when it was only $90. I'll have to admit I would not have laid out my own money at the current prices.

First of all, read some of my posts here in the Cove and over at various Forums at ASQ - I am NOT an ASQ apologist. I have taken ASQ and top staff members and elected officials to task on numerous occasions.

That said, I have immense respect for the rank and file members and even some of the low-level ASQ paid staff who work pretty well at tasks like getting out books and publications and following up when an individual member calls or writes with a problem.

I would prefer to talk about the BOK, not about the Machiavellian politics and financial manipulations of very highly paid ASQ staff, the top five of whom take a total around 1.5 million dollars in salary and perks each year.

Let's take ANY of the BOK and pick it apart, line-by-line or word-by-word, without regard for the parent organization or for the certification tests.

My contention is an employer should be able to look at such a BOK and determine whether a job candidate needs to fill those skills and functions, REGARDLESS whether the candidate holds a certificate or not. Similarly, a candidate should be able to look at the BOK and determine whether he is able to fulfill those skills and functions.

I have written elsewhere that I have a definite antipathy toward jargon, especially the use of foreign words or reference to a type of diagram by a person's name (who did not invent such a diagram, by the way) versus a generic term like "fishbone." If I had my druthers, deletion of jargon and foreign terms would be first change. Next, as much as I may admire Deming, Juran, Shewart, Crosby and others, my coworkers at almost every company I ever worked for would have laughed me out of the place if I had said to them, "Follow the 14 points!" [Deming]
"Managers need SoPK!" [Deming]
"You need to follow the four points!" [Crosby]
"You need to follow the trilogy of processes" [Juran]

Therefore, I want to remove the concept of importance in connecting past gurus to their plans and just discuss the plans themselves. If the candidate knows WHAT a SoPK (System of Profound Knowledge - no acronyms, please!) is, I really don't care if he's not sure whether it was Shewart or Deming - those guys are both dead and THEY don't care!

In all probability, the guy who hires a Quality Manager is not going to have any idea of who Shewart, Juran, Deming, Crosby are or were (3 dead guys and one old guy), so that stuff in a BOK (we've had enough references that we can use this acronym or abbreviation) is absolutely meaningless to them and their organization.

Can we agree HERE on what's meaningful and what's not for a BOK in the real world versus the artificial world of a test for geeks?

Wes, I think that you will find that you are now back to the age old question that has dogged the Six Sigma discussions both here and on the ASQ Boards -

Just what the heck is Six Sigma anyway?

Looks like there are as many interpretations on what it is as there are Black Belts out there. I wish you luck on gaining a consensus from them (and yes, I really do wish you luck, it is an admirable objective). When I tried to go back to the source, at least for ASQ, (Mikel Harry) I was soundly ridiculed.

Actually, I'd like to concentrate on Lean, since it is the one we have the highest probability of influencing, but I'm willing to discuss ANY of the ASQ BOK.

Does anybody else agree with me that it would be nice to have a central source where BOTH employer and employee can look at the same set of criteria for a subset of Quality or any other function within an organization and Employer could say,
"Items 1 through 5, plus 8, 13, and 22 seem to fit what my organization needs. Show me, Mr. Candidate, how you fill that bill."

Mr. Candidate could write to an employer,
"I fit items 1 through 5, plus 8, 13, 21 and 23. The combination of 21 and 23 meets or exceeds the requirement for 22 in this way . . ."

Does anybody else agree with me that it would be nice to have a central source where BOTH employer and employee can look at the same set of criteria for a subset of Quality or any other function within an organization and Employer could say,
"Items 1 through 5, plus 8, 13, and 22 seem to fit what my organization needs. Show me, Mr. Candidate, how you fill that bill."

I have a misgiving over this concept. That is because a good quality system is a system, not a pick and choose list. A good system needs an aim, and a theory to operate from. Yes, we can list the components (tools) of the system, but without taking the components in context and understanding their interactions we are doomed to less than an adequate result.

I have a misgiving over this concept. That is because a good quality system is a system, not a pick and choose list. A good system needs an aim, and a theory to operate from. Yes, we can list the components (tools) of the system, but without taking the components in context and understanding their interactions we are doomed to less than an adequate result.
Don't most folks in Quality have an area of concentration? Everybody can't be a generalist who is equally adept at EVERY tool of Quality and change management and coddling of top management and running a CMM and sorting colors in a printing environment and so on ad infinitum.

I have a lot of experience in a high tech tight tolerance machining environment, but even though I know how to turn on and work with a CMM, I'd still bring in a manufacturer's rep to train staff members on how to use one.

My premise is that very few of us have complete mastery of every single item in a BOK. Might we be well served if we were self aware as to our own strengths and shortcomings and then sought someone to provide a complement to our skills by being skilled in those areas of the BOK where we are not? Andrew Carnegie talked about a Group Mind - could we use a BOK as a yardstick to build that Group Mind?

If we were building a team of Lean, could we use a BOK to assure the team as a whole covered ALL the points in a BOK?

If I already have the mystical magical hero of heroes who does have every skill and attribute in the BOK, what yardstick can I use to groom his successor for the time my original hero dies or retires?

If I'm a rank beginner in Lean or 6S, what yardstick can I use to assure my education covers all the bases in the field - a BOK?

If I'm a teacher of MBAs and I try to assemble a curriculum of the things I should teach them, why is the term "curriculum" different from "BOK"?
MBA Curriculum Question (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13460)

If I'm a teacher of MBAs and I try to assemble a curriculum of the things I should teach them, why is the term "curriculum" different from "BOK"?
MBA Curriculum Question (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=13460)

This is exactly what I said but used the word syllabus
according to Webster- http://webster.com/
Curriculum
1 : the courses offered by an educational institution
2 : a set of courses constituting an area of specialization

syllabus
: a summary outline of a discourse, treatise, or course of study or of examination requirements

One thing that seems to get lost in discussions like this is the idea of the predictive value of testing and curricula (or BOKs; I think the comparison is relevant and apt). Suppose we do construct a menu of attributes from which we can assemble a team à la carte. Where is the data to support the contention that a person who claims to be able to do a certain job can actually do it? Likewise, where is the data that shows predictive value in ASQ certification exams? In the end, we have to hire someone and see what happens, don't we? How do you connect a BOK to actual performance, and if you can't, what's the point?

How about a different slant?
One of the main issues we deal with in Quality is "meeting customer requirements."
Can a BOK be thought of as a list of customer requirements where both job candidates and employers go through a contract review process to determine REAL requirements and match them against capability and capacity of candidates. Obviously (to me), the employers have to monitor the performance of candidates to determine if the actual performance meets the requirements.

Just as every customer doesn't have requirements to hold tolerances to 50 millionths of an inch, so, too, not every employer will need someone who has ALL the skills and experience listed in a BOK. So as customers make value judgments about suppliers, employers make value judgments about job candidates.

Just as every customer doesn't create a new measuring system (zotls instead of millimeters) and instruments to measure (whizzbangs instead of micrometers), so, too, should employers have some standards so that they and job candidates can start off on an even playing field.

What do you think, readers?

How about a different slant?
One of the main issues we deal with in Quality is "meeting customer requirements."
Can a BOK be thought of as a list of customer requirements where both job candidates and employers go through a contract review process to determine REAL requirements and match them against capability and capacity of candidates. Obviously (to me), the employers have to monitor the performance of candidates to determine if the actual performance meets the requirements.

Just as every customer doesn't have requirements to hold tolerances to 50 millionths of an inch, so, too, not every employer will need someone who has ALL the skills and experience listed in a BOK. So as customers make value judgments about suppliers, employers make value judgments about job candidates.

Just as every customer doesn't create a new measuring system (zotls instead of millimeters) and instruments to measure (whizzbangs instead of micrometers), so, too, should employers have some standards so that they and job candidates can start off on an even playing field.

What do you think, readers?
Nice cure, but what's the disease? I don't understand what's broken.

I never really thought about using the BOK as part of the recruiting requirements. If you could get recruiters and HR departments to use the BOK in their job descriptions, it may make the requirements for the employer and the employee more clear.

The hiring manager would also bear some responsibility to know enough about the BOK to intelligently discuss what is needed and to determine if the prospective employee meets the BOK requirements as they apply to that job.

Bill Pflanz