I am in the process of putting together the agenda for a local industry leader breakfast in order to help promote ASQ's "Economic Case for Quality". ASQ has provided some presentation outlines, case studies and other tools for me to work with. What I'm wondering is.... have any of you out there done or heard about anything specific to substantiate the cost effectiveness of quality? Top executives I've worked with loved numbers, especially those with dollar signs in front of them. Any good quotes, statistics or demographic info out there to support the "Economic Ca$e for Quality"?

Deming's always worked for me - "You don't have to do any of this - survival isn't compulsory".

Best of luck!

I am in the process of putting together the agenda for a local industry leader breakfast in order to help promote ASQ's "Economic Case for Quality". ASQ has provided some presentation outlines, case studies and other tools for me to work with. What I'm wondering is.... have any of you out there done or heard about anything specific to substantiate the cost effectiveness of quality? Top executives I've worked with loved numbers, especially those with dollar signs in front of them. Any good quotes, statistics or demographic info out there to support the "Economic Ca$e for Quality"?
Diane,

As a Division leader within ASQ, and an active participant in many of these discussions, I have come to the conclusion that most executives value quality, but do not see it as their job. In a recent engagement, the client wanted a tools for quality presentation to be given to their line workers. I mentioned that giving them the tools was a start, but top management needs to buy into this philosophy. I was told, "It is my goal for the year, so I will do it." My perception is that top management made quality an operational goal, without any real metric to measurement it. I have asked ASQ and others to help me understand what is the metric to measure success. The idea that money is the only metric does not work for me. Just my ramblings about the ECQ.

A fine example of when the execs just don't get it...

My job for the last 12+ months has been to administrate and track an off-shore group of inspectors (in China). These folks are on contract to us as our QA Auditors, they pull a sample from every lot of product coming out of China (we have multiple contrat factories in China). They inspect the sample and issue a report and recommended action (release or hold) based on the old MIL SPEC 105E. The cost for this service was approx. $300K for last year. :)
(Considering the amount of work involved in conducting those audits, we ship in pretty small quantities on a VERY REGULAR BASIS, this bill is very reasonable.)

I was also able to dig up enough stable, trustworthy data to show that during this same timeframe, even though our Sales grew substantially (something noone else in our business has been able to say in quite a while!) the Warranty Returns have gone down dramatically, without changing Suppliers, Product Design/Mix, or any other factor of note. In terms of Warranty Dollars Avoided, we managed to save somewhere north of $3.7M over those same 12 months. :tg:

Not bad, a 10-to-1 ROI : IN THE FIRST YEAR!!!:applause: :D

You want to guess what one of the Goals for this Fiscal Year is ....:mad:

Streamline and REDUCE the cost of this Audit Process!!! :confused: :mad:

Even as I prove it's worth to the BOTTOMLINE and look for ways to make it even more effective in Warranty Cost Avoidance, I am told that I have to REDUCE the expenditure!!!!:truce: :nope:

Just when you thought you were getting somewhere and the execs understood that you are "doing a good thing"... WHAM -The Stupid Fairy strikes.

Brian

What I'm wondering is.... have any of you out there done or heard about anything specific to substantiate the cost effectiveness of quality?

Many of us have spent substantial portions of our careers trying to bring sight to the blind. Back in the eighties there was a story on Deming in the Chicago Tribune Magazine and he was asked by the author how he would like to be remembered. He thought for a second and replied, "Well, if I could be remembered as someone who spent his life trying to keep American manufacturing from committing suicide..."

I know this much: there is no magic bullet, no panacea, no profound pronouncement and no slick package of platitudes that will make incompetent executives suddenly see the light. You can buy them books, send them to seminars and give them brilliant talks and presentations. You can show them incontrovertible, undeniable evidence, packed with dollar signs and ROI and boosted bottom lines and before-and-after P&L statements, and they'll come back tomorrow doing the same old stuff, totally oblivious to the bloody obvious.

American manufacturing executives are like crack addicts high on psychotic belief in their own greatness despite stacks of empirical evidence to the contrary. And like any sort of addict, there's nothing you can do to help them until they recognize the hopelessness of their situation and decide for themselves to do something about it.

In my experience, Quality works best when the top executive is personally committed to quality improvement and that commitment is very visible. For example -


In the early 1990's I was working at a Navy shipyard (now closed) on the East Coast. For most of the 1980's there had been attempts to start an effective quality program with the "program of the quarter" approach, with little success. The programs were generally driven by the Quality Assurance office, there was some support from the involved line workers (I was on a couple of quality circles - anyone remember them?) and front-line supervision, but upper management ranged from apathy to obstructionism. Then a new commanding officer arrived. He instituted new quality leadership training - combining quality principles and leadership principles. The training was mandatory for all executives, managers and supervisors, and available to other workers as well. More importantly, the CO was personally teaching several of the classes - especially the opening one and the closing one of each course cycle! When the top boss is teaching the course, you better believe the subordinates get the message! From that time on there was a marked improvement in all quality measures - and then in 1994 the government decided to close the base. Nobody was discouraged because the CO said that now that we had our orders, we were going to do the best quality job of closing a major industrial complex that had ever been done -- and it was. One of the goals was that every worker who did not retire would have another job to go to, and that goal was also met.

The problem is gaining that commitment. We have to overcome many obstacles such as the ones mentioned by Steven W., plus impatience, a focus on very short-term results, and a desire to just "install" quality and get it over with to move on to the next thing. The necessary executive commitment takes a combination of patience, personal values and a long view of the business. The time focus has to be 3, 5, and 10 years or more -- not the next quarter's results. They have to be personally committed to fostering culture change ... going from quality being "we have to do it to get this contract" all the way to "that's the way we do things here". If the organization is a union shop, then the union leadership also has to be committed and involved.

There are documented financial benefits, but they are long term. There was a study published in 1999 (I think) that looked at the economic effects of implementing an effective Total Quality Management (TQM, the buzzword of the 1990's). In the absence of other information, the researchers used the act of applying for a national quality award program as an indicator of the existence of an effective TQM program. They found that over the study period (five years) the stock price of the sample companies outperformed a control group by about 45%. (Research by Vinod Singhal (Georgia Tech) and Kevin Hendricks (William & Mary). Article: Boosting the Bottom Line (http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/reshor/rh-spr99/rnotS99.html), in Georgia Tech Research Today.)
That research is fairly old now, and I think it is referred to in the ASQ ECQ white paper. For ten years NIST had a hypothetical index of Baldrige Award winners (http://www.quality.nist.gov/Stock_Studies.htm) that compared their performance to the S&P 500. (It was discontinued after 2004.) But in a quick search I have not been able to find other documented and validated examples.

Juran says the benefits have to be expressed in financial terms to get emphasis, and Crosby implies the same thing. The Deming quote cited by Baldrick is good and may be effective in some cases -- but often by the time the company realizes that the issue is survival it's too far gone to do any good. (I once applied for a quality leader position for a company; on Thursday an appointment was made for an interview on Monday, but the headlines in Saturday's paper announced that the company had folded on Friday afternoon.) Sometimes the long-term benefit is in fact survival -- or at least survival of the jobs or company in this country.

One thing that may be valid is that the approach has to be tailored to the size, makeup, organization and philosophy of the company. The thing that helped Motorola win the Baldrige Award in 1988 (something called "six sigma") may be too much for the small service company down the street. There are many tools available, and even several tools for the same task (http://qualitypress.asq.org/perl/catalog.cgi?item=H1224). What is suitable for one organization may be too much -- or not enough -- for another. My bias is that every organization that measures physical "stuff" needs to have a good measurement quality program backed up by a good calibration program -- but even the level of those varies from one place to the next.

I don't have any magic bullets. I don't think there are any. After all, the things being taught now are largely the same as those that were developed in the 1920's through 1940's, plus a few more recent ones. Sure some of the methods have been dressed up in flashy new clothes and hyped with flashing neon signs (Six Sigma) but there's hardly anything in there that an ASQ CQE from the 1960's would not recognize.


Graeme C. Payne
ASQ Sr. Member, CQE, CCT, CQT
Chair, Measurement Quality Division

Deming's always worked for me - "You don't have to do any of this - survival isn't compulsory".

I've held Deming up as the ultimate "quality consultant" for most of my career... but I don't seem to be having the same success with openly insulting executives that he did... :confused:

Thank you for the speedy response, Baldrick!:applause:

I have come to the conclusion that most executives value quality, but do not see it as their job. ... My perception is that top management made quality an operational goal, without any real metric to measurement it. ...The idea that money is the only metric does not work for me.

Thank you for validating my concern, Statistical Steven. :bonk: I guess that we need to find some examples for how to help executives both see quality as their job and to measure quality as an operational goal. I think that one of the later posts I've read this morning does a nice job on the "their job" part. I'm still interested in the statistical part, though..

Thanks again! :applause:

In terms of Warranty Dollars Avoided, we managed to save somewhere north of $3.7M over those same 12 months. ... a 10-to-1 ROI : IN THE FIRST YEAR!!! You want to guess what one of the Goals for this Fiscal Year is ... Streamline and REDUCE the cost of this Audit Process!!! ... Just when you thought you were getting somewhere and the execs understood that you are "doing a good thing"... WHAM -The Stupid Fairy strikes.

Thank you, Brian! I think that must be one pretty danged busy fairy. It appears that just about every executive I've worked with has been striken with the stupid stick :bonk: .... albeit some harder than others. Maybe we can put a contract out on that fairy....

Diane

Back in the eighties there was a story on Deming in the Chicago Tribune Magazine and he was asked by the author how he would like to be remembered. He thought for a second and replied, "Well, if I could be remembered as someone who spent his life trying to keep American manufacturing from committing suicide..." American manufacturing executives are like crack addicts high on psychotic belief in their own greatness despite stacks of empirical evidence to the contrary. And like any sort of addict, there's nothing you can do to help them until they recognize the hopelessness of their situation and decide for themselves to do something about it.

I LOVE that Deming Quote! I'll use that one, for sure! ;) As to the crack addiction analogy, having grown up around what was popularly termed as "dysfunctionality" for many years, I perceived the analogy between executives and addicts in the 80's, myself. Perhaps we could reformat the ASQ "Economic Case for Quality" to parallel the AA or NA 12-Step Program.... it's worth a look. Question is.... how can we help all of those Executives realize they're in the gutter and that "quality" can be a higher power?:agree1:

Thank you for the great response!

Perhaps we could reformat the ASQ "Economic Case for Quality" to parallel the AA or NA 12-Step Program.... it's worth a look. Question is.... how can we help all of those Executives realize they're in the gutter and that "quality" can be a higher power?:agree1:


Well, the point was that you can't until they decide it's necessary, and there isn't anything you can say or do that will change that. 12-step programs are useless unless the potential stepper has decided to change.

I find myself somewhat against the EOQ at ASQ. I do not want a bunch of folks coming in and tampering with my CEO. I have been working very hard for 12 years on implementing a Deming approach at Fluor. The last thing I need is someone coming in trying to convince my CEO that they need to do Baldrige, or do Six Sigma, or whatever. I distrust ASQ's position on "level playing field" versus "Advocacy" of one method over others.

It's my belief we should be empowering the ASQ members within the companies to go to their CEO and senior management, not have a generic bunch of information being given by folks who could likely end up tampering more so than causing any improvement. I think we are breeding too much of a "victim" mentality within ASQ.

Steve Prevette
ASQ Section 614 Chair

Juran says the benefits have to be expressed in financial terms to get emphasis, and Crosby implies the same thing. The Deming quote cited by Baldrick is good and may be effective in some cases -- but often by the time the company realizes that the issue is survival it's too far gone to do any good. (I once applied for a quality leader position for a company; on Thursday an appointment was made for an interview on Monday, but the headlines in Saturday's paper announced that the company had folded on Friday afternoon.) Sometimes the long-term benefit is in fact survival -- or at least survival of the jobs or company in this country.

Graeme, your care in preparing this response was humbling. :o THANK you! :applause: I especially appreciate the reference links you provided. That personal interview story of yours is what I term "A Significant Emotional Event" or a "SEE". It's just the kind of thing that might help Executives "SEE" what it is that we're trying to get across. Sorry you had to go through that.... but what a great illustration of how waiting until one can no longer neglect a quality problem may make it too late to fix the problem!:nopity:

I do not want a bunch of folks coming in and tampering with my CEO. I have been working very hard for 12 years on implementing a Deming approach at Fluor. The last thing I need is someone coming in trying to convince my CEO that they need to do Baldrige, or do Six Sigma, or whatever. It's my belief we should be empowering the ASQ members within the companies to go to their CEO and senior management.

Valid points, Steve. I tend to agree... and I was initially opposed to a generic approach to Executives by ASQ... however... I believe that ASQ will be more inclined to provide the tools and information that will empower us, as individuals, to approach Executives within our own organizations ... if we reach out to Executives who do not yet have quality champions within their companies. That being said, I guess the job for existing quality champions who don't want their Executives "tampered with", during the ASQ's Economic Case for Quality promotions, would be to assure their Executives, in particular, know they already have the latest, greatest information about quality as an economic force and don't need to hear what those less enlightened Executives might.

Thanks for the great points! :thanx:

I guess the job for existing quality champions who don't want their Executives "tampered with", during the ASQ's Economic Case for Quality promotions, would be to assure their Executives, in particular, know they already have the latest, greatest information about quality as an economic force and don't need to hear what those less enlightened Executives might.

I think there might be a logical fallacy at work here, that being that there are large numbers of executives who are unaware of "quality as an economic force." Does anyone really believe this? I hate to sound jaded and terminally cynical, but the fact that what I described earlier as the bloody obvious (and it is, isn't it?) is being widely disregarded in the corner offices isn't necessarily evidence of ignorance or lack of enlightenment. "Incompetent" doesn't necessarily equal "stupid."

In one of my many Quality Manager positions, I worked for the owner of a small manufacturing company. His resume was impressive: Babson undergrad, Harvard MBA, hired by Jack Welsh at GE and at age 38 left GE, mortgaged the house and bought his own business. He certainly was no dummy.

However, when I approached him about installing data collection and analysis systems or a cost of poor quality system: he asked me why we needed such things when he already knew the reasons for any problem that we might have.

His answers to me weren't intended to be rude. He really believed that he knew the reasons. He also was a "D" type of person (for those who don't know the DISC system, he was full of ideas, solutions and a desire for instant gratification). He was always going at full speed.

He had little time for data collection let alone data analysis because it took too long. He was (and I presume still is a 'trial and error' man).

The hard thing to compete with is his success. He has great ideas, recognized a niche market and has made millions. When I told him that he could make more, he said he didn't need any more.

He paid for me to get an MS in Quality Systems and then never listened to a thing that I had to say.

My guess is that many of the attendees at this breakfast discussion will be just like him, will be bored to death and will be on the cell phone back to the office where the action is as soon as possible.

I would like to add some positive ideas. Quality Progress certainly contains success stories of applications of various methods. However, Quality Progress is not exactly in the stack of magazines in the foyer of the CEO's office. How about taking some of the ECQ money, and sending QP to the CEO's of leading companies for a year?

One thing our corporation is doing is having our communications folks try to get stories into the big trade magazines and even into Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, etc. Might be worth a stab by ASQ.

"Incompetent" doesn't necessarily equal "stupid."

You're absolutely right. In fact, at one major corporation that I worked for, in one of my earliest quality management roles, I was actually given a disciplinary letter. :( The letter was signed by three Quality Directors and the Vice President of Quality. These guys were obviously not stupid... but the points made in the letter they signed were that Diane: 1.) Was too masculine for a woman in a management role; 2.) Relied too heavily upon facts for decision making; and 3.) Had a problem working with authority figures. I could probably have retired on the strength of the things legally wrong with that letter. Instead... I followed their required corrective action plan and visited the company shrink. After a battery of tests and an extensive interview, she wrote a letter back to those guys. Kindly (and for a good laugh), she gave me a copy of the letter, first. Here was her analysis: 1.) Gender orientation actually has nothing to do with overall effectiveness in fulfilling a management role, although Diane is quite feminine; 2.) Anybody responsible for assuring the quality of something so critical could not possibly rely too heavily upon facts for decision making; and 3.) Diane has no issue with authority figures. What Diane has an issue with is incompetence. Fortunately, Diane is highly trainable and can be taught to hide this undesirable trait. :biglaugh:

The executives, to their credit, chose not to have me trained and, as you can see, I STILL have an issue with incompetence. ;)

I would like to add some positive ideas. Quality Progress certainly contains success stories of applications of various methods. However, Quality Progress is not exactly in the stack of magazines in the foyer of the CEO's office. How about taking some of the EOQ money, and sending QP to the CEO's of leading companies for a year?

One thing our corporation is doing is having our communications folks try to get stories into the big trade magazines and even into Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, etc. Might be worth a stab by ASQ.

One of the things that I used to love about National Quality Month was that ASQ (ASQC at that time) used to print a beautiful, high quality, "awareness" booklet and send a few free copies for each member to share with their Executives and coworkers. Additional copies could be purchased. I used to get a bunch of those and some back issues of Quality Progress to distribute, free, at local events (such as company-related AMA meetings and Supplier Workshops). Maybe ASQ will head back in that direction with this initiative. Although I doubt we'll be seeing free QP subscriptions for Executives, we could sign them up for subscriptions to Quality Digest (http://www.qualitydigest.com/)or Quality (http://www.qualitymag.com/)magazine, which are already free. It's a thought... but.... why would they take the time to open the covers? UNLESS..... we could write a case study up about our target company and get it on the cover... THAT might work... Hmmmmm.

Food for thought.

Thanks, Steve!:applause:

In one of my many Quality Manager positions, I worked for the owner of a small manufacturing company. His resume was impressive: Babson undergrad, Harvard MBA, hired by Jack Welsh at GE and at age 38 left GE, mortgaged the house and bought his own business. He certainly was no dummy. ... when I approached him about installing data collection and analysis systems or a cost of poor quality system: he asked me why we needed such things when he already knew the reasons for any problem that we might have. He paid for me to get an MS in Quality Systems and then never listened to a thing that I had to say.

The hard thing to compete with is his success. He ... has made millions. When I told him that he could make more, he said he didn't need any more.

My guess is that many of the attendees at this breakfast discussion will be just like him, will be bored to death and will be on the cell phone back to the office where the action is as soon as possible.


Great points, Gerry. Sorry to hear about the dissing... especially by somebody you appear to look up to. I wonder if he realizes that, to some extent, he is a role model? Perhaps the way to engage "action-oriented" CEO's is to give them a "piece of the action". Have people start calling that cell phone looking for quality leadership from the CEO. If he really isn't motivated by the money, perhaps it is the power, prestige and action that will hit a nerve. It sounds like a way to let him know people want him to be their quality leader... employees, customers, supplier, colleagues.... might work. If you're right about the profile of other executives (and, based upon all of the business magazines I read, you probably are), maybe we should consider how best to plug these guys into "the action". More food for thought. How best can we do that? Ask them to teach a program on quality (as noted by one respondent, was done by his Executive)? Invite them to be a keynote speaker at an event for quality pros? Interview them for an article in a quality-related magazine? Hm. Possibilities...:agree1:

It's a thought... but.... why would they take the time to open the covers? UNLESS..... we could write a case study up about our target company and get it on the cover... THAT might work...

True. And also, if you can sneak them into the stack of magazines in their waiting areas, the folks waiting to meet with the CEO may think the CEO reads it . . .

True. And also, if you can sneak them into the stack of magazines in their waiting areas, the folks waiting to meet with the CEO may think the CEO reads it . . .

I suppose you might be able to get them to actually pick up a copy of Quality Digest if you replace the cover with one from Forbes or Business Week :lol: .

Over the years I have come to the opinion that if you need to sell quality to your boss or the executives, why are you even there? When I first got into quality, it was the vice president of my division that gave me the job. He supported me with words and actions. Quality wasn't my job but it was my job to help others to find ways to make their jobs, processes and products better. If we were profitable (and we were) it was because all of us were doing the right things the right way. There was always room for improvement and we were always trying to find ways to do it better. That included taking the same approach to improving safety, sales, expanding product lines etc. We focused on Quality (with a big Q) as necessary for business success.

The interesting part about it was that my boss moved onto another job and his replacement was the director of quality. She was a terrible manager, gave only lip service to quality and probably hastened our division being sold off.

Personally, I think ECQ is another marketing gimmick by ASQ that will only benefit consultants. I am a section chair so I am very aware of what the concept is.

Bill Pflanz

All good, pertinent replies so far. I hesitate to add to the scrum, but in my long experience, I have rarely found two executives who react the same way to a given set of conditions or set of facts.

When I talk to a group of executives, I deal in very broad brush strokes, including a number of different points so that at least ONE of those might penetrate to each audience member. I always include a Q & A opportunity BEFORE I sum up, including some of the points raised or made in the Q & A. I always make it clear that the "speech" is merely an introduction to the topic and that I and many other professionals are available to deal in depth with the particular conditions present in their organization.

Another point I make is that EVERY situation is different and the only underlying TRUTH is that "change is inevitable." The difference is in whether you control change or it controls you. If you are aware of some of the tools of Quality, you can hire folks who know how to use those tools to the best advantage for your organization. If you don't allow yourself to learn about these tools, you won't know what to look for when you go out to hire someone.

If you are an executive, it is your job to sense opportunities for improvement and to hire folks and to empower them to help the organization improve. It is NOT your job to do the data collection or number crunching.

I suppose, in the main, I try to remind executives to act like executives and maintain a sense of the big picture at all times, while hiring and empowering folks to take care of meaningful details.

An analogy I often use is this one:
"Top trucking company executives may know everything about fleet maintenance and mechanical repair from A to Z, but you rarely see one in the shop, swapping out the engine on a big Freightliner, while hundreds of truck mechanics are out of work, begging for jobs. Similarly, the CEO of an aerospace firm may be a top notch aerospace engineer, but he doesn't inspect the welds on airframes. Neither should you DO the actual Quality Assurance work in your firm, but you have to know it MUST be done to keep your organization alive and viable for future growth and to protect against a bad reputation."

This approach works for me because I am the archtypal WASP executive myself. I'm credible because I was, and am, an executive just like my audience. When I intersperse my speech with war stories about successes and failures, I can see the nods as they recall some of their own experiences instead of facing audience body language which says, "Where does this punk get off thinking he knows what kind of pressures I face?"

I've seen that "anti-acceptance attitude" when some callow youth gets on the stage and recounts a story very similar to one I tell. I recall one audience member leaning over to me in such a situation and saying, "What does that young [expletive] know about meeting a payroll?"

Bottom line:
The first battle with an executive audience is establishing your own credibility. It sometimes helps to mingle with an audience before the presentation to get a feel (I call it cold reading) of the audience to be aware of taboos and shibboleths and to decide if you have the ability to drag them out in the open and talk about them. Deming had the chutzpah to face executives and tell them stuff they didn't want to hear. Old WED's saving grace was that "some" listened, while most did not.

Ultimately, the so-called Quality Gurus always realize this important lesson:
Not everyone can be saved!
the corollary is:
Nor should they!

Wes,

Are you saying that the only one who should talk to executives about management problems is another executive (or ex-executive now consultant) since only they know what it is really like to manage? You admit that the "callow youth" tells the same story as you but are saying that it will not be accepted even though it is probably just as correct.

When we are young we complain that older management will not listen to us. When we become older management we refuse to listen to the young. Do you establish your credibility by waiting to be old but then ignore the feelings you had when you were not listened to even when you were right? Do executives become guilty of group think as they only listen to others just like them? Do older people have a corner on what is right? Doesn't experience sometimes hinder change even among executives?

Just some questions and thoughts.

Bill Pflanz

Wes,



Do executives become guilty of group think as they only listen to others just like them? Do older people have a corner on what is right? Doesn't experience sometimes hinder change even among executives?

Just some questions and thoughts.

Bill Pflanz
Bill, good point. I have also seen selective memories used on some of the basic functions they used to do as middle managers. Experience may hinder change if it was an experience that worked at the time.

My point was simply that if you ARE the young and callow youth, you have to change the message "style" to get through the prejudices of the entrenched power structure.

I was, in fact, successful at doing that when I was young, but it required a lot of research about my audience (one or a hundred) and a careful avoidance of implying I had experience and wisdom which trumped my audience.

I used "weasel phrases" to get around a "know-it-all" image which I secretly felt, but could never admit to most of my audiences. Instead of making flat statements about "right" or "wrong," I told stories about "John Doe" and "Mary Roe" and then asked, in a Socratic style, "In YOUR opinion, what was the course of action John Doe could have taken to have a better chance of success?"

After leading them to the answer I had in mind, I could say, "Our firm has financed several companies that followed that course and they seem to be successful. What would you suggest a company do as the first step to give itself the best chance of success?"

What my mentor and I worked out so long ago was that I could break through the prejudice against my own callow youth by acting more like a facilitator at a brainstorming session than an old pro delivering the Gospel of "When I did this" OR "When I did that."

So I flattered and cajoled my audiences (board members of target companies, wealthy investors, fund managers, etc.) into thinking they were instructing ME in "How to do it."

Did it work every time?
Heck no! But success in many fields is like throwing spaghetti against the wall until something sticks. I used to fish for muskies in northern Wisconsin and Minnesota. Experienced fishermen call muskies the "fish of 10,000 casts" for a reason! Similarly, I crafted and recrafted my presentation techniques (of investment deals or lures for muskies) until my ratios got better. There is little chance my exact technique then or now (totally different from what it was twenty years ago!) would work for more than one or two people. What each person has to do is understand that it CAN be done. If it were easy, we wouldn't be having this thread. Some of us may NEVER succeed in getting the message across. Others will tackle this like a DOE and chart the good and bad effects of each ploy in a continual improvement process until they achieve an optimal technique.

The prejudices of the audience are real and powerful. If you ignore them, you are leaving impediments to your success which may doom your attempt. Every audience (one or one hundred) is different. The presenter has to gage the capability, capacity, biases, and limitations which define his target audience and craft the presentation to play to the strengths, overcome the limitations, and find a way to neutralize the biases.

If I knew an executive was definitely a "hard numbers" guy, I certainly wouldn't talk "touchy feely" stuff with him.

When probing the psyche of the audience, ALWAYS be on the lookout for the "MEGO" response (My Eyes Glaze Over) from your audience. For sure, when you ask a guy about "metrics" and he responds with the size of his auto engine in cubic centimeters, you KNOW he will be a different audience from the guy who answers with stuff about his traffic light system giving signals where to concentrate improvement efforts.

Very good response, Wes. I am glad I asked my questions. To get back to the original question, Wes has suggested some good approaches for dealing with management for promoting ECQ or whatever quality initiative you want. I have seen some better ideas in this thread than anything that ASQ is doing. Maybe we should change the thread name to "Ideas to promote your case for quality to management" and forget about the ASQ role.

Bill Pflanz