Has anyone noticed that the ASQ Code of Ethics has changed? I have no idea when it happened, but I noticed it as I was looking at other document on the ASQ Website. Googling "ASQ Code of Ethics" produces numerous hits to ASQ sections with the old statement for comparison.

The new statement is streamlined, with about 1/2 as many words as before.

We are no longer specifically expected to:

earnestly endeavor to aid the work of the Society.
be dignified and modest in explaining my work and merit.
indicate to my employer or client adverse consequences to be expected if my professional judgement is overruled.

endeavor to aid the professional development of those in my employ or under my supervision (although there is a statement about the professional development of "others" in general).On the other hand members are now expected to:

perform services only in their areas of competence.
act in a professional manner in dealings with ASQ staff.
Yes, that's right. It is written into the Code of Ethics that we deal professionally with ASQ staff (in addition to employers, customers, and clients; but interestingly not specifically with peers or the public). Now, dealing professionally with ASQ staff is, well, the professional way to behave, but it seems a little much to explicitily write it into the Code Of Ethics.

It is also interesting that "dealings with ASQ staff" is in the section "Relations with Employers and Clients", not the section "Relations with Peers". So ASQ staff are like our bosses? Not like our peers? Not like our employees?


Tim F

Be careful, Tim. Guess who gets to define "professional"? Is it possible that even gentle criticism is not?

I too was surprised to find that the code of ethics had changed. I noticed it on the back of my last cert. I have been a member for years but don't remember being notified...

Ah, brethren! It is I who is more guilty than you all. It is I who has consistently denigrated and derogated the efforts, albeit however small and ineffectual, of the paid ASQ staff in the upper pay grades, while lauding the efforts of the low pay grades who grind out the effective delivery system of the publishing arm of ASQ.

It is I who created a backlash of response by upper level paid staff to my continual stream of ridicule and invective for the idiotic precursor to the current (still a joke) ASQ Forum.

It is I who was largely responsible for the revolving door of "managers" who held the position of titular boss of the ASQ Forums. I recall one of those "managers" being so upset, he publicly threatened to ban me from the ASQ Forums. He found other employment within two weeks of that threat.

It is I who have been most forthright in saying we needed an entire change of elected officials so we could throw out the entrenched bureaucrats making more than $300,000 per year plus innumerable perks.

The bureaucrats were so fearful of losing their jobs (despite being largely responsible for the apathy of ASQ members who choose to drop membership rather than swim in the bureaucratic Jello) that they cobbled together ethics changes aimed at vocal and written rebuke from the members and stuck the changes in front of the clueless Board members to sign.

Despite being a large part of the reason for the ethics change:

I do not apologize, but instead call for you all to join me in pointing out the process "gaps" for which the high paid ASQ staff are largely responsible;
I do not apologize, but instead call for you all to join me in stamping out the apathy about events at ASQ which seems to have gripped our members;
I do not apologize, but instead call for you all to join me in spreading the word that spending time and effort in improving quality of goods and services actually DOES pay off in the long run;
I do not apologize, but instead call for you all to join me in mentoring newbies and dispelling the notion "operator error" is a valid excuse for nonconforming goods or services;
I do not apologize, but instead call for you all to join me in finding and nurturing strong candidates for regional and national ASQ office who really want to promote the Society instead of merely adding a line to their resumés.
:topic:
Has anyone noticed the criteria for being named an ASQ Fellow have evolved more and more to honor consultants, authors, and educators, and less and less to honor the work-a-day guy who leads his organization to Quality excellence? Odd, isn't it, the segments of our Society who benefit most from being able to tout themselves as ASQ Fellows to get consulting jobs, speaking gigs, tenure at schools, and jacket blurbs for their books are the ones who also make up the bulk of new Fellows?

I sure don't have dog in this fight, but y'all have done a great job of reminding me why I don't. but instead call for you all to join me in mentoring newbies and dispelling the notion operator error is a valid excuse for nonconforming goods or services; I think your boy WED said it might be a valid excuse about 15% of the time, no?

After a little more checking, the Code of Ethics was changed by the Board last May. The board minutes simply report:

"Danny Duhan presented the revised Member Code of Ethics that the Ethics Committee submitted for Board approval.
Upon motion by Ron Atkinson, duly seconded, the Board of Directors . . .
VOTED to approve the ASQ Member Code of Ethics. Motion passed (26 ayes, 2 nays)."It would be interesting to know why two board members voted against the change.


Also, from a Document Control perspective, it seems like more effort should be made to inform the various branches that their webpages contain the wrong code of ethics.

Tim F

Be careful, Tim. Guess who gets to define "professional"? Is it possible that even gentle criticism is not?Well then! As I understand it, now those who behave "unprofessionally" to ASQ staff can be, in a sense excommunicated. I suppose this is meant to keep peace, but I the Orwellian in me worries the result is that the Emperor will always be wearing the finest clothes in the land.

Of course, Deming may have implied 15% of nonconformance was NOT due to management ineptitude, but that did not imply it was operator error. the bulk of the 15% was attributed to Force Majeure and natural variation, while the balance was due to "errors" when an operator experienced a lapse due to

misunderstanding the training or instruction,
being tired from either too much of any activity or poor nutrition,
previously undetected physical, eyesight, or hearing deficiencies
distraction due to off-the-job issues (maybe some on-the-job issues like pay, benefits, nagging boss, etc. which can't be detected in an audit.)
sabotage - his own or someone else's to make him a victim. (you have to ask the motive for sabotage - sometimes it is almost justified in the eyes of some as a type of guerilla warfare between management and labor.).If the operator is simply incompetent and unable to perform the task, that is a management error in approving the employee to work at such task before determining competency. Distraction on-the-job merely means the management did not provide a distraction-free work zone.

misunderstanding the training or instruction,Possibly operator error, but could be a process (i.e., management) problem, thus part of the 85%.

being tired from either too much of any activity or poor nutrition,Operator error.

previously undetected physical, eyesight, or hearing deficienciesCould be either.

distraction due to off-the-job issues (maybe some on-the-job issues like pay, benefits, nagging boss, etc. which can't be detected in an audit.)Could be either, and I'm not sure what auditing has to do with it.

sabotage - his own or someone else's to make him a victim. (you have to ask the motive for sabotage - sometimes it is almost justified in the eyes of some as a type of guerilla warfare between management and labor.)Could be either.

If the operator is simply incompetent and unable to perform the task, that is a management error in approving the employee to work at such task before determining competency.

Which assumes that it's possible to determine someone's competence before they actually do the work. Perhaps you're blessed with the gift of clairvoyance, but most of us normal humans aren't so outstandingly talented and omniscient.

Distraction on-the-job merely means the management did not provide a distraction-free work zone.

Do you believe that it's possible to line up say, 100 people, and walk down the line and accurately predict what might distract one that doesn't distract another? Can you tell in advance which people might have attention deficit issues, or marital problems, or large, painful cysts on their posteriors? Can you tell who got speeding ticket on the way to work, or just found out that a loved one has a terminal illness? Can you know all or any of that before it plays a role in an operator making a mistake in a well-designed process?

People make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes are due to the process, sometimes not.

act in a professional manner in dealings with ASQ staff.
What's next? A loyalty oath?

being tired from either too much of any activity or poor nutrition,Operator error.

previously undetected physical, eyesight, or hearing deficienciesCould be either.

distraction due to off-the-job issues (maybe some on-the-job issues like pay, benefits, nagging boss, etc. which can't be detected in an audit.)Could be either, and I'm not sure what auditing has to do with it.

sabotage - his own or someone else's to make him a victim. (you have to ask the motive for sabotage - sometimes it is almost justified in the eyes of some as a type of guerilla warfare between management and labor.)Could be either.


Quote: (Originally Posted by Wes Bucey) If the operator is simply incompetent and unable to perform the task, that is a management error in approving the employee to work at such task before determining competency.


Which assumes that it's possible to determine someone's competence before they actually do the work. Perhaps you're blessed with the gift of clairvoyance, but most of us normal humans aren't so outstandingly talented and omniscient.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Wes Bucey) Distraction on-the-job merely means the management did not provide a distraction-free work zone.


Do you believe that it's possible to line up say, 100 people, and walk down the line and accurately predict what might distract one that doesn't distract another? Can you tell in advance which people might have attention deficit issues, or marital problems, or large, painful cysts on their posteriors? Can you tell who got speeding ticket on the way to work, or just found out that a loved one has a terminal illness? Can you know all or any of that before it plays a role in an operator making a mistake in a well-designed process?

People make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes are due to the process, sometimes not.
I believe too many folks are so eager to lay blame on the operator instead of the process, they stop looking for the REAL root cause.

I believe it is possible to train a person to do a task and then to monitor that person in a controlled situation to determine his ability to perform the task on a continual basis before turning him loose to make mistakes because he didn't adequately understand how to perform the task.
(remember the anecdote about the Tickle Me Elmo final inspector who was supposed to give each doll TWO TEST TICKLES and misunderstood the words "TEST TICKLES" to be just one word and sewed two marbles into a sac and attached it to the doll.:eek: )

If an operator is distracted because of a chatty coworker or because of an uncommunicative one, it is not operator error. It is not the operator's error, it is a failure to delve into the root cause to discover the distraction and remove or ameliorate it to prevent recurrence.

If the worker is tired on the job, perhaps the pace is too fast, perhaps the breaks are inadequate for the rigor of the work, perhaps he has to work two or three jobs to put food on the table, perhaps he has to commute a long distance because he can't afford housing near the worksite or a long time to commute via several transfers of public transportation because he can't afford a vehicle. It still behooves management to delve into the root cause and find a way to ameliorate it to prevent recurrence.

I believe the unpreventable errors of operators are few and far between. Certainly, far less than 15% of nonconformances. Most errors currently attributable to operators are really systemic errors which management can prevent with mistake proofing techniques if only the management looks beyond the error or mistake into the PREVENTABLE CAUSE and implements a method to eliminate such cause.

I think you are taking too much credit for the changes made by ASQ. :D