I was just wondering if anyone here has any insight into the happenings with ASQ's Lean division? It is pretty quiet over there and has been for the past year. I remember some initial contact back in October '05 regarding the BOK, and a few rounds of e-mails and then nothing. I had some e-mail correspondence, and a phone conversation earlier this year with Linda regarding the lack of communication after failed attempts at contacting the chair at that point in time.

Wayne

Hey, Wayne!

Good question. Bill, Wes, Wesley, and others probably have a bit more of an 'inside' track than I. There are several forums that seem to have waned in activity. Not sure if individuals don't know they exist, don't feel there is adequate assistance available, etc. It's possible that many have wisely utilized the search functions and found their answers (this site and ASQ).

Good moderators make a huge difference. I have said this before: Thank you to all those who put in the time to keep the forums professional and useful.

I was just wondering if anyone here has any insight into the happenings with ASQ's Lean division? It is pretty quiet over there and has been for the past year. I remember some initial contact back in October '05 regarding the BOK, and a few rounds of e-mails and then nothing. I had some e-mail correspondence, and a phone conversation earlier this year with Linda regarding the lack of communication after failed attempts at contacting the chair at that point in time.

Wayne

On ASQ's site there's a "Chair's Message (http://www.asq.org/le/)" that says in part,
We are on the way to becoming a full division of ASQ. The paperwork is submitted and approved by the Division Affairs Council. We are awaiting ASQ board approval.

Similar to what Wes said in June of this year in this post (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=154405#poststop) here at the Cove:
My fellow ASQ members of the Lean "Forum" (soon to be upgraded to "Division" status - mainly a bookkeeping thing within ASQ) are still struggling with creating a Body of Knowledge for Lean because there is no consensus of how to implement Lean.

There's this list of forum leaders (http://www.asq.org/le/leadership/index.html) on the ASQ site; perhaps one of them can shed some light.

Jim, I'm aware of that message, but that page was last updated in July. Three months later and no news on any of it.

As I mentioned, I had initial correspondence regarding the BOK in October '05 with either George Alukal or Tony Manos (I'd have to check my e-mail). I also had contact with Linda Malinowski regarding the lack of communication (basically none) within the division. I also made an attempt to contact Bob Johnson regarding the BOK back on July 13th.

Wayne

Jim, I'm aware of that message, but that page was last updated in July. Three months later and no news on any of it.

As I mentioned, I had initial correspondence regarding the BOK in October '05 with either George Alukal or Tony Manos (I'd have to check my e-mail). I also had contact with Linda Malinowski regarding the lack of communication (basically none) within the division. I also made an attempt to contact Bob Johnson regarding the BOK back on July 13th.

Wayne

I just sent an e-mail message to everyone listed at the link I provided earlier, telling them that this discussion was going on, and inviting them to drop in here and comment. We'll see what happens.

I'm afraid that ASQ Lean is repeating some of the Six Sigma history. The folks pushing the Forum/Division are not technically knowledgeable of what is Lean, it is just the latest fad/buzzword/way to make inroads/way to make money. The fact that they can't come up with a BOK is very telling.:2cents:

Thanks for the commentary Steve. The posting, of which a similar question was posed in the ASQ Lean Discussion Forum, stems from an impression that there has been no real activity in over a year. It's possible that my perception is completely unfounded, but it is based on the attempts I've made towards developing a BOK and the communications I've attempted.

At the least, it should be interesting to see what develops, in this forum as well as ASQ's.

Wayne

Thanks for the commentary Steve. The posting, of which a similar question was posed in the ASQ Lean Discussion Forum, stems from an impression that there has been no real activity in over a year. It's possible that my perception is completely unfounded, but it is based on the attempts I've made towards developing a BOK and the communications I've attempted.

At the least, it should be interesting to see what develops, in this forum as well as ASQ's.

Wayne

I've had one response to my e-mail, and it indicates that there is some movement going on. My correspondent, who shall remain nameless for the present time, apparently missed my link to this thread and my invitation to participate here, so I made a second request. Stay tuned.

A few thoughts:

I like innovation as much as the next person. I like to see people passionate about quality. But there just seems to be something about Quality Fads, be it TQM, Reengineering, Six Sigma, Lean, that is broken.

Whatever the fad is:

1. It wants to convince you that what you have been doing is "wrong".

2. It wants you to hire the new bunch of experts

3. The existing experts are marginalized. They are kept out, rather than incorporated into the new fad.

4. Managers don't understand the new fad, but know if they don't throw money at it, they will be in trouble from their managers (or stockholders)

5. Massive claims of dollar savings are made, while spending massive amounts of money.

6. The "cheerleaders" latch on with little knowledge of quality tools, or the history of the organization and take charge. Anyone against the fad is a communist (or equivalent).

7. The search for the next fad begins.

A few thoughts:

I like innovation as much as the next person. I like to see people passionate about quality. But there just seems to be something about Quality Fads, be it TQM, Reengineering, Six Sigma, Lean, that is broken.

Whatever the fad is:

1. It wants to convince you that what you have been doing is "wrong".

2. It wants you to hire the new bunch of experts

3. The existing experts are marginalized. They are kept out, rather than incorporated into the new fad.

4. Managers don't understand the new fad, but know if they don't throw money at it, they will be in trouble from their managers (or stockholders)

5. Massive claims of dollar savings are made, while spending massive amounts of money.

6. The "cheerleaders" latch on with little knowledge of quality tools, or the history of the organization and take charge. Anyone against the fad is a communist (or equivalent).

7. The search for the next fad begins.


I agree wholeheartedly, except that I have a tendency to cut Lean a bit of slack, while still being wary of the inevitable false prophets and their deafening buzzing. The essence of Lean thinking, which is "find and eliminate waste," is laudable. It's some of the consultants, would-be gurus and other bandwagon jumpers who have muddied the waters. The same can't be said for SS, which is nothing more than hype built on a foundation of muddled thinking and overcomplication.

The Lean Body of Knowledge (at a macro level) was discussed on the ASQ Lean Forum website last year for a few months and revised/modified based on member input. To get to the micro detailed-level of the BOK, and to take it to the ASQ certification phase, currently we have the ASQ Certification Board involved. By the end of this year, we expect the Cert Board to approve the process and in 2007 “Lean” could become another approved ASQ BOK (fully fleshed out) and be on the way to ASQ Certification.

Jim Wynne suggested that I respond to this discussion on this board.

The Lean Body of Knowledge (at a macro level) was discussed on the ASQ Lean Forum website last year for a few months and revised/modified based on member input. To get to the micro detailed-level of the BOK, and to take it to the ASQ certification phase, currently we have the ASQ Certification Board involved. By the end of this year, we expect the Cert Board to approve the process and in 2007 “Lean” could become another approved ASQ BOK (fully fleshed out) and be on the way to ASQ Certification.

Jim Wynne suggested that I respond to this discussion on this board.

Thanks for dropping in, George. :agree1:

ASQ has a real problem in that they continue to create new discussion topic forums but do not have an appropriate system for managing the discussions. Although some forums have moderators they are the exception rather than the rule and ASQ does not have super moderators like the Cove where they can be involved with monitoring discussion threads or even spurring new discussion. A small group of us have been working with ASQ to improve the board but it is a slow process.

The Lean forum had Ginger Lee Rockey Johnson has a moderator but she stepped down earlier in the year. Since then the forum has no moderator and is seldom used. Of course, that is true of many ASQ forums. Many of the ASQ divisions had created private discussion boards for division members only. In an "improvement" effort, ASQ opened all division boards to the public. Public means everyone not just ASQ members. This was done over the objection of some of the divisions because they wanted them kept for division use including communication of division announcements.

When reading these division sponsored forums, it is apparent that division members think they are just for themselves. If there was widespread communication and support of the division forums then they could be a useful tool for those members with specific interests such as Lean. In reality, division members post messages and may not get any responses from their own membership. When that happens, regular ASQ board participants do post responses as a courtesy rather than having them sit out there with no responses. Since the Lean forum does not have a moderator and does not encourage regular use of the forum, the end result is what Wayne has noticed - minimal use of the forum.

I will admit that there has been some contentious postings on the Lean board. Some of the arguments were over misinterpretation or misuse of Japanese terms that were corrected by Akio Miura, a Japanese quality consultant and active ASQ member. There were other arguments over Lean being a fad that was being marketed as new when it borrowed many of the terminology and techniques from industrial engineering. These discussions may have turned off the few Lean Division members that did frequent the forum. I do find it ironic that Wayne posted a similar question on the ASQ lean forum but then felt the need to ask the question at the Cove in hopes of getting a response. This thread has already had significantly more discussion than his thread on the ASQ board including finally getting a response from an ASQ Lean division member.

(Addtional note added: I just checked the ASQ board and Wayne's question about Lean division status was posted at 9:26 AM and remains without a response.)

Bill Pflanz

I'm really not comfortable speaking ex cathedra about the Lean Forum (soon to be a Division.) When I signed on early in the history, we were the "Advanced Manufacturing Interest Group" which avoided the use of the buzz word "Lean." I'm not even sure I recall when and who led the charge to convert to "Lean" nor what our consensus reasoning was.

Ginger's clueless cheerleading was a joke and only a minor embarrassment for those of us members who know and have practiced Lean techniques for years wihout feeling the need to import someone's warmed over Japanese which was merely a bad Japanese translation of American English terms rising out of the post WWII reconstruction of Japanese industry.

Certainly, George Alukal, Tony Manos, and Kam Gupta, among others (including me), have been able to instill the principles of efficiency into the operations of our own organizations and of clients without resorting to mindless mantras and slogans. Efficient housekeeping helps organzations - why elevate the 5S slogan and deify it as Ginger seemed to? Most workers I have encountered in forty years of business life ridicule such idiocy and are insulted that consultants and managers (the pointy-haired bosses of Dilbert notoriety) treat the workers like brain-damaged monkeys.

The reason we (Lean Forum) haven't settled on a BOK is that few of us use exactly the same techniques and even then we change and adapt them to fit the organization instead of trying to cram every organization into the same size shoes. We just may not need a separate BOK! We probably don't need to certify practitioners, either.

Does that make me a heretic? Maybe, but there are enough of us to start and maintain our own religion! ISO-style quality and business management systems are really just good common sense - same thing with Lean. The problem begins when some schmuck trying to sell a book or get a consulting contract implies or says outright HE/SHE has a secret, easy way to achieve success.

Whether we call it Six Sigma or just a rework of Shewart, it's simply a matter of tracking what we do to try to get the most efficient, effective process we can which is then (TA DA!) "Lean." I'm not H. Ross Perot saying, "It's just this easy!" I am saying it takes "continual" effort and vigilence to eliminate waste and to keep it from creeping back in the form of a bloated theocracy of 6S and Lean priests trying to jusify their existence.

I'm really not comfortable speaking ex cathedra about the Lean Forum (soon to be a Division.)

You sound comfortable to me. Sorry, Wes, I couldn't resist.

You brought up another good issue and that is the proliferation of certifications which is another money maker for ASQ and consultants. One of the problems with this specialization is that those who go down that path get locked into certain techniques and methodologies rather than using the right tools at the right time.

You hear over and over that quality professionals should work themselves out of job. As you noted, waste creeps back in and continual improvement is always desired. Any and all tools should be used in that effort.

Bill Pflanz

Being a former ASQ Member, I was wondering if the ASQ Forum Managers discuss the possible incorporation of a "New" Discussion Board-sub board? :notme:

I still actively visit the ASQ Boards (only ones open to the Public) and respond to posts that catch my interest and suggest the poster visits the Cove.

Much of the dirty laundry now hanging in this thread shoud probably be left in the ASQ forums; most of us have no idea and couldn't care less about who Ginger is or how his/her alleged cluelessness has affected anything. But this statement seems to be on topic here:

The reason we (Lean Forum) haven't settled on a BOK is that few of us use exactly the same techniques and even then we change and adapt them to fit the organization instead of trying to cram every organization into the same size shoes.

Contrast this with what Mr. Alukal said here earlier:
By the end of this year, we expect the Cert Board to approve the process and in 2007 “Lean” could become another approved ASQ BOK (fully fleshed out) and be on the way to ASQ Certification.There seems to be a significant disconnection somewhere. Is there something we're missing here?

Contrast this with what Mr. Alukal said here earlier:. . .
There seems to be a significant disconnection somewhere. Is there something we're missing here?You betcha!

There is no dissension regardng the concept of eliminating waste and making the ENTIRE supply chain more efficient versus "shoving the waste [and costs] on to another link in the supply chain."

The dissension comes where some folks want to impose a jargon of secondhand Japanese terms and semi-religious rituals on to what is essentially a program of efficiency which arose (and subsequenty sank) in
America during the post WWII industrial boom. The reasons for the subsiding of efficiency in America need to be explored and cautioned against. We do not need the "false history" of attributing warmed over American business techniques to some Japanese individuals as if they had created them out of whole cloth.

My colleague, Akio Miura, has repeatedly debunked such claims, citing chapter and verse from American manuals dated in the 40's and 50's.

If you really want to raise my hackles and the ire of a number of my colleagues, offer to give us a free "kaizen guide" like this printing firm (name deleted on purpose)
Use the form below to request
your FREE Kaizen Quick Start Guide today!

This guide provides a concise introduction to Kaizen. It describes Kaizen, how it works and the benefits that result from using Kaizen. It also describes how the Kaizen system may be implemented in most workplaces. The topics covered include:

Introduction to the Kaizen Philosophy
Definition of Kaizen
Constant Improvement
Problem Solving
Standardization
The Suggestion System
Process-Oriented Thinking
Kaizen vs. Innovation
Management Support of KaizenWe are not talking here of a petty dispute over the difference between "continuous improvement" and "continual improvement," but of a system (as practiced in Japan) that eschews planning in favor of nonstop brainstorming, contributing to wasted effort instead of reducing it.

An excerpt from Wikipedia Kaizen (改善, Japanese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_language) for "change for the better" or "improvement", the English translation is "continuous improvement", or "continual improvement.") is an approach to productivity improvement originating in applications of the work of American experts such as Frederick Winslow Taylor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor), Frank Bunker Gilbreth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Bunker_Gilbreth), Walter Shewhart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Shewhart), and of the War Department's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_War) Training Within Industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Training_Within_Industry) program by Japanese manufacturers after World War II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II). The development of Kaizen went hand-in-hand with that of quality control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_control) circles, but it was not limited to quality assurance.

. . .
Kaizen is often misunderstood and applied incorrectly, resulting in bad outcomes including, for example, layoffs. This is called "kaiaku" - literally, "change for the worse." Layoffs are not the intent of kaizen. Instead, kaizen must be practiced in tandem with the "Respect for People" principle. Without "Respect for People," there can be no continuous improvement. Instead, the usual result is one-time gains that quickly fade.
Importantly, kaizen must operate with three principles in place: process and results (not results-only); systemic thinking (i.e. big picture, not solely the narrow view); and non-judgmental, non-blaming (because blaming is wasteful).
Everyone participates in kaizen; people of all levels in an organization, from the CEO on down, as well as external stakeholders if needed. The format for kaizen can be individual, suggestion system, small group, or large group.
The only way to truly understand the intent, meaning, and power of kaizen is through direct participation, many, many times

If it's OK, I would like to return to my earlier post on this topic regarding moderators. My initial moderator comment may have seen as if it is coming from left field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_moderator

You have the website/software, givers/takers of information, and the moderators. No matter how good the software is, or the givers/takers, if there is not a strong, effective moderator presence, the forum will not be effective. That analysis may certainly be up for debate, but is certainly my opinion.

As I have observed using the ASQ site, I do not see a matrix of strong moderators. Instead, one can go to the site right now, and figure out fairly quickly who the stronger moderators are (most of them active in the Cove), as those discussion forums are well maintained. This is certainly not directed towards any one person or the site. It's a process thing. There is little process, and a lot going through one individual's door.

(I'm leaving the forum name blank XXX, as this is not meant to be an attack. But my comments about it are accurate)
Take for example, forum XXX. It has very little activity. All of a sudden, an individual post some really novel, but unbased idea. Four or five people post to engage/challenge the original post. After those, nothing.

A couple of months later, an individual again posts some novel ideas, this time with some links to articles. The articles are non-substantive, choppy, poorly referenced, etc. Again, four or five people post to engage/challenge the original post. After those, nothing. ( At the time of this posting here in the Cove, this thread has had like 18 posts and 200+ viewings in one day).

Where are the moderators? Where are the subject experts? Are there any? There is no challenge of the subject, there is no addition of information, no posts by individuals affiliated with forum XXXX to support. Nothing. These forums have become a source of amusement for me; watching the quiet little town, ride in and shoot up the town, then ride out again.

I just wanted to clarify why I brought up moderators under this thread. My opinion is that if there were stronger moderator presence in the thread(s), and those seeking to educate, to learn; those using the concepts providing do's/don'ts in the workplace, more activity would occur. Until then, the threads just begin to fade into the woodwork, becoming like the silly little quality signs we all make fun of in organizations that no one reads, or takes seriously.
:2cents:

If it's OK, I would like to return to my earlier post on this topic regarding moderators. My initial moderator comment may have seen as if it is coming from left field.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_moderator

You have the website/software, givers/takers of information, and the moderators. No matter how good the software is, or the givers/takers, if there is not a strong, effective moderator presence, the forum will not be effective. That analysis may certainly be up for debate, but is certainly my opinion.

As I have observed using the ASQ site, I do not see a matrix of strong moderators. Instead, one can go to the site right now, and figure out fairly quickly who the stronger moderators are (most of them active in the Cove), as those discussion forums are well maintained. This is certainly not directed towards any one person or the site. It's a process thing. There is little process, and a lot going through one individual's door.

(I'm leaving the forum name blank XXX, as this is not meant to be an attack. But my comments about it are accurate)
Take for example, forum XXX. It has very little activity. All of a sudden, an individual post some really novel, but unbased idea. Four or five people post to engage/challenge the original post. After those, nothing.

A couple of months later, an individual again posts some novel ideas, this time with some links to articles. The articles are non-substantive, choppy, poorly referenced, etc. Again, four or five people post to engage/challenge the original post. After those, nothing. ( At the time of this posting here in the Cove, this thread has had like 18 posts and 200+ viewings in one day).

Where are the moderators? Where are the subject experts? Are there any? There is no challenge of the subject, there is no addition of information, no posts by individuals affiliated with forum XXXX to support. Nothing. These forums have become a source of amusement for me; watching the quiet little town, ride in and shoot up the town, then ride out again.

I just wanted to clarify why I brought up moderators under this thread. My opinion is that if there were stronger moderator presence in the thread(s), and those seeking to educate, to learn; those using the concepts providing do's/don'ts in the workplace, more activity would occur. Until then, the threads just begin to fade into the woodwork, becoming like the silly little quality signs we all make fun of in organizations that no one reads, or takes seriously.
:2cents:

As I stated in my comment:

Being a former ASQ Member, I was wondering if the ASQ Forum Managers discuss the possible incorporation of a "New" Discussion Board-sub board?

I still actively visit the ASQ Boards (only ones open to the Public) and respond to posts that catch my interest and suggest the poster visits the Cove.

Since maintaining a specific Forum and/or board would fall under a process, because there are steps/rules that are specifically specified and a service is provided, is there any internal audits performed on the process?

The moderators are usually chosen, because they have the ability and knowledge to help provide guidance/enlightenment to the poster's questions. To keep the focus on specific ideas/questions.

As you can see here in the Cove we have the best Moderators assisting in accomplishing the goals of providing guidance and suggestions to questions.

I fully understand that the ASQ is trying to improve their forums/discussions boards. Since a lot of the members of the ASQ spend a lot time participating here (Cove) and there (ASQ). Which also some of them are moderators.

I feel the major differences between the Moderators here at the Cove and the ASQ is that there is such a diverse knowledge base and are from different parts of the World (and probably the best communication behind the scenes). Therefore, the Cove always has someone here (24-7) moderating as necessary, to help make the users experiences enjoyable.

By the way I think we might be going :topic: from the original post which was asking:

I was just wondering if anyone here has any insight into the happenings with ASQ's Lean division? It is pretty quiet over there and has been for the past year. I remember some initial contact back in October '05 regarding the BOK, and a few rounds of e-mails and then nothing. I had some e-mail correspondence, and a phone conversation earlier this year with Linda regarding the lack of communication after failed attempts at contacting the chair at that point in time.

Wayne

I think that this discussion regarding the differences between Moderators might need to be addressed in a separate post.

I just sent an e-mail message to everyone listed at the link I provided earlier, telling them that this discussion was going on, and inviting them to drop in here and comment. We'll see what happens.

For what it's worth, I sent the message to the nine different people listed in the ASQ Lean Forum link, and received only one response. Thankfully, that response came from George Alukal, who was good enough to respond here. The other eight are just MIA, I guess.