I am very interested in what percentage of quality professionals are asked to "fudge" data in the interest of their company. I have worked for companies that vary from being very serious about ethics to others that expect you to lie and fudge data and if you didn't, they would find someone who would.

Poll Ratings Are:
1 = Expected to lie and fudge on anything
2 = Expected to fudge frequently
3 = Expected to fudge on rare occasions
4 = I would be in trouble with my company if I fudged anything

Also, a similar question is - when interviewing with a company for a job, what questions would you ask to really get a feel for how they stand on ethics.

Thoughts everyone??

I am very interested in what percentage of quality professionals are asked to "fudge" data in the interest of their company. I have worked for companies that vary from being very serious about ethics to others that expect you to lie and fudge data and if you didn't, they would find someone who would.

Poll Ratings Are:
1 = Expected to lie and fudge on anything
2 = Expected to fudge frequently
3 = Expected to fudge on rare occasions
4 = I would be in trouble with my company if I fudged anything

Also, a similar question is - when interviewing with a company for a job, what questions would you ask to really get a feel for how they stand on ethics.

Thoughts everyone??
Serious answer: I am NOT the kind of person anyone would ask to fudge something (I'm pretty sure I understand what YOU mean by fudge, but perhaps you ought to define the term exactly for some of our folks unfamiliar with American slang.)

That is not to say that folks have never tried to fudge things behind my back. Even so, I am not the scream and shout type of guy who screams , "Wrong! Wrong!" if I learn about fudging. I usually go into "didactic" mode to explain how the short-term gain from fudging is often outweighed by long-term consequences when and if it is discovered or detected. Then we go about unwinding the fudge. (Kind of like a mom taking the shoplifting kid back to the candy store to apologize and make amends.)

Because I am always up front about "tell the truth and you won't have to remember lies" AND I follow Deming's precept about removing fear from the workplace, most folks don't feel they have to fudge (especially quality records) to keep from getting punished.

I'm not sure any of the poll choices fit my situation. What would you suggest? [Do not tell me to fudge my answer;)]

Fudge factor

From:

Bartleby.com (http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/F0350550.html)
Wikipedia.org (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Fudge_factor)
Freedictionary.com (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fudge+factor)
Meriam-Webster.com (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fudgefactor)
Stijloor

........I have worked for companies that vary from being very serious about ethics to others that expect you to lie and fudge data and if you didn't, they would find someone who would..................... Also, a similar question is - when interviewing with a company for a job, what questions would you ask to really get a feel for how they stand on ethics.

Thoughts everyone??

'Birds of a feather flocked together' - the ethical types will quickly quit leaving behind the unethical ones and the 'couldn't care' types.

I supposed the most you can ask during a job interview is whether they have ethics committee or policy but then we also have recent cases of the ethics committee not practicing what they preach.

In my opinion, feedback from people who deal with them such as suppliers, contractors or employees from the middle to lower levels could be a better and more accurate way to judge them.

Fudge factor

From:
Bartleby.com (http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/F0350550.html)
Wikipedia.org (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Fudge_factor)
Freedictionary.com (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fudge+factor)
Meriam-Webster.com (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/fudgefactor)Stijloor

"Fudge Factor" is different from the type of "fudging" referred to here. In this context, "fudge" is a verb synonymous with "falsify."

I think it would be pretty unusual for anyone with a fair amount of experience in quality to not have seen it, or done it, to one extent or another. I've had times when I was asked to do it and refused, and no one ever asked me again--although they might have sidestepped me. On the other hands, I was in one situation where it became clear that dishonesty was so ingrained in the company that I just got the heck out at the first opportunity.

"Fudge Factor" is different from the type of "fudging" referred to here. In this context, "fudge" is a verb synonymous with "falsify."

I think it would be pretty unusual for anyone with a fair amount of experience in quality to not have seen it, or done it, to one extent or another. I've had times when I was asked to do it and refused, and no one ever asked me again--although they might have sidestepped me. On the other hands, I was in one situation where it became clear that dishonesty was so ingrained in the company that I just got the heck out at the first opportunity.

Yes, I know what you mean. However, I did a search on "fudge", and not much in terms of what your could call "falsify" turned up. Most of had to do with something high in calories....:D Any place where I should have looked? I am traveling, so I had to leave my trusty dictionary behind.

Stijloor.

I have been fairly fortunate that I have avoided companies that really put pressure to fudge. If they did, I probably would not have worked there for very long.

I wonder if you could correlate employees perception of 'fudging' with mangement ethics and/or views of the QMS. That would be kind of fun.

Yes, I know what you mean. However, I did a search on "fudge", and not much in terms of what your could call "falsify" turned up. Most of had to do with something high in calories....:D Any place where I should have looked? I am traveling, so I had to leave my trusty dictionary behind.

Stijloor.

You may want to look at Answers (dot) com (http://www.answers.com/topic/fudge?cat=technology).

Interesting 'slang' interpretations can be found in the 'urbandictionary dot com'.

Interesting 'slang' interpretations can be found in the 'urbandictionary dot com'.

There's an interesting note on the bottom of their web page:

Urban Dictionary is not appropriate for all audiences. :D

Thank you Harry.

Stijloor.

By Jove! Harry has outstripped Stijloor in the "google me an answer" competition:applause:

Yep. For all of us who are native American slang slingers, "fudge" as a verb means to fake or falsify the facts - for the rest of you folks, fudge, the noun, is a delicious confection sold in all the finer tourist traps in America. I'm partial to the chocolate with pecans variety myself.fudge (fŭj)
n.
A soft rich candy made of sugar, milk, butter, and flavoring.
Nonsense; humbug. v., fudged, fudg·ing, fudg·es. v.tr.
To fake or falsify: fudge casualty figures.
To evade (an issue, for example); dodge.v.intr.
To act in an indecisive manner: always fudged on the important questions.

To go beyond the proper limits of something: fudged on the building code requirements.
To act dishonestly; cheat. [Possibly alteration of fadge, to fit.]
I guess no one ever approached me to fudge facts because I am the up front type of guy who makes his position clear from the outset and carry the kind of gravitas that makes me appear pretty uncorruptable.

My refusal to fudge, however, does not keep me from "spinning" a story about bad situations to make them appear in a better light (what some call "unmitigated disasters" are something I might spin as "great opportunities for learning how to improve our process.")

Added in edit:
When someone uses the phrase, "Oh fudge!" as an epithet, it is "code" for an obscene word also beginning with F.

Added in edit:
When someone uses the phrase, "Oh fudge!" as an epithet, it is "code" for an obscene word also beginning with F.

That's what got Ralphie in trouble in "A Christmas Story."

My trusted Oxford English dictionary gives a slightly gentler definition from this side of the Atlantic compared with the American usage.

fudge

• noun
1 a soft sweet made from sugar, butter, and milk or cream.
2 before another noun chiefly N. Amer. rich chocolate, used as a sauce or a filling for cakes.
3 an attempt to fudge an issue.

• verb
1 present in a vague way, especially to mislead.
2 manipulate (facts or figures) so as to present a desired picture.

— ORIGIN probably from obsolete fadge to fit.

a soft sweet made from sugar, butter, and milk or cream.

:topic:Thanks a lot, Tyker!! Now I will be fantasizing about vanilla fudge for the rest of the day... ;) :topic:

:topic:Thanks a lot, Tyker!! Now I will be fantasizing about vanilla fudge for the rest of the day... ;) :topic:

Just to add to your pain:
http://uktv.co.uk/food/recipe/aid/513459
:)

Back on topic. Many years ago, I used to work for part of General Motors in Europe. Although fudging wasn't actually part of the job description it was widely understood to be a necessary competence and it's an ability I've never lost. To be fair, we were nowhere near as good at fudging as GM Brazil who were universally recognized as the centre of excellence for that technique.:(

I've been in places where fudging is accepted practice and other places where you would get fired.

Have I fudged?
Well - yes and no. In my QA Engineer days I would occasionally modify specs to make the data fit, but never changed data to make it fit the spec.

These days most of my "fudging" is covering my people against rules I don't agree with until I can get those rules changed.

Hi Greg, thanks for the interesting topic - the only change I'd probably make in the poll would have been to add a midpoint on the fudging frequency between frequent and occasionally - basically where I feel I currently fit in.

Coming into the steel industry in the mid-1970's around Pittsburgh, PA the plant I worked for then conciously fudged chemistries on their low carbon grades - they made grades they called 1005-A, B, or C depending primarily on carbon and sulfur content that ended up as automotive sheet. It was common practice for the metallurgists to "fudge" (actually we called it pull) the analysis for those 2 elements within analytical limits to make a B an A or a C a B if results weren't what was expected. I left that job in 1976 - pulling chemistries was part of the reason for leaving, though not what I told the organization when I left. I should note that the plant in question is no longer in existance - it went under in the 1980's.

I haven't had to do that at any other position until I got shifted to the current position in QC about 1 and 1/2 years ago. The Lab manager and former QC engineer hadn't maintained good calibration practices and we set specifications with the noncalibrated equipment, when I calibrated the equipment we started getting results that were out of specification. Our response as dictated by the manager, who is now our QA Director was to use the old out of cal equipment to produce results that are in spec. for the customer.

What annoys me about the situation is that we didn't uncover it during any quality system audits of the lab. It also annoys the hell out of me to have to do the fudging, and is a major impetus to change organizations. The only redeeming fact is that our customers apparently have no trouble using the material produced - we've had no complaints regarding the materials where we've fudged the tests.

What annoys me about the situation is that we didn't uncover it during any quality system audits of the lab.That would bother me too. I wonder why it wasn't noticed? Or was it noticed and not recorded? I heard there is a whistle blower lawsuit against a Toyota plant (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/27/business/AS-FIN-COM-Japan-Toyota-Whistleblower.php) in which the audit program was discouraged (to put it nicely) from highlighting problems.

Jennifer, I was one of the lab auditors on at least some of the audits and I didn't catch it - didn't dig deeply enough, something to consider in future positions.

It's been awhile since I audited the lab, so the equipment might have been OK during my audits. Members of our Tech Center have apparently known several of the failings, but never brought their concerns to the appropriate level of attention. Since taking this position they have mentioned them to me.

The Tech Center manager also audited the lab and never identified/found the issues. I've had to calibrate equipment, and have gone back over old calibration records for instruments such as micrometers - it's apparent that the prior position holder didn't even have a good idea of calibration - you don't calibrate a micrometer and get 5 readings of 0.25000" for a .25000" gage block, you "dance around the true value". But somehow he managed to do get those 5 identical readings for all gage blocks checked for all micrometers, same for analytical balances, and some other instruments.

I'm not certain the issues would have been welcomed by our quality system anyway - we have real issues correcting/clearing nonconformances. But, we do have our quality system certificates to ISO/TS, ISO 9001-2000, etc. :o

I've been in places where fudging is accepted practice and other places where you would get fired.

Have I fudged?
Well - yes and no. In my QA Engineer days I would occasionally modify specs to make the data fit, but never changed data to make it fit the spec.

These days most of my "fudging" is covering my people against rules I don't agree with until I can get those rules changed.

Good thought, Scott. For example, many times with equipment/ instrumentation, there may be a wide acceptable tolerance. Thus, a user may want to know the capability and then set a wide tolerance from that. But never is the data changed. In prior jobs I have been asked to change data (which I flatly refused).

I have never been asked to "fudge" anything, however, I have seen the information that I supplied put aside and ignored.
In the Navy, I always kept a "Memo to file" just in case that a bit of info was forgotten.
I agree with Wes, why lie? It will all come out in the wash and by that time the problem will have grown!

I've worked for some business that were really "weird" about fudging. In some cases it was okay, but in other times it was frowned upon. Where I am at now, it expected that we remain above board on all occasions.

I don't think I've ever worked for a company that flat out cheated a customer, although I know of more than one occasion where a problem that should have been fixed was never addressed with the customer.

I have never been asked to "fudge" anything at my current employer. I have found evidence of fudging during internal audits - those types of findings have been very touchy to report. I don't write up anything in the audit report but I do turn it over to our ethics and compliance department. On more than one occasion those types of findings have resulted in disciplinary actions.

Shading interpetations is one thing. Fudging data has to be absolutely verboten, otherwise how can management tell what is really happening? Back when I ran a quality department, when I was interviewing prospective candidates (internal or external) for inspector and auditor positions, I expressed one unbreakable rule. Intentionally falsify a report, and you are GONE. One of my favorite lines in fiction is where Lois McMaster Bujold has a character (a failure analysis engineer) tell a group of students "This next slide is the most evil thing you will ever see in you lives. THIS is a falsified inspection report!"

Geoff Withnell

I had an interesting experience with my first analysis job for my first employer at Hanford. My predecessor turned over to me that he hated the job, the manager always made him falsify data to go on the charts, etc etc.

I quickly found this to not be the case. Indeed I was never asked to change any data. I did on rare occasion get the question "Can't you make this look any better?" (but not from the manager in question) to which I always calmly answered "No", and they always went away at that point.

I have heard the rumor that my manager's career was cut short by continuing to go forth with some of the "bad news" that some of my charts portrayed.

I did have interesting early experience with people not accepting the SPC control limits on charts. In one "war room" that posted charts that I made, you could tell someone had laboriously gone through with "white-out" and painted over all of the control limits. Of course, you could tell where the control limits were by the line of white out on the chart.

Yahoo featured a story about lying just yesterday, I wish I could bring it back up. The average person lies 2 to 3 times a day, its a scientific fact...of course I wouldn't say that everyone here is average. :D

I refuse to vote self incrimination. Let he that is without sin cast the first stone! :notme:

Thanks for all the input. Perhaps there are different types of fudging:).

A very mild flavored fudge might include twisting the facts regarding a corrective action (spin) to present the root cause and actions taken in a way less damaging to the company.

Typical fudge may include things like accepting product that is .001" or .01 mm out attributing this to potential measurement error.

A "richer" fudge (possibly including nuts or other stuff) may be changing calibration, first article results, inspection results, "tweaking" capability results from a CPK of 1.65 to 1.67 (or should this be typical fudge), changing gage R & R results to make them acceptable (once I was ordered by a company President to "fudge" (the exact word he used) the results).

The poll results so far are pretty limited :(.

Thanks for all the input. Perhaps there are different types of fudging:).

A very mild flavored fudge might include twisting the facts regarding a corrective action (spin) to present the root cause and actions taken in a way less damaging to the company.

Typical fudge may include things like accepting product that is .001" or .01 mm out attributing this to potential measurement error.

A "richer" fudge (possibly including nuts or other stuff) may be changing calibration, first article results, inspection results, "tweaking" capability results from a CPK of 1.65 to 1.67 (or should this be typical fudge), changing gage R & R results to make them acceptable (once I was ordered by a company President to "fudge" (the exact word he used) the results).

The poll results so far are pretty limited :(.

I learned a long time ago to check results from suppliers when the results are important, and close to the spec limits. Fudging (or "nudging") an out-of-tolerance result when it's very close to the limit is common in such things as castings, where there might be hundreds of callouts on a drawing but only a relative few that actually need to be within the block tolerance. The choice is to do expensive (and time-consuming) die rework or report an insignificant dimension as being in tolerance and hope for the best. I'm not endorsing this practice, mind you, just telling what often happens. There are indeed degrees of fudginess, and quality people are faced with this sort of decision all the time.

I learned a long time ago to check results from suppliers when the results are important, and close to the spec limits. Fudging (or "nudging") an out-of-tolerance result when it's very close to the limit is common in such things as castings....

Not just castings, and it is common anytime the measurements are numeric. You know it's going on if you plot a frequency histogram of readings and find very few values that are close to the limit but outside it. You may also find a lot of values that are close to the limit but inside it.

Not just castings, and it is common anytime the measurements are numeric. You know it's going on if you plot a frequency histogram of readings and find very few values that are close to the limit but outside it. You may also find a lot of values that are close to the limit but inside it.

I think you meant "close to the limit but not outside it"? I agree. I've always found it funny that suppliers who claim awareness of basic statistics don't seem to realize that having lots of measurements hovering around the spec limits but never going past them is fishy.

If i were asked to "fudge" something I would provide my professional opinion and politely excuse myself. In the past this actually happened to me, I provided my view and what needs to be done and at that time I excused myself and later resigned from the company as i lost respect for the president of that organization due to their end result.

A great interview question to ask which will catch anyone off guard is;

"What is the riskiest decision you have had to make in your professional career?”

WRT fudging, I am working on an exit strategy due to circumstances in the current position - currently not certain if I want to list the need to fudge as 1 of the reasons for leaving during an exit interview, I've always taken the position of moving on for career purposes, rather than exposing/attacking dirty laundry. However, this one is so annoying it's tempting to change my position for once during my career.

I think you meant "close to the limit but not outside it"? I agree. I've always found it funny that suppliers who claim awareness of basic statistics don't seem to realize that having lots of measurements hovering around the spec limits but never going past them is fishy.

Hmmm, what did I mean?:confused:

I was thinking about a process under statistical control, but not capable. A frequency histogram of the product's numerical measurement, length, say, will follow a normal distribution, but the ends of the bell-shaped curve will be outside the spec limits.

If fudging is going on, you will see two distortions in the reported data. First, there will be a notch just outside the specification, because the QC checks are under-reporting the just-barely-bad test data. Second, you will see a peak just inside the specification, because the just-barely-bad data has been fudged to be just-barely-good.

As a customer, you would never see the notch because the supplier never ships you bad product, right?:tg: But the internal QC guy would see it if he graphed his results.

So I think we're talking about the same thing, I just wasn't clear before. (Where is the emoticon for "slaps forehead?")

WRT fudging, I am working on an exit strategy due to circumstances in the current position - currently not certain if I want to list the need to fudge as 1 of the reasons for leaving during an exit interview, I've always taken the position of moving on for career purposes, rather than exposing/attacking dirty laundry. However, this one is so annoying it's tempting to change my position for once during my career.

Don't burn this bridge.

Unethical people are also pretty likely to be vindictive.

Don't burn this bridge.

Unethical people are also pretty likely to be vindictive.Amen, brother! When in doubt, take a deep breath and then . . . talk about the weather.

:lol:Amen, brother! When in doubt, take a deep breath and then . . . talk about the weather.

Good advice.

Wellll - it probably won't be the weather, but it will be along the general lines of leaving for career growth. Wes & Cliff - thanks to both for your comments. I also discussed with SWMBO last night, who was of the same opinion regarding burning bridges.

I don't typically burn bridges, but it is very tempting in this case - again, no plans on follwing the temptation through.

Wellll - it probably won't be the weather, but it will be along the general lines of leaving for career growth. Wes & Cliff - thanks to both for your comments. I also discussed with SWMBO last night, who was of the same opinion regarding burning bridges.

I don't typically burn bridges, but it is very tempting in this case - again, no plans on follwing the temptation through.

Good luck!