This is a press release (March 15, 2004) from ASQ.
I'm interested in comments from both ASQ members and non-members.

I've put this in the Coffee Break arena to allow more "emotion" regarding the topic than we normally exhibit in our "educational" threads.

I would expect comments regarding the basic topic (excutive perception of Quality) and the role ASQ plays, including the advisability of hiring a market research firm from Milwaukee to perform this study. Is there any relationship between ASQ elected officials or staff and this company? How was it chosen? etc. etc. (The "full report" mentioned is a series of PowerPoint slides - my pet peeve!)
EXECUTIVES BELIEVE QUALITY CONTRIBUTES TO BOTTOM LINE, BUT DEFINITIONS OF QUALITY VARY
MILWAUKEE – A survey sponsored by The American Society for Quality (ASQ) and conducted by Market Probe reveals that a vast majority of American executives believe quality contributes to the bottom line of their businesses/organizations, but the way they define quality varies.

More than 600 American executives from four industry segments—manufacturing, services (including government), healthcare, and education—provided their perspectives on the value that quality brings to their businesses/organizations. Ninety-nine percent of respondents said they believed quality contributes to the bottom line, and 92% believe that an organization-wide, coordinated effort to use quality techniques provides a positive return.

Defining quality did not elicit such uniform agreement. Sixty-four percent of respondents believe that quality is a management tool, while the remaining 36% view quality as being built into a product and service, but not necessarily a management tool. When asked to define quality, a majority of respondents equated quality to “customer satisfaction.”
“It's encouraging to know that most executives, no matter what industry, believe in the practice of quality and the value that it can bring to their businesses, not just in terms of economic return, but also in the form of customer satisfaction,” said Ken Case, ASQ president. “However, it is a bit disconcerting that many executives do not view quality as a business management tool when many of the continuous improvement efforts practiced in business today grew out of the quality discipline and the work of quality professionals.”
The survey also shows that there is a gap between executives' awareness of quality improvement processes and implementation. When asked about their awareness and usage of benchmarking, total quality management, quality circles, ISO 9000, Six Sigma, and Baldrige, respondents from all four industry segments reported high awareness and usage of total quality management and benchmarking. And, given quality's roots in the manufacturing industry, it came as no surprise that manufacturing executives report greater awareness of ISO 9000, quality circles, Six Sigma, and Baldrige than leaders in the services healthcare, and education sectors. Actual use of the six techniques across all industries as indicated by survey respondents, however, was considerably lower than reported awareness.

“The sizeable gap between usage and awareness leads me to believe that businesses and organizations either do not use quality methodologies to improve their operations or they just don't realize that the processes they have in place are attributable directly to the quality discipline,” said Case.

A full report of the findings, including industry-specific breakdown of responses and demographics, can be found on ASQ's Web site at www.asq.org/survey/ (http://www.asq.org/survey/).
The American Society for Quality (ASQ) is the world's leading authority on quality. The 104,000-member professional association advances learning, quality improvement, and knowledge exchange to improve business results, and to create better workplaces and communities worldwide. As champion of the quality movement, ASQ offers technologies, concepts, tools, and training to quality professionals, quality practitioners, and everyday consumers. Headquartered in Milwaukee , the 58-year-old organization also administers the U.S. Commerce Department's Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and is a founding partner of the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), a prominent quarterly economic indicator.

Press Contact:
Chris Lochemes
clochemes@asq.org (clochemes@asq.org)
800-248-1946
March 15, 2004

I choose to think that ASQ's sponsoring this study is not compromisng it like, say, the small group of government sponsored scientists that disagree with the overwhelming worldwide body of scientists on global environmental matters... :rolleyes:

My admittedly unscientific poll of MBAs of my acquiaintance has uncovered no evidence yet that Quality (with a capital Q per Tim Folkert's very nice definition) is being taught to business students. They get some theory, but are not well trained in its deployment until after they hit the work force.

What experience they get is then subject to the practices, good or flawed, of the company (one or more) they work for. GE's Six Sigma has made Quality fashionable again, but true Quality is still a job being done, I dare to say, by someone else. They could also go on to any number of business specialties (like finance) and drift away from Quality completely.

I recently read of a summer course titled Breakthrough Customer Satisfaction at Harvard Business School. That's progress, I think.

So, no, the survey results do not surprise me at all.

Do the same survey around here and I think I know how it will turn out, sigh.

Jennifer

What executive in his/her right mind is going to say that they don't believe that Quality has an impact to their business? They may as well just tear up their ISO certification letter on the spot. That's like asking "Do you think companies should behave ethically?" I'd be more interested in a breakdown of the 1% who didn't think Quality affected their bottom lines.

Asking a non-question like that leads me to think that ASQ might have - just maybe - had a particular agenda in mind for the survey...

Here's some more great survey questions:
Do you think the economy affects your business?
Do you think weather affects farming?
Did you know your Mom hates you?

I thought the same thing when I read Wes's post (moments ago) Zman. What an underwhelming sense of the obvious!

It is like the statement that 9 out of 10 dentists prefer sugarless for their patients who chew gum. Only that one dentist knows where his paycheck comes from. :tg:

And after attending the ASQ AQC for the last few days, and hearing Ken Case and others speak, my confidence level has not improved dramatically.

Most of the discussions were either touchy-feely (e.g. "the human side of six sigma") or debates regarding definition. But I did learn that, yes indeed, my mom loves me.

NOTE: There were some very good presentations at AQC as well.

I'm glad I'm not the only one, Rob. I find logic - at least in my market segment - tends to be an ill-regarded and under-utilized tool.

I suppose that Wes probably already had that thought in mind when he made the post, so I'll try to take a stab at the other content.

My experience is that executives are not in the business of having an opinion on quality. They're in the business of making the Board of Directors happy who, in turn, are in the business of making the shareholders happy. While I'm sure they're all aware of quality issues and programs and the like, they will err on the side of making money when push comes to shove. If that means allowing product out the door to make sales projections for the quarter, even though they know they'll see those products returned for repair in a month or two, they'll do it. That gives them a couple of months to figure out how to make next quarter's sales.

I recently took an ethics course at a local college. It was interesting in that it dealt less with ethics from a business standpoint than it did from a philosophical standpoint. It got me thinking that quality - in many regards - is the corporate morality police. We have to make sure that we're doing the 'right' thing (from a customer's perspective; from a company's longevity perspective) even when it is hard for the company to do so in the face of other enticements - like getting paid now.

My hope is that our continuing effort will not so much change executive's minds, but help shareholders understand how a dedication to quality is a fundamental tool in assuring the long-term profitability of their investments. If we do that, it'll filter down to the executives faster than you can say Taguchi.

I thought the same thing when I read Wes's post (moments ago) Zman. What an underwhelming sense of the obvious!

It is like the statement that 9 out of 10 dentists prefer sugarless for their patients who chew gum. Only that one dentist knows where his paycheck comes from. :tg:

And after attending the ASQ AQC for the last few days, and hearing Ken Case and others speak, my confidence level has not improved dramatically.

Most of the discussions were either touchy-feely (e.g. "the human side of six sigma") or debates regarding definition. But I did learn that, yes indeed, my mom loves me.

NOTE: There were some very good presentations at AQC as well.The one thing I can bet without having been present is that the "very good presentations" were NOT by ASQ staff or elected officials. How about it, Rob?

Frankly, I would have thought this little piece would have drawn many more posts dripping with sarcasm and scorn for

the fact the "full" report is only a series of PowerPoint slides - no details
the fact the report didn't indicate the expertise of the polling company (none is obvious to me)
The "dumb factor" of the questions (thanks, Zeeman!)
I had an interesting conversation last week with several of my wife's fellow graduates (she just got a Masters degree early in May.)
They were all hooting over the "customer satisfaction survey" they received from the University which was loaded with self-serving "forced" answers on a number scale 1 - 10.

We all hooted at different things:

I couldn't restrain my absolute scorn for the incredible number of grammatical and wrong word choice errors.
Uniformly, the graduates were appalled that there were only multiple choice or graph answers allowed - no essay questions.
They wanted to be heard as individuals, not as statistical blips.

Yet, if 2 per cent of the graduates are toadies who complete the survey with high scores, the University will tout the results as if it represented the feelings of the entire class.

It's been so long, I forget whether the ASQ survey indicated how many surveys went out versus how many were returned. What kind of followup did the poller do to get responses in the door? What level were the executives who purported to fill out the survey? Did a staffer fill it out for the exec? I sure would have preferred some raw data to sift for myself.

In my own experience with hundreds of folks in the executive suites at various employers, customers, and suppliers over the years, I can tell you that 100% would answer "yes" if asked if Quality were important in their company. If asked to list the most important factors for their companies without any other prompting (definitely NO list of choices!), I doubt Quality would rank in the top ten for those same executives.

Back during the Eisenhower presidency, it was a common "knowledge" that to get hired at any major American corporation, all you had to do to survive the interview was to remember that every answer had to reflect a strong belief and faith in God, Mom, the American Flag, and apple pie. Vegetarians were as bad as Communists, no degree was better than one from a radical campus like Berkley, and you could drive any car you wanted, as long as it was American.

Sometimes, when I see executives and whole industries marching in lockstep, I wonder if we've progressed one iota from those repressive times.

Deming must be spinning in his grave at all the fear that reigns rampant in industry and life in general today. Some recent headlines of jailing folks without due process reminds me of those terrible years of McCarthy's witchhunts when a mere whisper of "communist" or "homosexual" could get someone blacklisted for life.

The big question to answer is always, "Who benefits from 'dumbness' and fear? There are two ways to deal with dissent when implementing a change in any process:

convert the dissenters through reason, logic, and even rewards
or
eliminate the vocal dissenters and control "closet dissenters" through fear they will be also eliminated.

Why do so many organizations seem to choose option 2?

[QUOTE=ZeeMan]I recently took an ethics course at a local college. It was interesting in that it dealt less with ethics from a business standpoint than it did from a philosophical standpoint. It got me thinking that quality - in many regards - is the corporate morality police. We have to make sure that we're doing the 'right' thing (from a customer's perspective; from a company's longevity perspective) even when it is hard for the company to do so in the face of other enticements - like getting paid now.QUOTE]

If we are acting as the corporate morality police then that explains why we are sometimes ignored. Defining quality is a lot like defining ethics. Ethics are personal and generally learned early. Doing the right thing means something different to different people. We may not agree with the ethics but there are executives that believe making money for the company is more important than any other issue.

I am not defending unethical executives, but just noting that they have made a personal decision about their ethics on what is right. As shown by the numerous postings on dealing with management, getting them to change their beliefs about quality's importance is not any easier than getting someone to change their ethics.

Good discussion thread.

Bill Pflanz

Bill

I agree that it is a question of ethics, but all of us are influenced by our surroundings. Lets look for a second (at least from my view, fire away if you disagree) at just what kind of environment executives at public corporations exist in.

It is true that they answer to the board, and through the board, to the shareholders. They also answer (to a lesser degree) to entities such as the SEC. One thing that seems to me to be somewhat common to these entities, and something oft forgotten, is the role the brokerage firms and stock exchanges play.

They make money primarily when stock (and other instruments, but lets focus on good old common stock) is bought or sold. It is in their interest, therefore, to maintain as high a degree of volitility as possible within the markets (at least just up to the point that all confidence is completely lost, a la 1929) because the volitility spells stock sales /purchases which equals profit. The way to generate this volitility is to focus on the short term, ignoring statistical realities (such as a process being in control, maybe?). Am I making too big a jump if I compare this to Deming's tampering?

So, the force that at least encourages a short term viewpoint, the focus on next quarter's numbers, is motivated by the desire for profit by the brokerage houses and their allies.

How many shares of these are publicly traded?

Executives walk a tightrope, much like politicians. They would be foolish to take a negative stand against anything the represents "goodness". If you were to ask them how important their employees' diet is to the success of the company, does anyone here think a single executive would say "its not important", even as the Twinkees (sp?) roll out their door? To their mind, I believe that their main ethical challenges are to make shareholders a profit and stay in business. The playing field dictates that they focus on the short term numbers, or the long term questions are moot.

As far as ASQ being involved, I wish I could say I was surprised. Anyone else here think our new, enhanced (read: increased) membership fee structure is being put to good use junk (spam) mailing post cards for the latest book release? ASQ, give me a break please. You are becoming the thing we most despise.

Craig

OK. I think we've got agreement that we (Quality) are going to have a different point of view than that of our executives due to different pressures that shape dissimilar criteria for what is "good". Working these things around in our heads to try and better understand why we are where we are is a good thing.

But my question is: what do we do about it?

How do we align the two versions of "good"? I recently posted a comment on the ASQ site regarding an article in a recent QP that discussed the importance of 'talking quality in the language of finance.' It was a Cliff Notes version of a standard finance course, describing ROE, ROI, EPS, etc. It said nothing of HOW to translate quality issues into that language. To me, it was useless.

The problem I struggle with is that if we fix a defect, we have no way of knowing how much it would have cost us if it had not been fixed. And trying to correlate effect back to cause is not much easier when you're talking about advanced electronics that have thousands of functions.

Have any of you had success with translating the prevention of defects to reduced costs? It seems that's the only way to 'talk quality in the language of finance.'

OK. I think we've got agreement that we (Quality) are going to have a different point of view than that of our executives due to different pressures that shape dissimilar criteria for what is "good". Working these things around in our heads to try and better understand why we are where we are is a good thing.

But my question is: what do we do about it?

How do we align the two versions of "good"? I recently posted a comment on the ASQ site regarding an article in a recent QP that discussed the importance of 'talking quality in the language of finance.' It was a Cliff Notes version of a standard finance course, describing ROE, ROI, EPS, etc. It said nothing of HOW to translate quality issues into that language. To me, it was useless.

The problem I struggle with is that if we fix a defect, we have no way of knowing how much it would have cost us if it had not been fixed. And trying to correlate effect back to cause is not much easier when you're talking about advanced electronics that have thousands of functions.

Have any of you had success with translating the prevention of defects to reduced costs? It seems that's the only way to 'talk quality in the language of finance.'Well! I'm beginning to feel better about this thread, already.

When we talk about leading executives "kissing axes" for the sake of stock prices, please consider two of the most phenomenally successful execs of modern times: Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

Buffett was recently quoted: Says he's "disgusted" by corporate bosses who tout their companies while selling shares: "These business leaders view shareholders as patsies, not partners." Buffett has never sold a share of Berkshire Hathaway.
Makes you wonder why executives don't follow the models of two of the world's richest men, doesn't it? Neither of these guys makes corporate decisions based upon what Wall Street thinks.

What can we do about it? It seems to me we should point this out to our own executives at every opportunity. Add the little stinger, "What do these rich guys know about running a successful business that we don't?"
Buffett recently got hammered by losses in his reinsurance business because he made a miscalculation in the effects of terrorism and hadn't raised premiums sufficiently to cover payouts. Result? Stockholders kept buying and raised the price of his stock 10% because they had faith in the long term! Actually, faith in Buffett's long-term vision and the ability of the company to carry it forward even if he (an old man) dies!

The reality is that we don't need to talk the esoteric terms of ROE, ROI, EPS, etc. We really need to turn the talk to the long-term survival and success of the organization.

We need to talk about things like

succession plans (McDonalds had two top executives in a row stricken, but with a succession plan in place, the stock market barely quivered.) The time of the cult of one invincible leader has passed. Without adequate succession plans, you end up with companies like Sunbeam who wallow in the mire after suffering the debacle of "Chainsaw" Albert J. Dunlap.
determining what business we're really in Railroads missed their golden opportunity when they stubbornly refused to consider they were in "transportation" instead of "railroads" and so missed out on the chance to invest in and dominate automobile and airline industries.
believing our lip service that "people are most important resource" Too often, corporations treat their employees as fungible commodities versus custom products. Executives routinely engage in mass layoffs of thousands of folks, reasoning "we can always get more if we need them." (The corollary is equally disturbing: folks begin to think of themselves as replaceable.) Executives should think, rather, of expansion into other businesses or markets where the workforce can be profitably employed. Too often, the short term profit is really only a saving at the expense of the workforce, not true efficiency.
really relating and partnering with customers and suppliers Anybody out there feel the automotive industry is really "partnering" with its suppliers? Or is it more like "exploiting?"

The problem I struggle with is that if we fix a defect, we have no way of knowing how much it would have cost us if it had not been fixed. And trying to correlate effect back to cause is not much easier when you're talking about advanced electronics that have thousands of functions.

Have any of you had success with translating the prevention of defects to reduced costs? It seems that's the only way to 'talk quality in the language of finance.'

Zeeman,

I recently had to prove to our workforce that their NC were costing the company money and that in the long run it could cost them their jobs. We discussed the world market, pressures from Chinese products etc etc but this did not really go down all that well. I had to revert to showing them what it cost us for each container of product that was deemed NC
Below is the Chart I had made up showing the cost of a normal container of product (green) against the costs of making a new container load (orange). It had a very strong effect on the workers and they have managed to reduce their NC product and they have also found ways to reduce the costs associated with NC product such as new cheaper and faster ways to devan containers etc. So all in all it has been pretty effective
http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1868

This is the thread I posted it in:
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7924

However, it is when I get to senior management that I have the problem. When I try to explain to them the cost of 'Preventative' action they just don't seem to get it. They can 'SEE' the costs associated with Corrective action...anyway I'll keep battling on

Greg B

How do we align the two versions of "good"? I recently posted a comment on the ASQ site regarding an article in a recent QP that discussed the importance of 'talking quality in the language of finance.' It was a Cliff Notes version of a standard finance course, describing ROE, ROI, EPS, etc. It said nothing of HOW to translate quality issues into that language. To me, it was useless.

The problem I struggle with is that if we fix a defect, we have no way of knowing how much it would have cost us if it had not been fixed. And trying to correlate effect back to cause is not much easier when you're talking about advanced electronics that have thousands of functions.

Have any of you had success with translating the prevention of defects to reduced costs? It seems that's the only way to 'talk quality in the language of finance.'

The first thing I would suggest is to forget about ROE, ROI, EPS etc. Besides having a technical and quality background, I have a degree in Finance and have worked with senior management as a business analyst. You might get them to listen to ROI for a cost saving idea but it will involve reducing head count. It loses its effect when you start saying that you saved x% in costs and increased ROI by y% because you stopped making defects.

What you need to learn is how to talk accounting - specifically cost accounting. My recommendation would be find your accountant and work with them to develop some detailed records (raw materials, labor, utilities, overhead etc. preferably by process steps) of what it costs to make a product. You need their help so they can set up accounting codes. You may have to develop some standard costs to simplify the process. If you know what it costs to make good quality than you will also know what it costs to make bad since it costs the same no matter which you make. The difference is one product is saleable and the other is not. The workers can understand the costs easier than some abstract connection to the stock price. Actually the workers are appalled that management keeps making defective product by not fixing the process and they know it costs money to do it.

You will also need to know what it costs to get rid of the defects. Do you pay someone to dispose, re-work, selling it at a reduced price etc.? If you are short of capacity, then making defective product has an additional cost since you have reduced your production volume and thereby reduced your sales. Any increase in capacity results in a higher sales margin since you are only paying incremental costs (raw materials, utilities) and your base production volume already covers the fixed costs. You might even be able to get rid of the warehouse for storing defective product until disposal. It is the equivalent of expanding the plant without making a capital expenditure which has an infinite ROI. The pressure should be on sales to sell out the volume not manufacturing to make more.

Since you would be starting with no data, it will take some time to build your cost accounting data. If you don't start now, we can have the same conversation a year from now. The opportunities will grow as you start attaching real dollars to your improvements.

Hope this helps.

Bill Pflanz

What you need to learn is how to talk accounting - specifically cost accounting. My recommendation would be find your accountant and work with them to develop some detailed records (raw materials, labor, utilities, overhead etc. preferably by process steps) of what it costs to make a product. You need their help so they can set up accounting codes. You may have to develop some standard costs to simplify the process. If you know what it costs to make good quality than you will also know what it costs to make bad since it costs the same no matter which you make. The difference is one product is saleable and the other is not. The workers can understand the costs easier than some abstract connection to the stock price. Actually the workers are appalled that management keeps making defective product by not fixing the process and they know it costs money to do it.

You will also need to know what it costs to get rid of the defects. Do you pay someone to dispose, re-work, selling it at a reduced price etc.? If you are short of capacity, then making defective product has an additional cost since you have reduced your production volume and thereby reduced your sales. Any increase in capacity results in a higher sales margin since you are only paying incremental costs (raw materials, utilities) and your base production volume already covers the fixed costs. You might even be able to get rid of the warehouse for storing defective product until disposal. It is the equivalent of expanding the plant without making a capital expenditure which has an infinite ROI. The pressure should be on sales to sell out the volume not manufacturing to make more.

Since you would be starting with no data, it will take some time to build your cost accounting data. If you don't start now, we can have the same conversation a year from now. The opportunities will grow as you start attaching real dollars to your improvements. Bill Pflanz
Great reply Bill, :applause:
We did just that. The accountants have worked out all of the cost breakdowns for me. I don't use it at the operator level, as in my previous post, but I definitely discuss it at the supervisor level and above. They take note when you show them some real figures and how their costs escalate very rapidly when they are confronted with defects.

Greg B

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific. We have standard costing data. We've got factory defect data. We have Cost of NonConformance information. We haven't utilized it to its potential yet, but we're getting there.

What my group is trying to do is push the thought of prevention into the design process. If we don't design something right, you may never succeed in the factory. We are trying to show that defects in design - say, a missed requirement - has detrimental cost impact to the company. It's of course logical that fewer mistakes during design means less cost, but it's been hard to tie it directly to $$$.

I think Greg's flowchart may be helpful. I think I may be able to flow-out the basic design process and see where defects attach costs to the process. That may help me understand where to collect cost info and start to try and relate it back to the root cause.

I'll let you know how it turns out.

It got me thinking that quality - in many regards - is the corporate morality police. We have to make sure that we're doing the 'right' thing (from a customer's perspective; from a company's longevity perspective) even when it is hard for the company to do so in the face of other enticements - like getting paid now.

When a Quality Professional is doing their job correctly, they can become a threat to people above them. . .

Either the ASQ has another agenda, or someone there has some time on their hands. . .

As an interesting [to me, anyway] adjunct to this thread, I had a long conversation with some practicing clinical psychologists at a BBQ over the holiday weekend.

They both were of a mind that an individual with bipolar disorder (used to be called manic-depressive illness) seems on the surface to be the ideal executive when in the manic state: (following are major symptoms)

Heightened mood, elation, increased self confidence
Erratic sleeping and/or a decreased need for sleep
Racing thoughts and increased speech production
Increased physical and mental activity
Poor judgment
Of course, the "poor judgment" part only becomes apparent in hindsight because the bipolar person ramrods his decisions through against any moderate objection (like most of us Quality practicioners.)

It seems to me, therefore, it might be propitious for Quality practicioners to inform themselves about bipolar disorder and "manage" their executives as if they had it, regardless of whether they really have it or not.

We also talked about the downside or depressed characteristics of the bipolar:

Prolonged sadness, pessimism
Insomnia
Feelings of guilt, worthlessness
The inability to concentrate
Loss of energy
Seems to me (confirmed by talk with the psychologists), most folks hide #3, whether they have the disease or not, as a pure self-defense mechanism. However, I see a lot of executives (especially mid-level bureaucrats) who exhibit pessimism, inability to concentrate, and a general lethargy.

Somehow, I think the techniques of dealing with mentally ill people may be more effective than the pure logic of financial pros and cons. Emotion plays an extremely large part in many more executive actions than pure logic.

More description of mania portion (boldface emphasis is mine):

A mood that seems excessively good, euphoric, expansive or irritable. The patient feels "on top of the world," and nothing--bad news, horrifying event or tragedy--will change his happiness. However, this euphoria can quickly change into irritability or anger. In either case, the mood is way out of bounds, given the situation and the individual's personality.
Expressions of unwarranted optimism and lack of judgment. Self-confidence reaches the point of grandiose delusions in which the person thinks he has a special connection with God, celebrities, or political leaders. Or he may think that nothing--not even the laws of gravity--can stop him from accomplishing any task. As a result, he may think he can step off a building or out of a moving car without being hurt.
Hyperactivity and excessive plans or participation in numerous activities that have a good chance for painful results. Patients become so enthusiastic about activities or involvements that they fail to recognize they haven't enough time in the day for all of them. For example, a person with bipolar illness may book several meetings, parties, deadlines and other activities in a single day, thinking he or she can make all of them on time. Added to the expansive mood, mania also can result in reckless driving, spending sprees, foolish business investments, or sexual behavior unusual for the person.
Flight of ideas. The person's thoughts race uncontrollably like a car without brakes careening down a mountain. When the person talks, his or her words come out in a nonstop rush of ideas that abruptly change from topic to topic. In its severe form, the loud, rapid speech becomes hard to interpret because the patient's thought processes become so totally disorganized and incoherent.
Decreased need for sleep, allowing the patient to go with little or no sleep for days without feeling tired.
Distractibility in which the patient's attention is easily diverted to inconsequential or unimportant details.
Sudden irritability, rage or paranoia when the person's grandiose plans are thwarted or his excessive social overtures are refused.
Protect yourselves in the clinches, folks.

Either the ASQ has another agenda, or someone there has some time on their hands. . .
The ASQ has the same agenda that any business has, to make money. If anyone thinks otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you.

I do believe that ASQ started out as very beneficial with making a small profit. As said, companies don't go into business to lose money, and the ASQ is like any organization.

As money comes in;<O:p</O:p

Staff grows
Payroll increases
Revenues need to increase
How to increase revenue? ----------- Sell a product.

ASQ has become an entity because at the time they were the only game in town, and through their various certifications, heavily endorsed by industry, were a basic minimum to get/hold a job in the quality field.
Times change and so does “ASQC”:magic:

Al...

I do believe that ASQ started out as very beneficial with making a small profit. As said, companies don't go into business to lose money, and the ASQ is like any organization.

As money comes in;<O:p</O:p

Staff grows
Payroll increases
Revenues need to increase
How to increase revenue? ----------- Sell a product.

ASQ has become an entity because at the time they were the only game in town, and through their various certifications, heavily endorsed by industry, were a basic minimum to get/hold a job in the quality field.
Times change and so does “ASQC”:magic:

Al...Yep, Al. A lot of us ASQ members agree with you. I have this addition:
The biggest problem in many not-for-profits which grow to gargantuan size is that the paid staff usurp the role of the unpaid "elected leaders" and lead the organization into deep waters and over treacherous shoals.

There is one well-documented case of a previously pristine not-for-profit professional association getting wrecked in this regard:
The American Medical Association and its disastrous, albeit short-lived, money-making association with Sunbeam and its then-CEO, Chainsaw Al Dunlap. It was only the fact some whistle blowers stood up to be counted that the scheme ultimately unraveled.

The fallout is that many members of the AMA, who do not need membership to further their careers, are dropping out or, in the case of new doctors, not joining in the first place.

Steve Prevette has noted that on-line job descriptions for ASQ paid staff do no mention any quality education or designation as a pre-requisite.

Note - these are not mere clerks, handling the humdrum paperwork of an association; these are folks making contracts with advertisers and "partners" in money-making schemes.

Note none of that money is going to reduce members' fees.

Using the flowchart Greg provided above, I created the attached chart.

Any/all comments are welcome.

Using the flowchart Greg provided above, I created the attached chart.

Any/all comments are welcome.

Attached chart????

I do believe that ASQ started out as very beneficial with making a small profit. As said, companies don't go into business to lose money, and the ASQ is like any organization

Al,

As ex-treasurer of ASQ Section 801, I used to get chastised by the chair for talking about profit generated on our seminars, training etc. The correct term he used was "generating excess revenues". As a non-profit organization, ASQ has certain IRS rules that must be followed to maintain their tax free status.

More than likely ASQ spends some of the excess revenue on accountants and lawyers to keep their non-profit status. As a non-profit, ASQ is not into business to make money but I also do not believe they have any incentive to not use up all the excess revenue running the organization.

Remember when United Way executives got bad press for skimming too much money off the top. Since ASQ does not have open books, we have no idea how the money is used. Marketing more books, seminars etc. will allow them to spend more on the organization. If you are not cynical, then you could say that the availability of the quality information provides value to the membership. Or you could say that they are using the members to line their pockets with as much excess revenue as possible.

Bill Pflanz

Al,

As ex-treasurer of ASQ Section 801, I used to get chastised by the chair for talking about profit generated on our seminars, training etc. The correct term he used was "generating excess revenues". As a non-profit organization, ASQ has certain IRS rules that must be followed to maintain their tax free status.

More than likely ASQ spends some of the excess revenue on accountants and lawyers to keep their non-profit status. As a non-profit, ASQ is not into business to make money but I also do not believe they have any incentive to not use up all the excess revenue running the organization.

Remember when United Way executives got bad press for skimming too much money off the top. Since ASQ does not have open books, we have no idea how the money is used. Marketing more books, seminars etc. will allow them to spend more on the organization. If you are not cynical, then you could say that the availability of the quality information provides value to the membership. Or you could say that they are using the members to line their pockets with as much excess revenue as possible.

Bill PflanzActually, ALL USA not-for-profits are required to file a financial statement open to public view if they are a 501-C-3 (the Tax Code number) organization. (Churches are the only exempt outfits which may keep their finances secret.)

I'll look into this and report by the end of next week.

Attached chart????

Taz - the thumbnail for the image is that dark rectangle below the text of my last post.

This thread began with the view that "executives believe quality"... contributes to the bottom line and seems to be digressing from the original point. What the ASQ is or does or accounts for its revenues and expenditures seems irrelevant to whether or not the executives do consider quality affects the bottom, ROI or whatever other financial metric one wishes to apply.

Yes, some executives will obviously play the political correctness line in professing their belief in quality and their commitment to it: motherhood and apple pie. Why, though, if they believe it is all good stuff do they want to gamble so often, as various contributors to this thread observe? Yes, tying their paypackets/ options/ bonuses etc to "quality" may make a difference. But, as we have seen in recent years, when the value of a stock falls below the original grant price, the CEOs "move the goalposts" and reduce the grant price, even though they should be held responsible for the fall.

I suppose it is all about human nature and weakness. After all, how many people go to church on Sunday, emerge feeling very righteous, make sure they have been seen to attend, make sure they are seen to have contributed to the offertory and continue throughout the following week making the same mistakes as before making little effort to apply the wisdom and teachings of their professed religion? Believing something is good and right does not mean the believer will actually practice it. Saying something is a good thing does not mean the speaker actually does it. Yes, we should all "eat our vegetables". But, how many eat as much vegetable as they should?

But, when it comes to quality, it does seem to me that too many executives believe in the 11th commandment: thou shall not get caught. And that is why they want quality people - make sure "we" do not get caught. And, when it comes to product/ training/ quality system certificates etc and the veracity of their content, too many times have I seen their content violates another commandment: thou shall not bear false witness! As for failing to deliver to a customer the quality of product for the customer has paid ... which commandment then applies?