Do we have an ASQ operative here?

BTW...I didn't re-new my membership.

Just trying to do the right thing for our customers, members, and fellow quality individuals. If you want to consider me an operative, then so be it. I just want to have the ability to support our efforts and the efforts of individuals who need to be heard.

ASQ Employee

Don't let Randy shake you. You are welcome here and your help is appreciated.

Just trying to do the right thing for our customers, members, and fellow quality individuals. If you want to consider me an operative, then so be it. I just want to have the ability to support our efforts and the efforts of individuals who need to be heard.

ASQ EmployeeThis Forum works a lot better than the ASQ one, doesn't it?
It certainly gets a lot more traffic because it's open to everyone.
Remember this especially - The software to run the Cove only cost 10% of the price of the Jive! software used by ASQ.

You'll also note most of the Moderators here use their own names, rather than hide in the anonymity of a "group name."

Welcome to the Cove!:bigwave:

This Forum works a lot better than the ASQ one, doesn't it?
It certainly gets a lot more traffic because it's open to everyone.
Remember this especially - The software to run the Cove only cost 10% of the price of the Jive! software used by ASQ.

It does appear to receive a more immediate response than some other forums I've participated in before. And the cost difference, just goes to prove that money does not always equate to success and satisfaction.

Another real world example of this is the budget for Toyota in Formula 1 racing. I believe their budget is higher than that of Ferrari and Toyota is near the basement.

Suddenly, some of those 8 Principles that ISO 9001:2000 is based on come to light. Leadership (aka Cove moderators) and Involvement of People (aka Cove willingness to share, teach, learn, debate, etc.) stand out in my mind.

You'll also note most of the Moderators here use their own names, rather than hide in the anonymity of a "group name."

Moderators, yes...but Users (like Mr./Ms. ASQ)? Don't know the statistics on that one. But there could be some logic behind Mr./Ms. ASQ's handle. The message comes across as being an employee of the organization, while ensuring some privacy (potentially for professional reasons).

My own reason for using RCBeyette was gender-based. I am not saying (nor implying) that the Cove discriminates against gender, but I have learned during both my academic and professional careers that there are still those out there that give less credit to words spoken by a female. Habit is to go by RCBeyette. Once I started feeling more comfortable with the Cove environment, I changed my signature to indicate "Roxane".

A lot of thought can go into why a person selects the handle that s/he will use. Personally, the lack of a "real" name does not bother me. We have many users with cute names, nicknames, numbers, etc. It all makes us distinctive here in the Cove. :D

It does appear to receive a more immediate response than some other forums I've participated in before. And the cost difference, just goes to prove that money does not always equate to success and satisfaction.

Another real world example of this is the budget for Toyota in Formula 1 racing. I believe their budget is higher than that of Ferrari and Toyota is near the basement.

Suddenly, some of those 8 Principles that ISO 9001:2000 is based on come to light. Leadership (aka Cove moderators) and Involvement of People (aka Cove willingness to share, teach, learn, debate, etc.) stand out in my mind.



Moderators, yes...but Users (like Mr./Ms. ASQ)? Don't know the statistics on that one. But there could be some logic behind Mr./Ms. ASQ's handle. The message comes across as being an employee of the organization, while ensuring some privacy (potentially for professional reasons).

My own reason for using RCBeyette was gender-based. I am not saying (nor implying) that the Cove discriminates against gender, but I have learned during both my academic and professional careers that there are still those out there that give less credit to words spoken by a female. Habit is to go by RCBeyette. Once I started feeling more comfortable with the Cove environment, I changed my signature to indicate "Roxane".

A lot of thought can go into why a person selects the handle that s/he will use. Personally, the lack of a "real" name does not bother me. We have many users with cute names, nicknames, numbers, etc. It all makes us distinctive here in the Cove. :D

A satisfied customer: from a perceived negative to a perceived positive.

This Forum works a lot better than the ASQ one, doesn't it?
It certainly gets a lot more traffic because it's open to everyone.
Remember this especially - The software to run the Cove only cost 10% of the price of the Jive! software used by ASQ.

You'll also note most of the Moderators here use their own names, rather than hide in the anonymity of a "group name."

Welcome to the Cove!:bigwave:

What is it about this board that you feel is so much better than the ASQ Discussion Boards? Is it the little emoticons you are able to insert, or is it the plethora of threads that have nothing to do with Quality (ex. the discussion on summer camping and the coffe break discussion)?

Being both an IT Professional and a Quality Professional, it seems to me that the ASQ Boards, even the older version, allowed you to read, write, and respond to posts. What else is there?

What is it about this board that you feel is so much better than the ASQ Discussion Boards? Is it the little emoticons you are able to insert, or is it the plethora of threads that have nothing to do with Quality (ex. the discussion on summer camping and the coffe break discussion)?

Being both an IT Professional and a Quality Professional, it seems to me that the ASQ Boards, even the older version, allowed you to read, write, and respond to posts. What else is there?http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/bigwave-d2.gif Welcome to the Cove! (how's that for good use of an emoticon?)

As an ASQ member, I can say several things which non-members cannot, simply because non-ASQ members do not have access to make a comparison themselves.

OLD ASQ Forums -

were not searchable;
moderators abdicated responsibility and some forums were never moderated;
navigation was confusing
usage by average ASQ member was next to nil
questions often went unanswered for months
ASQ staff did not respond to direct inquiries
For years, no effort was made to improve the ASQ forums
one ASQ staffer who made an effort to help was fired and his posts deleted.
NEW ASQ Forums -

Search function is problematic (try searching "Bucey" and compare number of hits (6 at 3:09 pm CDT) with my total posts (47))
All forums are not available to all users, even the forum having to do with Discussion Board Suggestions (http://www.asq.org/discussionBoards/forum.jspa?forumID=40) is not open to all users
The software was purchased at a cost ten times what Cove software costs after ASQ staffers ignored suggestions by users on several software packages available at low cost
Current ASQ staff does not follow its own rule in replying within 24 hours for Forum-related questions (some questions have gone unanswered [ignored?] for weeks)
I am particularly incensed because ASQ staffers paid through my dues and purchases are ignoring me and other folks (customers) trying to use the ASQ forums to help ASQ members. You can bet your sweet bippy no employee under my management simply ignores a customer! Those who do soon get re-educated or re-located!<!-- Forum Description (if it exists) -->

Nothing makes it 'better'. It is simply different. As for the 'details, if you're a minimalist all you need is the old 'BBS' software such as BBS PC. PC users back in the 1980's, when I ran BBS PC on an Amiga, were 'Wildcat' fans. I really liked Wildcat but it was a PC only program - no Amiga port - and i was a Mac / Amiga fanatic. After using MooseDOS I had little use for a Mickeysoft PC.

Some folks want 'more' - For a number of reasons. I have a 1995 Pontiac Bonneville SSEi. I love it's built in compass. Do I 'need' it? No. I have fallen in LOVE with it's windshield display of speed and such (Heads Up display). Do I 'Need' it? Nope. Not really.

But - Are these 'extras' nice? To me, yes they are. We all decide what we want to feel comfortable. the 'extras' vBulletin has are just that - Extras.

I guess my question to you would be: What is the down side of the 'Extras'?

Nothing makes it 'better'. It is simply different. As for the 'details, if you're a minimalist all you need is the old 'BBS' software such as BBS PC. PC users back in the 1980's, when I ran BBS PC on an Amiga, were 'Wildcat' fans. I really liked Wildcat but it was a PC only program - no Amiga port - and i was a Mac / Amiga fanatic. After using MooseDOS I had little use for a Mickeysoft PC.

Some folks want 'more' - For a number of reasons. I have a 1995 Pontiac Bonneville SSEi. I love it's built in compass. Do I 'need' it? No. I have fallen in LOVE with it's windshield display of speed and such (Heads Up display). Do I 'Need' it? Nope. Not really.

But - Are these 'extras' nice? To me, yes they are. We all decide what we want to feel comfortable. the 'extras' vBulletin has are just that - Extras.

I guess my question to you would be: What is the down side of the 'Extras'?

I agree that nothing makes one better versus the other. And I agree that there are some people who prefer extras. I am not trying to start any fights, I am simply trying to understand why there are certain people both here and on the ASQ Discussion board, that go the extra mile to berate and belittle users/members and feel that simply because they pay dues to a society, that they own that society and everything that society does. I belong to several societies and organizations, but never have I thought that I own that society, or that I am in charge of hiring and firing the people that run that organization.

Please help me to understand this logic.


Thank you,

Jordan Martone

And the cost difference, just goes to prove that money does not always equate to success and satisfaction.
Since attachments are free {since I started the Google advertisements last December}, it's rare to see a 'Contribution' {one or two a month}, but the Google Ads help A LOT. So remember to 'Check Out' an advertiser when you visit. You never know what ideas you might get...

Or - Become a Contributor for US$25 a year and help out!

What is it about this board that you feel is so much better than the ASQ Discussion Boards? Is it the little emoticons you are able to insert, or is it the plethora of threads that have nothing to do with Quality (ex. the discussion on summer camping and the coffe break discussion)?

Being both an IT Professional and a Quality Professional, it seems to me that the ASQ Boards, even the older version, allowed you to read, write, and respond to posts. What else is there?Let us inquire, mujmm14, as to what motivated you to sign up and register for the Cove? We're happy to have you and any expertise you can offer to us here in the Cove.

What was there lacking in the ASQ Forum that made you look for another venue?

Did you come out of curiosity after reading comments by folks who are dual members of both the Cove and ASQ Forums? What was so compelling about their comments if that was the primary factor?

Did you come as a result of an internet search for a topic about Quality? If that was the reason, why weren't you able to find what you needed in the ASQ Forum?

As a web developer (your Profile), have you ever done work for ASQ? (we like to disclose any ties or connections when we discuss a specific company here in the Cove - same thing over in the ASQ Forums)

As of this writing, you've made two posts - very good and interesting ones at that - I hope we see many more from you.

NEW ASQ Forums

Search function is problematic (try searching "Bucey" and compare number of hits (6 at 3:09 pm CDT) with my total posts (47))

Functionality is possible to search by author in the advanced search; the general search only searches the content field. Therefore, if you are quoted in a thread you will see that as your hits.


All forums are not available to all users, even the forum having to do with Discussion Board Suggestions (http://www.asq.org/discussionBoards/forum.jspa?forumID=40) is not open to all users

This was a business decision to help ASQ implement a new Member model which incorporates numerous levels of benefit. One that was voted on by the board of directors. Therefore ASQ employees, with the benefit of customer research, much of what was done one on one with various member organizations around the US by Paul Borawski, advised the board so that they could change, update, and eventually pass the initiative.

One of these member models is forum membership. It is essential to support this model, and the reasons behind why people pay for these benefits by keeping some of the boards private to each forum, and each forum membership type. Thus the forum membership type.

The software was purchased at a cost ten times what Cove software costs after ASQ staffers ignored suggestions by users on several software packages available at low cost


The Jive Software was purchased because the package fulfilled our requirements without adding an additional staff member to program, adjust, or change it often. The cost of the software was minimal to the addition of another employee and benefits to support.


Current ASQ staff does not follow its own rule in replying within 24 hours for Forum-related questions (some questions have gone unanswered [ignored?] for weeks)


The Forum-related questions must be revised to have further definition. Your questions in regards to the organizations efforts far outweigh the individual power of the employees that monitor the board to answer. Therefore, time must be given to have the appropriate parties answer your questions.I am particularly incensed because ASQ staffers paid through my dues and purchases are ignoring me and other folks (customers) trying to use the ASQ forums to help ASQ members. You can bet your sweet bippy no employee under my management simply ignores a customer! Those who do soon get re-educated or re-located!<!-- Forum Description (if it exists) -->
We are not ignoring you Wes, I came here to help you and other individuals understand us more, and to make an effort to communicate in an area that can possibly shed a positive light on ASQ and its employees. I don't like getting bashed on a daily basis about how I'm your employee and I'm not fulfilling your needs. I don't like being told that my work is junk on a daily basis in our discussion boards. I believe that I can make change, and I believe that I am a good Quality worker, and I believe under ASQ's situation we are a good organization, but like others we are not perfect, but are working hard to get close.

However I hope to bring about some change by being able to communicate to both cove members, and pass this information on to the internal organization as a whole to be more effective with our attempts at fulfilling customer’s needs.

ASQ Employee

I am simply trying to understand why there are certain people both here and on the ASQ Discussion board, that go the extra mile to berate and belittle users/members and feel that simply because they pay dues to a society, that they own that society and everything that society does. I belong to several societies and organizations, but never have I thought that I own that society, or that I am in charge of hiring and firing the people that run that organization.

Please help me to understand this logic.
People who pay money have expectations - Whether they are 'Right' or 'Wrong' is an individual preference / belief. In a 'forum' environment, personalities can play a significant part. I don't see it as people want to 'own' an organization. I see it as people saying "I pay every year - What am I getting in return?" Personally, I don't expect the ASQ to provide a forum environment like we have here. I visited the ASQ forums in the past and to me they were practically useless so I simply stopped visiting.

I have communicated with those involved here, including Moderators, to STOP what I consider 'In Your Face' posts. I also said it is NOT my intent to stop criticism of the ASQ. It IS my intent to 'enforce' decorum. The Vice-President of the US may 'feel good' after using profanity, for example, but that is NOT acceptable here, even when it's done 'on the sly'. Nor are 'In Your face' personal attack posts acceptable.

I agree that nothing makes one better versus the other. And I agree that there are some people who prefer extras. I am not trying to start any fights, I am simply trying to understand why there are certain people both here and on the ASQ Discussion board, that go the extra mile to berate and belittle users/members and feel that simply because they pay dues to a society, that they own that society and everything that society does. I belong to several societies and organizations, but never have I thought that I own that society, or that I am in charge of hiring and firing the people that run that organization.

Please help me to understand this logic.


Thank you,

Jordan MartoneAs you are aware, I am a user of both ASQ and the Cove. I freely admit there are many posts in both the old and new ASQ forums which berate the lack of staff response and/or action, but never berate the individual, only the activity or lack of activity.

In regard to berating users, the fact that moderators did not do an adequate job of moderating led some employment recruiters to highjack the old ASQ Career corner and they got justly berated for using it as a free targeted advertising medium. That took a while to resolve and finally, after repeated phone calls and emails to ASQ staff, the offending posts were deleted.

Other incidents directly attributable to lack of moderator intervention involved identical posts in multiple forums (effectively spamming the entire discussion forum.)

Some of those were just newbies confused by the lack of direction and they were normally dealt with in a gentle fashion. Some others were not asking "how to" questions, but merely posting broadside diatribes in multiple forums. Some forum members objected - the number of those instances can be counted on the fingers of one hand. One broadside poster cried when he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar and went off in a huff. I don't recall him ever making a post in response to someone's query for help, only his broadside and his subsequent departing shot. (If you are curious, I would be happy to dig the exchange out of the archives and let everyone judge the truth or falsity of my depiction.)


In regard to being a member and feeling a sense of ownership and a voice in what the paid employees do - ABSOLUTELY!
Expecting paid employees to be responsive to members - ABSOLUTELY!
Expecting the society operations to be reflective of the ostensible principles of the Society (e.g. customer-centric operations, root cause investigations, corrective action, etc.) - ABSOLUTELY!
If I were a contributing member of a church congregation and I found out the choir director was taking kickbacks on the purchase of choir robes and running a brothel out of the choir loft, would I feel the right to do something about it? - ABSOLUTELY!

BTW, I do like these forums a lot, I belong to another much like this in regards to a passion of mine: www.sv1000.zyns.com.

I hope that I can bring help to those people who have problems with ASQ, and I hope to answer those problems effectively. If at any point and time you wish to contact me directly, PM me and I'd be more than happy to talk to appropriate parties internally with your inquiries. Much like the nature of the Salery Survey thread. An individual had a customer problem, and we were able to resolve it. That is my only hope, to provide quality customer service, and be aware of our problems as an organization.

BTW, I do like these forums a lot, I belong to another much like this in regards to a passion of mine: www.sv1000.zyns.com.
That's the same software I use here but they're using a 'Portal' for the 'Entry {Landing} Page'. I have been debating whether to use 'portal' software for a couple of years. So far I'm sticking with the 'simple' entry page.

I will say that's a very nice job on the site you linked to.

ASQ currently uses ORACLE Portal software, and it has taken us awhile to get up to speed on it. We've had numerous trial and error issues to deal with, but we're finally getting somewhere. It's exciting software to use, and the functionality and personalization is amazing.

We are light years from when we initially launched in July of 2003, but we still have a way to go. We upgrade to 10g next month, and the functionality it supports will be essential in delivering customizable content for users online.

After a year of using the software, hardware, and database, we are finally able to interpret the package and apply it here. It's amazing the shere amount of content this organization has online. The problem is delivering it effectively.

I'd go the way of Portal, because it truly gives the user the sense that they are in control of every aspect of their experience online. Sort of like http://www.excite.com/, completely customizable.

What is it about this board that you feel is so much better than the ASQ Discussion Boards? Is it the little emoticons you are able to insert, or is it the plethora of threads that have nothing to do with Quality (ex. the discussion on summer camping and the coffe break discussion)?

Being both an IT Professional and a Quality Professional, it seems to me that the ASQ Boards, even the older version, allowed you to read, write, and respond to posts. What else is there?
Hi Jordan and Welcome to the Cove,

You addressed a VERY important issue here....Why we feel the Cove is "better".

IMHO...it is not a matter of being better...but a matter of accessability (sp). Anyone with access to an internet connection can enter the Cove. The same can not be said for the ASQ site. Yes, there are a couple of boards open to the general public, but it is not fully open. I believe ASQ should be a society that shares info freely and accross all domains....not limited to which group you bought into. Personally, I will not post on a question on the ASQ boards. I don't want to limit the potential responses to those that are memebers. I appreciate input from all over.

All the bells and whistles here are cute...and the emoticons can help convey emotion. Are they neccessary...no, but they do serve a purpose. Do I come to the Cove because of these features......NO!!! I come for the sharing of information.

Carol

I first must state I was amazed to find this thread occurring. :applause: I am also glad to see an ASQ staff presence in the discussion. This is quite unique.

I think we need to separate ASQ general direction frustrations from the discussion boards. I will state (and have stated otherwise) that the current "Living Strategy" appears to be heading off in a different direction than that recommended by the "Partnership Study". I think ASQ documented a lot of lessons learned from the Six Sigma Academy "partnership", but has chosen to ignore those lessons. I also think ASQ in many cases is turning its back on the traditional quality "professionals" and heading off into the ether. Perhaps this is good, perhaps it is not.

With that said, I think the new ASQ discussion boards are a good step forward. I think the only true controversy at the moment is a business decision about whether or not the discussion boards should be a "member benefit" or be open to the public. Marc accepts advertisting and does a lot of work out of his own initiative (and pocket I assume). As an ASQ member, I pay dues to ASQ. If I can get services such as the discussion board without having to pay anything, that is one less reason to pay dues to ASQ. And right now, the "Ask A Quality Professional" board is out there for the general public, and could be used to carry on just about any discussion. If you want to discuss Six Sigma, you could bring it up there. So then, what purpose is the Six Sigma board that is only open to ASQ Statistics division members?

I don't want to portray this board and the ASQ board as being in "competition". But I do think that ASQ (and the various discussion boards) need to consider what they "are" from a branding (Tom Peters) point of view. I see positive movement at ASQ, and I personally have my own challenges as a Section Chair within ASQ of a rural section.

Steve Prevette
ASQ Section 614 Chair

BTW, if anyone is interested we are hiring in my Department/Work Group, your chance to become a member/nonmember and an employee, that way you can yell at yourself. :bonk:

One thing interesting about the ASQ job descriptions - not a single one of them call for a background in Quality. Not even as "nice to have". No call for an ASQ certification.

One description at least uses the word "quality" in terms of maintaining a "high quality" web site, but I just find this state of affairs interesting (and I have pointed this out on the ASQ board). Please do not infer anything negative in this observation as to existing staff, but I think this is an interesting insight into the ASQ internal policies and culture.

- Steve Prevette

One thing interesting about the ASQ job descriptions - not a single one of them call for a background in Quality. Not even as "nice to have". No call for an ASQ certification.

One description at least uses the word "quality" in terms of maintaining a "high quality" web site, but I just find this state of affairs interesting (and I have pointed this out on the ASQ board). Please do not infer anything negative in this observation as to existing staff, but I think this is an interesting insight into the ASQ internal policies and culture.

- Steve PrevetteSee, folks?
I don't seem to be the only one to rant about various issues at ASQ.
Steve and I are not a "tag team" on many issues. He and I disagree strongly about what should be open and what should not on the ASQ website. We seem to agree that affairs at ASQ were way out of kilter until recently. We seem to disagree on how much improvement has occurred.

I favor the root cause as paid staff having usurped the power of the dues-paying members to monitor and effect changes in operations. Often, in past years, I have had the impression some elected officials at the national level have been more interested in adding a notch to their resumes than in inaugurating any changes which would truly benefit members at the Section level. Many members have voted with their feet by not renewing memberships.

What is the solution, if any? First we have to really define the "problems" and nonconformances before we can do an adequate root cause investigation. Once we determine the root causes, common causes, and special causes, then we can start making Corrective and Preventive Action Plans.

The biggest question remains, "Who cares?" In other words, has ASQ lost relevance? We see ISO dragging its feet on reporting registrations for the year 2003, when we are in the seventh month of 2004. This, despite the fact ISO created an artificial deadline of December, 2003, for upgrade to ISO9k2k. Is this a sign of general malaise in Quality institutions?

Whatever my experience and knowledge, I cannot be the tail that wags the dog, alone. Only through venues like the Cove can folks of like mind meet and formulate strategies, IF they agree on problems and causes.

We seem to agree that affairs at ASQ were way out of kilter until recently. We seem to disagree on how much improvement has occurred.

Hey, at least June 2004 wasn't "Six Sigma Month" like it was last year at ASQ :yes:

One thing interesting about the ASQ job descriptions - not a single one of them call for a background in Quality. Not even as "nice to have". No call for an ASQ certification.

One description at least uses the word "quality" in terms of maintaining a "high quality" web site, but I just find this state of affairs interesting (and I have pointed this out on the ASQ board). Please do not infer anything negative in this observation as to existing staff, but I think this is an interesting insight into the ASQ internal policies and culture.

- Steve Prevette

Being an IT Professional and a Website Designer, I challenge you to find a Quality Certification that deals with the design and development of a Website and Internet related technologies. There is no such thing.

I was recently given the task to develop a Quality Assurance plan for my workgroup. After several days of exhaustive research, I ended up with very little useful information. There is no Quality Standard for Web Design, and the only thing that resembles a governing body for Web Standards would be the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). And I find it ironic that the W3C's website is one of the hardest to navigate and use.

I guess my point is, that there are certain areas within an organization such as ASQ, where a Quality background is not needed, or even offered, to do Quality work. With the ever changing technology and the unlimited number of different user configurations, you can only design for the majority.

If anyone out there has a way to apply a Quality processes to Website Design, I would love to hear about it.

Thanks,

Jordan Martone

I guess my point is, that there are certain areas within an organization such as ASQ, where a Quality background is not needed, or even offered, to do Quality work. With the ever changing technology and the unlimited number of different user configurations, you can only design for the majority.

If anyone out there has a way to apply a Quality processes to Website Design, I would love to hear about it.

Thanks,

Jordan Martone
My point is more along the lines that these folks being hired will be designing web sites and discussion boards that will (hopefully) be used by lots of happy quality professionals. I believe it would help if they had some knowledge of quality principles so they could talk the same "language" and better interface with ASQ members.

For example, the editors of the magazine "Model Railroader" (Kalmbach publishing) tend to be model railroaders themselves. Being a model railroader doesn't make you a better magazine editor, but it helps in providing a good product to be read by model railroaders.

Little Insight to ASQ's employment process:

Part of ASQ's Employment process is to bring employees up to speed, not necessarily the speed to contribute in intense quality discussions - as you suggest in the forum arena (usually left up to our volunteers, and quality professional members in the sections, forums to administer), but enough to understand basic quality principles.

ASQ has their employees enroll in the Q101 e-learning training and requires that it is passed within 6 months.

ASQ also has an Explorer Process which not only gives you 6 weeks of in depth ASQ training but a look into the history of ASQ and Quality, as well as the different quality arenas ASQ is involved in.

Finally, ASQ offers yearly training that implements many quality tools. This years training was around Critical Thinking. ASQ employees are also encouraged to take advantage of the certification system, one of which is highly encouraged is the CQIA certification.

I believe it would be very difficult to find a professional marketer, a professional print designer, a professional web designer, a professional IT developer/LAN Admin, and a professional sales person who comes in with the qualifications of having the sort of certifications ASQ offers. It is very rare for someone to come in with these tools. Something ASQ is trying to communicate to the general public, the importance of these tools - even outside of the quality profession. Quality is everywhere, in every facet of everyone's job.

Just my $0.02

ASQ Employee.

My point is more along the lines that these folks being hired will be designing web sites and discussion boards that will (hopefully) be used by lots of happy quality professionals. I believe it would help if they had some knowledge of quality principles so they could talk the same "language" and better interface with ASQ members.

For example, the editors of the magazine "Model Railroader" (Kalmbach publishing) tend to be model railroaders themselves. Being a model railroader doesn't make you a better magazine editor, but it helps in providing a good product to be read by model railroaders.

I am actually going to have to disagree with you on this one. Not everyone who edits a magazine is involved in that field. I have a background in Instructional Design and one of the golden rules of Instructional Design is "experts make the worst teachers". Have you ever had an IT professional try to teach you how to fix a computer issue? They usually tell you to move and do it themselves. There is a funny Saturday Night Live skit about this.

The problem with being an expert in any given field, is that many of the steps and processes that you use, become automatic, you assume that everyone is at your level. A website designer does not have to know the ins and outs of the quality field; they only have to know how to build a quality website, and how to provide support to those that use the website. I don't need to be a Six Sigma Blackbelt, to help a member troubleshoot an internet connectivity issue. Not being an expert allows you to communicate more effectively using simple language and not get caught using Industry/Niche specific terms and principles.

Does a customer service department have to know the "lingo" of the quality world? ABSOLUTLEY! Does the sales force have to know the "lingo" of the quality world? OF COURSE! Their jobs depend on the fact that they can communicate effectively with a member/customer.

Okay, I give. I simply don't see why none of the jobs posted for ASQ staff state "experience in the quality field a plus". I do acknowledge a number of the staff have put a lot of work into getting and maintaining knowledge and certifications once they are hired. It is just that I find the wording of job postings can tell you a lot about an organization.

:topic:
For example, the editors of the magazine "Model Railroader" (Kalmbach publishing) tend to be model railroaders themselves. Being a model railroader doesn't make you a better magazine editor, but it helps in providing a good product to be read by model railroaders.

Besides, Model Railroader used to claim "Model railroading is fun" on their magazine's cover.

Will ASQ claim anything close to this?

Jaime

Yes, there are a couple of boards open to the general public, but it is not fully open. I believe ASQ should be a society that shares info freely and accross all domains....not limited to which group you bought into. Personally, I will not post on a question on the ASQ boards. I don't want to limit the potential responses to those that are memebers. I appreciate input from all over.l

I understand the idea of wanting the information to be free flowing across all areas. I agree that BASIC quality information should be available to all who seek it. However, IMHO...the whole point of being a member of a certain organization or a forum/division of that organization is to obtain a sense of community and belonging to that specific industry or topic. The whole principle behind a certification is that I spent the time and effort, and made the commitment, to study, learn, and apply knowledge, that can only be gained by going through a specific process. I also understand ASQ's reasoning behind making certain areas of the discussion board limited to specific Forum/Division members. For example, If I have a question about ISO-9000, it is reassuring to me to know that only people with real-world experience and in-depth knowledge are going to be responding to and answering my question. You are able to narrow down your results to only the stuff you want.

Yes these boards have some interesting areas, the coffee-break area and the humor area are a good way to waste some time, but I don't all of that is needed in a true Industry/Topic specific discussion.

:topic:


Besides, Model Railroader used to claim "Model railroading is fun" on their magazine's cover.

Will ASQ claim anything close to this?

Jaime


LMAO!!!!!!!

:lmao:

We get close, stay tuned on August 2, new ad campaign and slogan.

Being an IT Professional and a Website Designer, I challenge you to find a Quality Certification that deals with the design and development of a Website and Internet related technologies. There is no such thing.Hang on a minute.

http://www.iqa.org/press/c2-26.shtml

http://www.elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/smile-a1.gif
Regards,
Simon

Thank You. I really appreciate the information.

But that certifes the Website, not the designer. Do you know of anything that will certify a person that designs and develops Web technologies? (Besides Micro$oft!)

As a web developer (your Profile), have you ever done work for ASQ? (we like to disclose any ties or connections when we discuss a specific company here in the Cove - same thing over in the ASQ Forums)


Wes,

You can inquire all you want, and I am sure you have your assumptions already. Since I do not know if my company prefers I don't disclose publicly, let's just say for personal and professional reasons, I prefer not to disclose this information. Besides, not to play any immature games, but you don't disclose who you work for in your profile.

Little Insight to ASQ's employment process:

Part of ASQ's Employment process is to bring employees up to speed, not necessarily the speed to contribute in intense quality discussions - as you suggest in the forum arena (usually left up to our volunteers, and quality professional members in the sections, forums to administer), but enough to understand basic quality principles.

ASQ has their employees enroll in the Q101 e-learning training and requires that it is passed within 6 months.

ASQ also has an Explorer Process which not only gives you 6 weeks of in depth ASQ training but a look into the history of ASQ and Quality, as well as the different quality arenas ASQ is involved in.

Finally, ASQ offers yearly training that implements many quality tools. This years training was around Critical Thinking. ASQ employees are also encouraged to take advantage of the certification system, one of which is highly encouraged is the CQIA certification.

I believe it would be very difficult to find a professional marketer, a professional print designer, a professional web designer, a professional IT developer/LAN Admin, and a professional sales person who comes in with the qualifications of having the sort of certifications ASQ offers. It is very rare for someone to come in with these tools. Something ASQ is trying to communicate to the general public, the importance of these tools - even outside of the quality profession. Quality is everywhere, in every facet of everyone's job.

Just my $0.02

ASQ Employee.Golly, talk about "thin skins!"

I would prefer to have a dispassionate discussion rather than a heated argument.

Is there anyone currently backing the ASQ point of view [that ASQ is very good and responsive] who is willing to describe the ASQ website of one year ago as incorporating much of even the WWW3 Standards? In my opinion, the design and navigation were pretty bad. The one thing I agree worked extremely well was the "store" to buy books, tools, Standards, etc. I used it often and it worked great! The supply chain after the purchase (delivery and followup for customer satisfaction) was also in a league with Amazon. I'm not certain the search function was "useful" back then and I haven't tried it since the new design features were incorporated in the website.

If we can come to agreement that the website then was NOT reflective of a Quality organization, perhaps we can come to agreement about the mechanisms for evaluating the current website and mechanisms for ensuring the points of view of OTHER experts [non-ASQ staffers] are heard and evaluated for incorporation into the site.

Disclaimer:
For a period in my life, I was a major stockholder and officer of a profitable website. I had to hire and fire experts as employees and consultants on a regular basis. I agree the fast-paced world of web ventures requires website operators to "shoot from the hip" or suffer "analysis paralysis." However, the successful operators look everywhere for successful models and advice and continually improve their sites. (Sound like a familiar term?)

I submit that basic Quality tools can be used successfully in website development by folks who really recognize how and when to use a Quality tool. IT folks sometimes hearken back to the mindset of "Big Iron" technicians of the 70's who ran around in super air-conditioned rooms full of big iron, wearing cute white lab coats. The mindset then was "This stuff is too complicated for mere mortals to understand. Trust us, we are the experts."

Problem is that mindset resulted in the "millenium crisis" because date years were only entered as two-digit numbers. If, however, some folks with a voice in the process had done a little FMEA (Failure Mode Evaluation Analysis) or "mistake proofing" the crisis might never have happened.

The primary complaint some folks have against "mickey soft" boils down to saying the ms engineers are still ignoring FMEA and mistake proofing in their software designs.

I recall in our own website that it took us nearly 6 months to discover and disconnect all the "back doors" various employees had set up despite a specific proscription against the practice. None of those employees thought he/she had done anything wrong because "it was to make our work easier." They didn't understand about social engineering. One defective thinker even made his back door password "backdoor."

My theory, honed on tough experience, is that the process of creating and maintaining a website requires lots of sunshine. As soon as a clique gets the mindset "they know best" is when the site deteriorates.

Consider a comparison with any major corporation fraud or just plain screwup of the recent past.
KMart - thought they could get by by buying inferior merchandise and deferring maintenance on stores to make a short-term boost in profits to raise the stock value.

Tyco - thought they could use the corporate funds as their own since they "were the reason the corporation is profitable."

Enron - they and their bankers operated under the theory "we're smarter than everyone else, it's fair to charge everyone a little more so we can make a big profit. Since that's fair, it's OK to manipulate the markets to make even more for ourselves."

and so on, and so on.

So how does this long-winded discourse relate to Quality at the various ASQ features of its website?
1) Many feel the ASQ is not truly following ISO9k2k precepts of determining customer satisfaction. Do the staffers even realize who their "customers" are?

2) Without strong input from Quality-knowledgeable people, simple Quality tools are ignored and momentum carries the enterprise out of control.

3) Focus on:

root causes of member drain,
common cause of lack of recognition of ASQ in general corporate executive suites, and
continual evaluation of other sites (benchmarks)
is a simple use of Quality tools to maintain "continual improvement."

4) Paid staff must adopt a greater respect for the rank and file ASQ member. Lack of respect is one of the reasons I hear for non-renewal of membership. (The insiders at ENRON, TYCO, and KMART had no respect for the rank and file employees of their organizations and subsequently the entire house of cards came tumbling down.)

Well, this discussion sure is heading off into some interesting directions.

I do want to acknowledge it is a good thing that ASQ staffer(s) are here. In fact, I may have precipitated it a number of months ago when I suggested in a phone call that someone should come on over and take a look on the Cove about what is being said about ASQ. I am not sure about the need for anonymity, but I will respect it. I know that the ASQ staffers here cannot speak for ASQ policy, so I assume they are careful not to say anything that will be quoted back as "ASQ Says So".

Myself, I have a challenge as an unabashed Demingite in fulfilling the role of a Section Chair. I have been criticized in the past for being seen as "only statistics is important" and that being "bad" for the section. As a Section Chair, I have to be careful, and in fact will go overboard in trying to get opposing view points to write articles for the section newsletter or try to get them to speak at a dinner meeting.

Fortunately Fluor corporation values professional development and publishing, so I don't feel like I need to be careful about my employment ties.
Oh well, just an interesting Friday.

4) Paid staff must adopt a greater respect for the rank and file ASQ member. Lack of respect is one of the reasons I hear for non-renewal of membership. (The insiders at ENRON, TYCO, and KMART had no respect for the rank and file employees of their organizations and subsequently the entire house of cards came tumbling down.)

Now that hurts. Guess it's time to find a new job, or go independant and finally start my own company before the cards come tumbling down. :bonk:

You have valid issues which are of concern to a great many employees at my peer level. It is my hope that change occurs, and I feel like we're moving forward, but slowly.

I know that the ASQ staffers here cannot speak for ASQ policy, so I assume they are careful not to say anything that will be quoted back as "ASQ Says So".

I by no means am an expert on ASQ policy, nor would I ever speak to it outside of my role as an ASQ employee.

I work on the web side of things developing, designing and maintaining ASQ's web properties. Web Offerings, under the direction of the organization, and with coordination from IT (infrastructure and back-end coding) act on the organizations business goals.

My role extends beyond just that though, and is involved with Customer Care as well. I provide Customer Care Level 2 support for our members and customers. Therefore if there is an issue that our level one can not resolve, I handle it. I have been a spectator of the cove for the past year, and had not posted due to the lack of need, until now.

I saw the post about the email that went out from our organization, and I found this as an opportunity to help a customer/member. I think that my role here is to listen, and to contribute. By no way, shape, or form do I embody a position of power, or a position of policy. Consider me a worker bee just trying to do my best for the organization and it's members/customers.

:(

I'm a "newbie" here, so maybe folks will not take kindly to what I'm about to say. But, I feel a little sad about the tone and direction of this thread. (I am glad Marc made his comments about "in your face", etc., since it's important that people feel they can have spirited debate, without personalization or stronger personalities taking over a discussion. If that ever happened, I believe this forum would suffer, which effects everyone. I noticed a seperate thread about why the cove hasn't heard from some people in a while. Hmmm.)

I fully appreciate and support everyone's right to express their opinion (and welcome the opportunity to learn from all of you and hopefully, someday share something of value, from my own experience). While I don't necessary agree with every comment (who does), I really do enjoy reading the exchanges. However, the tone, remarks and "labeling" of some of these replies is exactly what makes me hesitate to participate and one of the reasons I will not give my real name (sad). I think people sometimes forget "it's not what you say, but how you say it" and unfortunately, one of the bad things about e-messaging is that the "interpretation" and tone of ones' words can get lost. Initially, I at least like to try to give everyone the benefit of a doubt without trying to "peg" them. When the ASQ person voluntarily accessed this site, his/her comments really seemed to indicate he/she was going above and beyond the call of duty to try to help, in any way he/she could. Personally, I don't think the posting of his/her name was relevant, as he/she was imparting job information on behalf of ASQ. (By the way, I enjoyed the ASQ Rep's comment about "..that way you can yell at yourself". Kind of a variation on "If you're not part of the solution, maybe your part of the problem"??)

I will be the first to agree that I'm not completely satisfied with ASQ (including the direction they are going in). IMHO, they have been more concerned about $$ and increasing membership, for a long time. However, I was embarassed reading some of the comments, which seemed to "shoot the messenger", as if he had any control over the larger organization's direction or decisions. I've seen similar comments about Registrar Auditors, which are also unfair (that's a whole other thread). I think some of us have forgotten that most of us are employees, who are carrying out our managements' wishes, not necessarily in full agreement with what the company's direction is nor what they expect us to do to support it (mind you, I'm not talking about anything that violates your personal, moral or ethical code). If you work for the rare company, that allows you to completely speak your mind, criticize them unmercilessly and fully supports your every action....bravo for you! But, that's not most of us. The ASQ Web Offerings CN may not necessarily be happy with his/her organizations' mandates, but I appreciate that I believe he/she is trying to serve the membership in the best way he/she can, given his/her environment and what little of it he/she may have control over.

The best any of us can do is to the best we can in a given environment. If we can't support or effectively change the situation, we have the right to accept it (i.e. do what I can, as I believe the ASQ Rep is trying to) or make a change (i.e. leave the company/association and move on or "vote your pocketbook" and not renew your membership). End of story.

Thank you, ASQ Web Offerings CN, for the announcement links for job offerings. Maybe your email will help someone deserving get the job! :applause:

And Thanks, to all the members of Cove and Marc for this lively and entertaining forum. :applause: Cheers!!

Yes, we have had to get away from the "get in your face" comments, so I won't tell the ASQ folks that I put my membership renewal stuff in the kitty litter box...

To show that I don't discriminate, I'm probably going to do the same with my ASSE membership next year.

It seems to me that "professional" organizations tend to slide you into a corner if you don't have your ticket punched with "their" alphabet at the end of your name. (Remember "Revenge of the Nerds" when the "nerds" tried to do the "Fraternity" thing? It's the same thing with professional organizations).

I noticed a seperate thread about why the cove hasn't heard from some people in a while. Hmmm.)
You'll have to take into consideration that these forums have been online for over 7 years - about 18 months after the site first went live. I daresay I doubt you will find any open forum which has been online continuously for as many years where all, or even most, of the original active participants are still around. That's not to say some folks haven't been offended from time to time and stopped coming by, and some people have been kicked off as a result of 'trouble making' but typically in an open forum environment there is always going to be someone offended by one or more posts.

Taken in context, that people come and go is expected and reality tells us that there will be people who will be offended from time to time. That's the nature of life.

I am personnally confused about ASQ Web Offerrings being present at the cove and on this thread offerred more responses then I remember being offerred at the ASQ forums. Also it seems they can respond in a timely fashion! How can this be? Do Web Offerrings feel more tuned in here at the cove then they do at their own site? Have they drove so many away from the ASQ site that they have to come here to gain insight as to the problems at home?
Well, OK! I can live with that! It at least shows some level of effort albeit that level should have been displayed at ASQ.
I welcome your presence! Thanks for coming. :applause:

I am part of the group that monitors the Discussion Boards at ASQ; however I am not the individual(s) that is/are responsible for answering questions and threads. As I stated in an earlier post, my role here is an extension of my second level help desk, to help with problems, and observe the outside persona of ASQ. Especially here at the cove, since it is such a valuable resource to Quality practitioners and a valuable resource that is quoted numerous times in ASQ's Discussion Boards.

Hope that helps you understand.

I am part of the group that monitors the Discussion Boards at ASQ; however I am not the individual(s) that is/are responsible for answering questions and threads. As I stated in an earlier post, my role here is an extension of my second level help desk, to help with problems, and observe the outside persona of ASQ. Especially here at the cove, since it is such a valuable resource to Quality practitioners and a valuable resource that is quoted numerous times in ASQ's Discussion Boards.

Hope that helps you understand.

But, what are you doing with the information/requests that are being posted here? Is that information actually being fedback to those that are responsible for answering the questions and threads, so that they can correct the issues being noted here?

But, what are you doing with the information/requests that are being posted here? Is that information actually being fedback to those that are responsible for answering the questions and threads, so that they can correct the issues being noted here?

The feedback and problems here are communicated through the proper channels at ASQ so that corrections can be made. It is then up to the content owner assigned at ASQ to resolve the issues.

I have forwarded comments on a weekly basis, at times daily, and then communicate to my department/workgroup any action items which directly relate to the areas we are responsible for.

Realize that the timely manner of my posts here are because of my responsibility, and are in no way, shape, or form reflective of the timely manner of posts on ASQ's discussion boards. I answer here personally and professionally as an individual and an ASQ professional employee.

ASQ content owners are held to the ASQ Discussion Board Policy, their adherence to that policy is an issue that is apparent both here and on the ASQ Discussion Boards, and has been communicated to the organization.

My :2cents:

I think I speak for most, if not all, of us in saying we welcome your visiting and addressing ASQ related issues.

My :2cents:

I think I speak for most, if not all, of us in saying we welcome your visiting and addressing ASQ related issues.

Thanks Marc.

I am part of the group that monitors the Discussion Boards at ASQ; however I am not the individual(s) that is/are responsible for answering questions and threads. As I stated in an earlier post, my role here is an extension of my second level help desk, to help with problems, and observe the outside persona of ASQ. Especially here at the cove, since it is such a valuable resource to Quality practitioners and a valuable resource that is quoted numerous times in ASQ's Discussion Boards.

Hope that helps you understand.

When I first started reading postings by ASQ Web Offerings, I assumed they were the official views of ASQ since that is also the anonymous name they have used for responses in their own board. ASQ may want to re-consider the practice since anyone reading these postings may think the person is speaking for ASQ rather the opinion of this anonymous poster.

It would have been nice if ASQ had responses from this anonymous person for the past year. At least we would have known that someone was actually reading the postings. Isn't it ironic that ASQ is using the Cove to observe "the outside persona of ASQ" when its own members have been willing to give their opinion directly through the ASQ boards.

I wish ASQ well but it is going to take some time before they catch up to the Cove even assuming it stays stagnant. Without a giant leap forward, ASQ may always find themselves a step behind. Just trying to catch up to where your competition (yes Marc you are that) is not a good strategic plan for any organization.

The best any of us can do is to the best we can in a given environment. If we can't support or effectively change the situation, we have the right to accept it (i.e. do what I can, as I believe the ASQ Rep is trying to) or make a change (i.e. leave the company/association and move on or "vote your pocketbook" and not renew your membership). End of story.

ASQ members don't work for the organization, they own it through their dues. Letting members leave who have complaints does not sound like a good game plan just because you don't want to be criticized. The assumption is that vocal board participants have not raised complaints through participation in polls, questionaires, and direct communication. It can be very difficult to get responses from ASQ and even when you do it is sometimes that is what we want to do, too bad if you disagree. It will be interesting to see if ASQ gets more members, stays flat or loses even more members with their new Living Model strategy.

If I have offended anyone with these views, it was totally unintentional and hopefully no one reads more into my thoughts than just MHO.

Bill Pflanz
(not an anonymous ASQ member)

ASQ members don't work for the organization, they own it through their dues. Letting members leave who have complaints does not sound like a good game plan just because you don't want to be criticized.
Bill Pflanz
(not an anonymous ASQ member)

The ASQ leadership may be quality guru's and world class "Q" experts, but they don't know squat about business management. The ASQ is a business and has to be managed as such. The hucksters running the show are asking their customers to go elsewhere and the numbers show that they are. This ASQ "crisis" is a classic example of the "TUNOPIA" syndrome I have identified in postings here, in print and in public all over the US and in Canada. "TUNOPIA" is a highly contagious and dangerous disease of the mind that eventually attacks the body's ability to act rationally in the decision making process.

Who's next up to bat?

ASQ members don't work for the organization, they own it through their dues. Letting members leave who have complaints does not sound like a good game plan just because you don't want to be criticized. The assumption is that vocal board participants have not raised complaints through participation in polls, questionaires, and direct communication. It can be very difficult to get responses from ASQ and even when you do it is sometimes that is what we want to do, too bad if you disagree. It will be interesting to see if ASQ gets more members, stays flat or loses even more members with their new Living Model strategy.

:eek: Unfortunately, I believe your response reflects you have completely misunderstood my comment. I was certainly not advocating "letting members leave who have complaints". All I was trying to do was support this poor guy, who is only the "messenger", since many of the responses seemed to be holding him accountable for things out of his control. I also don't agree that ASQ members who pay dues, necessarily "own it". (You buy stock in a company, you may have a vote in the running of it, but you certainly don't own it necessarily in a large enough block to control it. And if you don't like what the company is doing, you have the right to sell, hence my "vote your pocketbook" comment). As noted in my original comments, nobody is denying the fact that people are not happy with ASQ and that many of the comments noted here maybe truly justified. Personally, if people are that upset with them, Let's face it: Life is too short to deal with people/companies/organizations that make you miserable and there are alternatives to ASQ. I just was concerned about this poor guy who actually was trying to do something nice and, frankly, with the tone and direction of comments in this thread toward him, I wouldn't blame him if he never visited the cove again. JMHO

I don't think anyone has attacked our ASQ friend. Some of us may be a little right of center and that is what has irritated your apparent sensitivities.

Goodness me...some of us have not have been sweet and soft and politically correct :(

The ASQ, as well as most other professional organizatiions, is the embodiment of its membership. Historically as organizations grow larger and more complex, creating multiple levels of bureaucracy they start distancing themselves from the general body membership...Look at our own federal government. Two hundred years ago the average John "Q" Citizen could walk right into the White House, without and appointment, and talk to the President. Nowadays the same citizen probably can't even get a phone call in to his city councilman. The ASQ (remember it's not alone) has developed itself into the same thing.

One only has to look at things like periodicals, conference agendas and the like to see that the average "citizen" is out in the cold. How many of the articles that we have the privilage of reading here every month would really stand a snowball's chance of getting published in "Q Progress"? Most likely zip! They wouldn't be long enough, or of good enough "quaility" or technical enough, or the writers background may not be suitable, so on and so forth, blah, blah , blah.....

One only has to look at things like periodicals, conference agendas and the like to see that the average "citizen" is out in the cold. How many of the articles that we have the privilage of reading here every month would really stand a snowball's chance of getting published in "Q Progress"? Most likely zip! They wouldn't be long enough, or of good enough "quaility" or technical enough, or the writers background may not be suitable, so on and so forth, blah, blah , blah.....

Actually, the one "shining star" for me as an ASQ member is the current Quality Progress staff. From the editor down they are extremely helpful, and very encouraging of authors. I have published three papers with Quality Progress so far, and have an additional one in the queue as we speak. All were processed quickly by the staff, and comments were helpful and resolved quickly. I have not reprinted the papers here in the Cove as monthly submissions due to copyright restrictions. As far as I can tell, ASQ is pleading for practitioners (average citizens if you may) to submit papers. Fortunately, my employer is very supportive of publishing papers (we just had an awards breakfast this morning for authors, and I got another couple plaques to put on my I love me wall).

By the way, I am pretty sure I know who CN is, and we have had quite a few phone conversations over the past few years. I should point out to ASQ members the ASQ staff is just an 800 number away, and they are good to talk to. Now, granted I believe there are some "willing worker" issues, but I have no doubt that the individual staff members at ASQ are well-intentioned and knowledgeable.

The feedback and problems here are communicated through the proper channels at ASQ so that corrections can be made. It is then up to the content owner assigned at ASQ to resolve the issues.

I have forwarded comments on a weekly basis, at times daily, and then communicate to my department/workgroup any action items which directly relate to the areas we are responsible for.

Realize that the timely manner of my posts here are because of my responsibility, and are in no way, shape, or form reflective of the timely manner of posts on ASQ's discussion boards. I answer here personally and professionally as an individual and an ASQ professional employee.

ASQ content owners are held to the ASQ Discussion Board Policy, their adherence to that policy is an issue that is apparent both here and on the ASQ Discussion Boards, and has been communicated to the organization.

Let me ask if I may, what is your sense (or feeling) as to how ASQ receives these comments? What kind of vibes, :mad: or looks, :lmao: do you receive when conveying our comments to the ASQ?
Would you rate the reception as Positive? Or on a scale of 0 to 5, with 5 being extremely well received and 0 being not received at all, what would the rating be?
Just curious! I sense that you seem to want to reach out and perform well which is something i never sensed at the ASQ forums! :thanx:

Actually, the one "shining star" for me as an ASQ member is the current Quality Progress staff. From the editor down they are extremely helpful, and very encouraging of authors. I have published three papers with Quality Progress so far, and have an additional one in the queue as we speak. All were processed quickly by the staff, and comments were helpful and resolved quickly. As far as I can tell, ASQ is pleading for practitioners (average citizens if you may) to submit papers. Now, granted I believe there are some "willing worker" issues, but I have no doubt that the individual staff members at ASQ are well-intentioned and knowledgeable
As a member of the QP Editorial Review Board, I appreciate your comments. All of us who serve are unpaid members, but part of that foodchain that feels its' important to give back to the membership in any way we can. While we don't control what articles we're given to review, of the ones we receive we really try hard to fairly consider and screen out what might be unapplicable or uninformative to the membership. (You should see what DOESN'T get in!) If people are dissatisfied with some of the QP offerings (as Randy seems to be), I believe Steve's comment about "pleading for practitioners" is part of the issue. I know my previous employers wouldn't allow me to submit papers. The other thing to consider is that articles published have to appeal to a wide range. For those of us who have been around for centuries, some of the articles may seem like re-tread but there are always new quality professonials who consider some of this stuff "revelation". (Heck, I see quite a bit of that on the cove, too and yet most of the members seem to be quite helpful).

Again, I say, I am not disagreeing with the fact that there are problems with ASQ. I also agree that its' inevitable that organizations/governments as they get bigger, get more remote....unfortunately, that's life. I do regret (but have no control over) the fact that some folks on this board have misinterpreted my concern for comments made to this guy, as irritating my apparent sensitivities and being soft and sweet, etc. :o (Thanks for the compliment! I think if there were more of us in the world it would be a better place....but that's another thread) :lol: All I'm saying, is don't shoot messenger!!!!

All I'm saying, is don't shoot messenger!!!!
Sometimes that's the funnest part :naughty:

Let me ask if I may, what is your sense (or feeling) as to how ASQ receives these comments? What kind of vibes, :mad: or looks, :lmao: do you receive when conveying our comments to the ASQ?
Would you rate the reception as Positive? Or on a scale of 0 to 5, with 5 being extremely well received and 0 being not received at all, what would the rating be?
Just curious! I sense that you seem to want to reach out and perform well which is something i never sensed at the ASQ forums! :thanx:

There are two things to take into account with vibes:

1. The type of feedback - org wide, specific issue
2. The assigned content owner and the severity of the issue/feedback

For the most part issues are met and resolved with a quick response or action, therefore no bad vibes. But when an issue or issues attacks the organization from an operational standpoint, or from the standpoint of decisions that are made and are out of our control, that guide us in our everyday jobs, those issues/feedback are met with a lot of bad vibes, because they question things that are out of our control as ASQ employees. It is difficult then to get a proper answer/response to the initiator of the feedback or issue, and a lot of times the answers are ineffective.

For instance, "Why are the ASQ boards not open to everybody?"
Answer: A decision from the Board of Directors was handed down through the organization to create a benefit structure that offers multiple price point membership schemes to attract members/customers/interested individuals to ASQ. In order to make this work, a forum membership was created, thus needing a unique discussion board held separately from the other boards but open to members who chose them with their regular membership or add on the forums in addition to their membership.

This answer is unacceptable to many people, but it is what it is, and as an ASQ employee we can only take feedback, and send it through the proper channels to hopefully bring about change. We can’t give you what you want. When this happens, the issue becomes a stomping ground for brooders, and that is when frustration sets in from a member standpoint, and an employee standpoint.

For the most part we are effective, but those issues that come up with no resolve or no response in a timely fashion usually indicates when you’ve hit something that is an operational decision, and the issue you bring up is bigger than those of us monitoring the boards can answer.

For the most part we are effective, but those issues that come up with no resolve or no response in a timely fashion usually indicates when you’ve hit something that is an operational decision, and the issue you bring up is bigger than those of us monitoring the boards can answer.

A point I would like to [re]make is that this problem was identified by the "partnership study". The "partnership study" performed by ASQ (in response to the six sigma academy bruha) said that ASQ leadership was not anticipating the effects of decisions on individual members, and worse, had no reactive capability. The partnership study called for ASQ to form a "Tylenol Response" capability. To date, that still has not been done. On the big issues (six sigma, AQP/ASQ merger, ACSI, discussion boards, Living Strategy) it is impossible to get a response back from the entity "ASQ" except for the rote answer that justified the initial decision. I am well reminded of the "Cowboy Quality" QP cover. Come heck or high water (or member discontent), this is our policy. Until enough members rebelled against SSA.

So, you are welcome to pass that back on as a potential root cause of the joint frustrations that arise. This is provided not to further frustration, but to say that the cause of frustration was identified two years ago, and still exists, and I believe it can be reduced with openness and proactive actions.

There are two things to take into account with vibes:

1. The type of feedback - org wide, specific issue
2. The assigned content owner and the severity of the issue/feedback

For the most part issues are met and resolved with a quick response or action, therefore no bad vibes. But when an issue or issues attacks the organization from an operational standpoint, or from the standpoint of decisions that are made and are out of our control, that guide us in our everyday jobs, those issues/feedback are met with a lot of bad vibes, because they question things that are out of our control as ASQ employees. It is difficult then to get a proper answer/response to the initiator of the feedback or issue, and a lot of times the answers are ineffective.

For instance, "Why are the ASQ boards not open to everybody?"
Answer: A decision from the Board of Directors was handed down through the organization to create a benefit structure that offers multiple price point membership schemes to attract members/customers/interested individuals to ASQ. In order to make this work, a forum membership was created, thus needing a unique discussion board held separately from the other boards but open to members who chose them with their regular membership or add on the forums in addition to their membership.

This answer is unacceptable to many people, but it is what it is, and as an ASQ employee we can only take feedback, and send it through the proper channels to hopefully bring about change. We can’t give you what you want. When this happens, the issue becomes a stomping ground for brooders, and that is when frustration sets in from a member standpoint, and an employee standpoint.

For the most part we are effective, but those issues that come up with no resolve or no response in a timely fashion usually indicates when you’ve hit something that is an operational decision, and the issue you bring up is bigger than those of us monitoring the boards can answer.


Thanks for an honest answer! It does appear that Steve's plea to implement the partnership study is a valid plea. What response has the ASQ given when you conveyed this concern?

Thanks for an honest answer! It does appear that Steve's plea to implement the partnership study is a valid plea. What response has the ASQ given when you conveyed this concern?Sometimes, old dogs know tricks nobody bothers to teach young dogs any more.

From a problem-solving viewpoint, it appears that the process of filtering comments through a string of employees concerned about their jobs isn't working because there is no reverse feedback from the "Board."

I don't want to humiliate or embarrass paid staff nor endanger their jobs. I am a Demingite and I KNOW the problem rests with management, NOT with low-level staff.

In another thread, Scott Dalgleish opines he has the ear of the Board at ASQ, but it seems obvious that entreaties by Bill Pflanz and Steve Prevette directly to Ken Case have not been taken seriously.

ASQ Management (paid and elected) seem to be taking the tack organizations take when they are unwilling to face reality - they hunker down, stonewall, and refuse to answer questions from customers, creditors, and their own employees. It almost seems as if the money-making Powerhouse that is the current ASQ merely maintains the membership and their associated "shield" of not-for-profit status to give ASQ a competitive edge against tax-paying publishers.

Also in another thread (the same one cited above for Dagleish), Marc asks whether the financial statement is available http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=83378&postcount=131
Most nonprofits PROUDLY publish their financial statements as soon as they are available. The ones who do not and put up stumbling blocks for folks to see those statements are also the ones who spend 98 cents of every dollar of gross income in fund raising payments to individuals and favored "for profit" organizations.

There is a new "initiative" with a funded call center and "unique" website created by ASQ to gather new members while the current members seem to be ignored at the existing website set up to provide "a benefit structure that offers multiple price point membership schemes." Do you wonder how the for profit people who manage and staff that website and call center were chosen? Was there open bidding or was someone merely "selected" despite the fact less expensive or better alternates may have been available?

All these questions prompt me to ask whether the current members might be receptive to a REFORM CANDIDATE for Chairman AND COMPLETE NEW SLATE OF OFFICERS at the next election of officers? The first order of business for the new Board would be to conduct a complete audit of all relationships of outside vendors to the ASQ and to publish the results for all to see. Top paid staff would be invited to justify choices "rubber-stamped" by previous Boards. Even a prestigious charitable not-for-profit such as United Way had to clean house when paid managers usurped the role of puppet Board Members who accepted lavish reimbursement for "expenses" to attend Board meetings in return for favorable votes on compensation schemes.

Note that I am NOT CURRENTLY ACCUSING anyone of malfeasance or misfeasance of office, only asking questions that don't seem to be answered in a forthright manner expected from an organization that espouses third party audits. I am suggesting such refusal is often symptomatic of deeper problems. A lot of sunshine seems to be needed on the entire ASQ operation.

I'm an ASQ member. I pay my dues and trumpet the cause of Quality everywhere I go. I don't expect to be ignored when I ask a question of folks whom my dues support. Yet, I am ignored.

In other words, is there sufficient interest among the members for a "Throw the rascals out!" campaign?

If you nominate me to run the place I'll reinstate my membership....I don't owe nobody nothin' :D

I'll guarantee a different point a view and attitude towards the general membership. The folks who work for the ASQ will either perform or figure out the color of their parachute :whip:

If you nominate me to run the place I'll reinstate my membership....I don't owe nobody nothin' http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/biggrin-a1.gif

I'll guarantee a different point a view and attitude towards the general membership. The folks who work for the ASQ will either perform or figure out the color of their parachute http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/whip.gifActually, I think the majority of ASQ paid employees are probably excellent. If anything, they are victims of a bad system, similar to the Red Beads.

Top management sets the culture of an organization. I never used fear in any organization I ran. I did a lot of "management by walking around." If I asked an employee to explain a process to me and he/she was unable to do so, I took the blame and took steps to help the employee learn. The only thing I had an ironclad rule against was hiding information (good or bad.) I never killed a messenger, but I grew awfully upset with liars who claimed to have a situation under control and didn't. Worst offenders in my book were those who claimed authority, but denied responsibility by trying to foist it off on others. In my book, you can delegate authority, but not responsibility. Even the FDA is now following that principle by holding top executives liable for failure to follow regulations. SEC and Sorbannes-Oxley similarly hold top management responsible for lapses at lower levels.

Actually, I think the majority of ASQ paid employees are probably excellent.
No doubt in my mind at the middle 'management' and lower levels... Even still, if the ineffective highest management personnel are unpaid, why the delay in implementing change and what connections (profitability wise) do they have whereby they profit outside the ASQ?
Even the FDA is now following that principle by holding top executives liable for failure to follow regulations. SEC and Sorbannes-Oxley similarly hold top management responsible for lapses at lower levels.
In theory, anyway... :rolleyes:

If you nominate me to run the place I'll reinstate my membership....I don't owe nobody nothin' :D

I'll guarantee a different point a view and attitude towards the general membership. The folks who work for the ASQ will either perform or figure out the color of their parachute...
Me too... :mg: Vote for me! :tg:

Well, here's how to do it (from http://www.asq.org/members/leadership/elections/nomination.html):
Board of Directors Nominations
Three separate elections for ASQ Board of Directors members occur on an annual basis. The Nominating Committee is currently accepting applications for the selection of President-Elect, Vice President, Treasurer and two National Directors for 2004-05. Letter from the Nom Com Chair. (PDF: 96 KB, 1 page)

In order to be considered as a Board candidate, nominees must meet the following requirements:

Be an ASQ member in good standing for at least six years
Have a member ranking of Senior, Fellow or Honorary
Complete a signed Conflict of Interest declaration
In addition, nominees interested in any of these Board positions are expected to attend the three regularly scheduled Board of Directors meetings, which occur annually in November, February, and May.

ASQ does have a Board reimbursement policy (PDF: 106 KB, 4 pages) for regularly scheduled Board meetings but welcomes and encourages the member or company's financial support for travel.

The Committee requires all nominees to complete and forward an application (PDF: 96 KB, 4 pages or Word: 54 KB, 4 pages) along with a short biography, photograph and a signed Conflict of Interest declaration (PDF: 147 KB, 6 pages or Word: 54 KB, 7 pages) to ASQ HQ no later than Friday, October 17, 2003. Each submitted application will be acknowledged and then a verbal interview (PDF: 77 KB, 3 pages) will be scheduled. The Committee would also like to share the Board position descriptions (PDF: 80 KB, 7 pages) and the Board KSAs (PDF: 86 KB, 1 page).

Also, on an annual basis, Sections elect seven or eight Regional Directors and Divisions select eight National Directors for two-year terms.

For more information on the nomination processes, download:

Policy G-20, Nominating Process Policy (PDF: 17k, 2 pgs)

D-3, Election of National Directors Representing Divisions (PDF: 27k, 2 pgs)

Policy S-8, Election of Regional Directors (PDF:16k, 2 pgs)

Thus blocking out 99.999% of the membership. :bonk: The DUH factor strikes again :lmao:

For the most part issues are met and resolved with a quick response or action, therefore no bad vibes.
...
For the most part we are effective, but those issues that come up with no resolve or no response in a timely fashion usually indicates when you’ve hit something that is an operational decision, and the issue you bring up is bigger than those of us monitoring the boards can answer.

Sorry, I wish I could agree but my experience suggests otherwise. Attached is a thread from the old boards I made requesting a correction to have the company name properly displayed in the profile. To date this one has not been corrected. There were several other threads on the older boards requesting functional enhancements that I don't feel fell into the category of operational decisions.

I would like to state, however, the new ASQ discussion boards appear to be much better in terms of speed and functionality. My needs are currently being met here, however, and so I haven't yet been able to discern any additional value for the cost of the benefit from ASQ.

You have to understand also that even if there is no way to fix the problem, an occasional (weekly) posting stating "we're still discussing this change with management," or "still on schedule to release this change by ----" is preferable to nothing. This is what I believe Edwin was at least able to provide us.

And while I disagree with the decision to make the boards available to members only, I can respect it. I still feel members and ASQ would benefit from additional forum boards there were free and accessible from the main ASQ web page. Perhaps ASQ could strike a deal and just link to these forums from their website?


All these questions prompt me to ask whether the current members might be receptive to a REFORM CANDIDATE for Chairman AND COMPLETE NEW SLATE OF OFFICERS at the next election of officers? The first order of business for the new Board would be to conduct a complete audit of all relationships of outside vendors to the ASQ and to publish the results for all to see. Top paid staff would be invited to justify choices "rubber-stamped" by previous Boards. Even a prestigious charitable not-for-profit such as United Way had to clean house when paid managers usurped the role of puppet Board Members who accepted lavish reimbursement for "expenses" to attend Board meetings in return for favorable votes on compensation schemes.


:agree1: Wes, you are right on the money!

Andy

Thus blocking out 99.999% of the membership. :bonk: The DUH factor strikes again :lmao:Not necessarily.

I haven't gone through all the necessary documents, but most associations want to assure themselves their elected officials are real stakeholders - hence the requirement for senior members or fellows. I balk at "honorary" members, though. I don't remember the criteria for "honorary" status, but it seems to me if a person runs for office in an organization, his commitment ought to extend to paying dues or being rebated dues in recognition of retired status after a minimum number of years of paid membership.

Similarly, many associations put in a requirement that the top officer must spend at least one year as a lower ranking Board member before being allowed to ascend to the top spot. However, even then, by-laws may be changed by 2/3 vote of a quorum at an annual or special meeting of the association. Sometimes, there are notice requirements before such motions may be put before the deliberative body, but a determined cabal of members could engineer a "palace coup."

There are also ALWAYS processes for recalling or impeaching ineffective officials.

By no means will anyone accomplish a major change on the spur of a moment, but a major change CAN be accomplished!

I haven't gone through all the necessary documents, but most associations want to assure themselves their elected officials are real stakeholders - hence the requirement for senior members or fellows.
Kevin Mader successfully pushed through a recommendation to make me a Senior Member because of these forums several years back. Now what??? :confused: Am I now a 'stakeholder'?

Also see: http://Elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=6876

Sorry, I wish I could agree but my experience suggests otherwise. Attached is a thread from the old boards I made requesting a correction to have the company name properly displayed in the profile. To date this one has not been corrected. There were several other threads on the older boards requesting functional enhancements that I don't feel fell into the category of operational decisions...
Andy,

I just contacted IT to update your information. The problem resided in the communication from our membership database to our ORACLE database. The issue will be resolved, and I will update this post when it is complete. If Edwin knew this, or communicated it with me a year ago, I could have resolved it then. I apologize for the internal loss of communication.

ASQ Employee

Kevin Mader successfully pushed through a recommendation to make me a Senior Member because of these forums several years back. Now what??? http://elsmar.com/Forums/images/smilies/confused.gif Am I now a 'stakeholder'?Why not? You still pay dues. You have a minimum of ten years experience in a Quality function.
Senior membership status may be awarded to those individuals who have been ASQ members in good standing and meet the following criteria:

Have been an individual member for one year
Have 10 years of professional experience
Meet one of four professional criteria
Application for Advancement to the Grade of Senior (http://www.asq.org/members/leadership/mbrapp/senior.pdf)

Fellow membership status may be awarded to those individuals who have been ASQ members in good standing and meet the following criteria:

Have 15 years of quality-related experience
Meet minimum score requirement across six professional categories
Are sponsored by peers and endorsed by their ASQ Section and/or ASQ Division
Have been a Senior member for five years or longer
Nominate a Fellow Member (http://www.asq.org/members/account/fellow.html)

Here's the scoop on Honorary:
(I still can't reconcile why someone who may have NEVER been a dues paying member may be qualified to run for office over a dues paying member who has not achieved Senior status by virtue of age. Seems like reverse age discrimination to me - remember, I'm old! However - I doubt ANY of these guys would bother running for office.)

Honorary Members of ASQ

Honorary member is the American Society for Quality's highest grade of membership. Only 20 people have attained this status in ASQ's existence.

As specified in ASQ's constitution, "an Honorary member shall have rendered acknowledged eminent service to the quality profession or the allied arts and sciences." Honorary member status is reserved for those who are so well-known and clearly preeminent in the profession that there should be almost no doubt of their being worthy. In order to attain the highest grade of membership, an individual must be nominated by at least 10 regular members and approved unanimously by the board of directors.

Walter A. Shewhart (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/shewhart.html), known as the father of statistical quality control, was the first to be named an Honorary member; this occurred in 1947, a year after ASQ was founded. Two years later, George D. Edwards (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/edwards.html), the first president of ASQ, became the second Honorary member.

The next, Martin A. Brumbaugh (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/brumbaug.html), founder and first editor of Industrial Quality Control magazine, was named in 1960. A trio of new Honorary members was named in 1965: Simon Collier (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/collier.html), a past president, Harold F. Dodge (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/dodge.html), known for his working in sampling, and Mason E. Wescott (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/wescott.html), mentor to a generation of applied statisticians.

Eugene L. Grant (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/grant.html), a great teacher of quality control, and Joseph M. Juran (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/juran.html), who made quality management his life subject, joined the list in 1968. W. Edwards Deming (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/deming.html), who fostered quality improvement on two continents, was added in 1970.

Ellis R. Ott (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/ott.html), educator of a generation of quality control professionals, became an Honorary member in 1978. He was followed in 1982 by Harry G. Romig (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/romig.html), an educator who was closely associated with Harold Dodge. Armand V. Feigenbaum (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/feigen.html), whose name became synonymous with the term "total quality control," and Kaoru Ishikawa (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/ishikawa.html), who helped develop a specifically Japanese quality strategy, became Honorary members in 1986.

William A. Golomski (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/golomski.html), a past president and distinguished educator, was honored in 1992. In 1996, Dorian Shainin (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/shainin.html) was honored for a lifetime of achievement. Also added to the roll in 1996 was statistician George E.P. Box (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/box.html). Genichi Taguchi (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/taguchi.html) (1997) was known for developing a methodology to improve quality and reduce costs.

Author and educator J. Stuart Hunter (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/hunter.html) became an Honorary member in 1998. Philip B. Crosby (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/crosby.html) achieved Honorary membership in 2001. He is legendary for promoting the concept of "zero defects," and for defining quality as conformance to requirements. The most recent addition is Dr. Lloyd S. Nelson (http://www.asq.org/join/about/history/nelson.html)(2003), the founding editor of the Journal of Quality Technology and long-time author of the journal's "Technical Aids" feature.

Boy, this has been a pretty wild ride.

Allow me to publicly state the offer I have made to ASQ to moderate the "Ask a Quality Professional" board, which is a board which is open to non-members. I have asked that we set up a method to track questions and to find out whether or not the asker is satisfied with the answer they get. This would also imply some way to forward appropriate items on to the Board of Directors if necessary.

I am willing to at least keep a little status file (gee, just like Corrective Action Management!) as to the date the question was asked, if an answer was provided, and whether or not the asker was "satisified". I would hope that could be posted on the ASQ site someplace, or perhaps just a subsection of the board where a weekly activity (or inactivity as the case may be) report could be publicly posted. I want to be sure I am not the one "left holding the bag" for ASQ leadership, but I am willing to actively participate and try to improve the situation.

Boy, this has been a pretty wild ride.
Public notice: You are at the Elsmar Cove forums. The 'Other' quality site...
Allow me to publicly state the offer I have made to ASQ to moderate the "Ask a Quality Professional" board, which is a board which is open to non-members. I have asked that we set up a method to track questions and to find out whether or not the asker is satisfied with the answer they get. This would also imply some way to forward appropriate items on to the Board of Directors if necessary.
WoW! I guess we better get you onboard as a moderator here!
I am willing to at least keep a little status file (gee, just like Corrective Action Management!) as to the date the question was asked, if an answer was provided, and whether or not the asker was "satisified". I would hope that could be posted on the ASQ site someplace, or perhaps just a subsection of the board where a weekly activity (or inactivity as the case may be) report could be publicly posted. I want to be sure I am not the one "left holding the bag" for ASQ leadership, but I am willing to actively participate and try to improve the situation.
So - What forum or forums do you want to moderate here??? Hmmmm???

Boy, this has been a pretty wild ride.

Allow me to publicly state the offer I have made to ASQ to moderate the "Ask a Quality Professional" board, which is a board which is open to non-members. I have asked that we set up a method to track questions and to find out whether or not the asker is satisfied with the answer they get. This would also imply some way to forward appropriate items on to the Board of Directors if necessary.

I am willing to at least keep a little status file (gee, just like Corrective Action Management!) as to the date the question was asked, if an answer was provided, and whether or not the asker was "satisified". I would hope that could be posted on the ASQ site someplace, or perhaps just a subsection of the board where a weekly activity (or inactivity as the case may be) report could be publicly posted. I want to be sure I am not the one "left holding the bag" for ASQ leadership, but I am willing to actively participate and try to improve the situation.

I have forwarded this on to the person in charge of the ASQ discussion boards because I think it is a great idea. Something our Web offerings group and customer care can keep track of in regards to another avenue to solve member/customer problems and issues with ASQ.

ASQ Employee

Andy,

I just contacted IT to update your information. The problem resided in the communication from our membership database to our ORACLE database. The issue will be resolved, and I will update this post when it is complete. If Edwin knew this, or communicated it with me a year ago, I could have resolved it then. I apologize for the internal loss of communication.

ASQ Employee

There is a bug in the system that will require further investigation. I hope to have an adequate answer to you tomorrow in regards to your situation Andy, and I promise I will resolve the issue.

Public notice: You are at the Elsmar Cove forums. The 'Other' quality site...

WoW! I guess we better get you onboard as a moderator here!

So - What forum or forums do you want to moderate here??? Hmmmm???
Always willing to further the cause of Dr. Deming's work (though that is a little quiet here). On the quality tools side, my formal training is in Ops Research, so all things statistical I am always willing to comment on. I know there was a fellow asking for a "quality tools" board here, and I could likely give good support to that.

Andy,

I just contacted IT to update your information. The problem resided in the communication from our membership database to our ORACLE database. The issue will be resolved, and I will update this post when it is complete. If Edwin knew this, or communicated it with me a year ago, I could have resolved it then. I apologize for the internal loss of communication.

ASQ EmployeeEdwin Thaves (the ASQ employee we speak of) was terminated and some of his messages summarily deleted from the Discussion Boards. That hardly sounds like there was any kind of collegial atmosphere at the time. The only one who stepped forward to take any sort of personal responsibility was Edwin Thaves. He paid for that initiative with his job (even if it was not the sole reason he was terminated.) The remainder of ASQ paid staff were conspicuous by their absence. I remember Andy's travails vividly.

Here's one of my own:
17066 Nibbled to death by ducks
Wesley Bucey
Sep-30-03
The ASQ staffers may have succeeded in driving away potential Forum contributers by simply ignoring any suggestions to make the Forum more attractive and usable for the average ASQ member.

The infrequent contributions will be interpreted by the ASQ staffers as confirmation that "no one cares about these Forums - look, no one uses them."

Most of those contributors who cared and served as Mentors to ASQ members asking questions about various aspects of Quality have lost heart and patience because their suggestions for improving the Forums have fallen on deaf ears. Those with questions who are new to ASQ are not given an easy road to find the Forums. When they do find the Forum and ask a question, long periods of time go by before they get an answer.

The lack of a link on every page to return the user to the master list of Forums or even the most recent Forum after reading an individual post is really tiring. The design is really amateurish.

Some of you may think I live for nothing more than bashing the ASQ staff, but believe me, I would rather have nothing to bash. The feeling for me is akin to the feeling many of us have had when employed by a company going through a death spiral:
"At first, we try to work harder in the hope our effort will make a difference.
Eventually, we see the futility in that path. Our inability to make the people with the power to change the course of events see the ramifications of their present path frustrates us more and more. Finally, we do one of two things -

(1) silently slink away to a new position with a different organization,
or, [worst of all]
(2) just sit and wait for the inevitable collapse, by which time we are so disheartened, we don't even have the energy to say, "I told you so!"

Anybody out there still have energy left for the "good fight"?
-Wes Bucey

Edwin Thaves (the ASQ employee we speak of) was terminated and some of his messages summarily deleted from the Discussion Boards. That hardly sounds like there was any kind of collegial atmosphere at the time. The only one who stepped forward to take any sort of personal responsibility was Edwin Thaves. He paid for that initiative with his job (even if it was not the sole reason he was terminated.) The remainder of ASQ paid staff were conspicuous by their absence. I remember Andy's travails vividly.

Here's one of my own:

Are there any action items that are residual from the old boards to the new that still plague your experience? Besides the obvious, time frame of which your questions are left unanswered?

Are there any action items that are residual from the old boards to the new that still plague your experience? Besides the obvious, time frame of which your questions are left unanswered?
Boy, that just opened the can of worms.

Here is my own current short list:

1. The statistical validity (and hence why do we at ASQ support it) of the American Customer Satisfaction Index. The only "technical answer" I got back to my enquiries (including a QP letter to the editor that was published) was "I teach PhD students, buy my book".

2. Responses to the various one-sided discussions on the "Living Strategy" "Dialogue". A nice job was done of tallying up input received at the formal sessions held in the big cities, but there were no opportunities for many of us to participate. A lot of unanswered questions remain, including mine at that site.

3. What are the intentions on the recommendations from the "Partnership Study"? Are they dead? Was the study of the ASQ board ever completed?

4. How can we hold a poll, get feedback together, and submit the results to the right decision maker(s) on the issue of accessiblity of the ASQ discussion boards? On the subject of polls, I haven't seen a popup poll on the ASQ site in a long time, and they NEVER came up in the discussion boards.

5. When are Board of Directors minutes for more recently than Feb 2003 going to be published?

This list is actually minus a few items that I consider to be resolved (or not worth beating on any longer).

Thanks.

Boy, that just opened the can of worms.

4. How can we hold a poll, get feedback together, and submit the results to the right decision maker(s) on the issue of accessiblity of the ASQ discussion boards? On the subject of polls, I haven't seen a popup poll on the ASQ site in a long time, and they NEVER came up in the discussion boards.



Honestly now, don't laugh, this is the only one I can answer, because I was talking about the boards, not the organization, I'm not equipped in any fashion to answer those questions. I believe only our directors are, possibly their assistants.

But to answer your question, we are looking into the polling option that we use to have on My ASQ - ASQNet, we are looking for a choice that is better than using the open source poll we used before so that we can adequately track statistics to post on our site and make available to our members and customers. I have not been a part of this initiative, but I know that it exists.

The accessibility issue is pretty much a done deal, and we are where we are at, but we are collecting feedback like that of which is posted here and at ASQ to report to the directors and to the board.

I will forward your other questions on to our Customer Care department so that they can reach the appropriate parties that can answer your questions.

"Senior membership status may be awarded to those individuals who have been ASQ members in good standing and meet the following criteria:
Have been an individual member for one year
Have 10 years of professional experience
Meet one of four professional criteria"

What are the professional criteria?

Honestly now, don't laugh, this is the only one I can answer, because I was talking about the boards, not the organization, I'm not equipped in any fashion to answer those questions. I believe only our directors are, possibly their assistants.

But to answer your question, we are looking into the polling option that we use to have on My ASQ - ASQNet, we are looking for a choice that is better than using the open source poll we used before so that we can adequately track statistics to post on our site and make available to our members and customers. I have not been a part of this initiative, but I know that it exists.

The accessibility issue is pretty much a done deal, and we are where we are at, but we are collecting feedback like that of which is posted here and at ASQ to report to the directors and to the board.

I will forward your other questions on to our Customer Care department so that they can reach the appropriate parties that can answer your questions.
No, I did not / do not expect Customer Care to have the answers to these questions, but they have been brought up in ASQ Discussion Board postings.

I suppose this is the key question, which you and I and others at ASQ are mulling over - how to get issues from the membership to the board? Even on another board here at the Cove I see folks with an issue completely unrelated to ASQ mulling over customer service, customer complaints, and "problem customers".

I see the Ask a Quality Pro board as one method for improvement, and in keeping a tally of questions at least we can say - these are unanswered questions from the ASQ membership. Some questions may be answerable by fellow ASQ members, some by ASQ staff, but others will require ASQ "Leadership".

What ASQ "Leadership" (whether that is the board, or who) chooses to do with the questions would be beyond my control (and your control), but at least we can pose the question and track the answer.