The Current State of the ASQ (American Society for Quality - formerly the ASQC)


Trusted Information Resource

Craig H.

Re: The Current State of ASQ

CarolX said:
[font=Arial, Helvetica]Scott Dalgleish, columnitst for Quality Magazine, wrote an article on the "health" of ASQ. The article can be found on line here….

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica],6425,105764,00.html

I frequently agree with many of Mr. Dalgleish ideas. His columns are, if nothing else, thought provoking. Give it a read and post your thoughts.


Thanks for pointing us to an excellent article.

First off, I agree that there needs to be less "fad of the moment" and six sigma emphasis, and more Juran/Deming. When the first Six Sigma article came out in Quality Progress, was I the only one who sensed a sea change in the magazine and ASQ as a whole?

Also, the perception that consultants have a lot of influence within ASQ is shared by many, I believe. Is ASQ's mission to advance the state of the quality profession, or just drum up business?

Finally, it is disheartening that the very approaches and techniques used by many Q practitioners are ignored by the ASQ. This point alone is the most important in the article.

I hope the ASQ brass is listening.


Randy Stewart

Good article,
IMO, ASQ is not the only one experiencing this problem.
Many companies are pushing these "tools" with no practicle knowledge of how or why they worked in another company or area.

We've been discussing the "AIM" and "Vision" of a system in the SoPK thread. One thing is certain, all the supporting functions must have an aim or vision that aligns with the overall aim and vision of the whole. If they don't match or align you're setting yourself up for failure.
You can't have flexible vision to respond to changes. The vision has to incorporate the changes or all you are doing is constantly changing direction.
Set a course and steer for the destination, storms and winds will challenge your strength, but don't lose sight of the objective!


Yeah !

I communicate with Scott occasionally about the state of Quality and his articles. Though we don't always agree, we speak and respect our unbridled opinions. In this case, however, I am in complete agreement with all his comments.

ASQ in its current state is as non-value added as the registration process. Capturing lost sales by promotion of more new, exciting and costly programs for the moment’s symptoms, never conducting the necessary analyses to move Quality back to an even respectable entity. It’s a sham. :frust:

Were we not happy with the unparalleled results from TQM ? Fundamental, proven, effective and easy to use, yielding the optimum customer satisfaction. ;)

It’s just too easy for most to understand and didn’t generate enough revenue for consultants and societies. It’s a shame. :(



I agree with your assessment of Scott's work. I've also found him thought provoking.

I think part of the problem is that ASQ is going through an identity crisis. Are they a statistics oriented organization? Are they the ISO kingpin in the US? Are the focused only on mfg? Are they focused on all age groups (ex. Koala Kids)? Is training a primary objective? If so, should it be at the local or national level?

The other part of the problem is that I believe people and organizations are slowly coming around to the idea that "quality" isn't just for groups labeled "QA", "QC", "QE", etc. Quality is everyone's responsibility. For example, the last company I was at dismantled their whole quality organization several years ago and melded these people and their responsibilities it into manufacturing, engineering, and the development groups as appropriate. In some cases their responsibilities remained the same, in other cases their responsibilities were evenly distributed to process and development engineers and were reassigned as process engineers. If other companies are making similar shifts, ASQ's target audience is becoming more diluted.

One final thing that has bothered me, is that lately I get the impression that ASQ is always looking for a quick buck. For example, they have recently created a certified six-sigma black belt with training programs that are quite expensive (like Scott eludes to in his article) and they charge somewhere around $100 I believe for a copy of the ISO 9000 standard, even for the soft copy. Are you kidding me?



Fully vaccinated are you?
Re: The Current State of ASQ

My experiences with the ASQ have for the most part been bad from when I joined back in the 1980's. I won't hash out the details, but I've never been impressed with the organization and from when I first joined in the 1980's felt they were interested in little more than my money.

I believe a few years ago there was an attempt to start a new 'quality club' but it failed. I don't remember any details, but I remember there was some dissent.

I keep a membership because some people expect it.


Trusted Information Resource
Re: Re: The Current State of ASQ

Marc said:
I keep a membership because some people expect it.

Same here. I have had my membership since 1982.
I seem to recall way back then that they didn't accept advertising in Quality Progress.



This is interesting. I had to really think about renewing my membership. I probably would not have done it except my boss still thinks it is a good idea. I'm not convinced myself, nor my company, nor the quality profession is getting their individual or collective money's worth.


I haven't had a chance to read the posted article yet, but this topic is a little disheartening...
In another post of mine it was recommended as a possible "good" idea to join groups like the ASQ if you a new to the Quality field.
In this post I get the impression I'd be wasting my money...

I wonder if in a few years at my current small company if my "quality manager" position will just be one resposiblity among many other (assuming I'm still here and our quality problems/issue continue to remain extremely low). Heck if I wasn't so computer literate and everyone else wasn't so busy (small office of 6 people), we probably could do with out a "quality manager" right now... *eeek*

Sean Kelley

Could it be that they have evolved into a huge beast that is overall very hard to manage at a small level and they have therfore become a conglomerate giant that is actually less efficient than several smaller groups? Does it sound at all like government.

The government does many great things but in many ways they are too big. Privitization is not really a good anwer either because there always will be favors owed and price gouging. So what is the solution?
Top Bottom