2013 Robitaille Article: The Fat Lady Sung

I just uncovered this, and am not sure how I missed it. US TAG permanent fixture Denise Robitaille wrote a Quality Digest article back in 2013 that is shocking in its condescending arrogance and contempt for anyone other than her TAG cronies.

Entitled “It Ain’t Over til the Fat Lady Sings,” the article attempts to defuse the growing concerns ISO 9001 end users had about the then-developing standard. Remember, this was back in 2013, but at that point we already had a few drafts of the standard completed and released for public consumption.

Let’s take a look at some snippets:

As ISO 9001 wends its way through the revision process, there have been dozens of articles, webinars, forums, and discussions anticipating what the final product will look like. Pundits and experts, consultants and gurus are all weighing in on what’s going to happen. The prognosticators have made a run on crystal balls, decimating the fortunetelling industry. With all the predictions all we need is for the Vegas bookies to starting laying odds on what will or won’t be included in the next version of 9001.

Ms. Robitaille fails to mention that the flood of articles and webinars were nearly entirely produced by her and her TAG cronies, with the help of Quality Digest publishers and editors. She then sneers at users — and competing consultants, no doubt — for trying to parse what little information was coming from the TAG and ISO, the latter of which was busy threatening lawsuits against people in an attempt to prevent information on the drafts from reaching the public. She left that part out.

She also skipped the part about “pundits, consultants and gurus” dominating the TAG leadership, which counts her as a member, leaving almost no oxygen in the room for anyone else to talk about anything.

But Robitaille offered a solution. A convenient, self-serving one at that: make sure you only get your information from her, or her pals:

…the best hedge against being surprised by the changes is current and reliable information. Since ASQ is the administrator for the US TAG to ISO TC176, articles in Quality Progress and other ASQ publications are pretty reliable because much of the material is peer reviewed.   You can send me questions through Quality Digest, and I’ll be happy to answer or to pass the question on to others who can respond more completely.

Well, not quite. QP isn’t peer reviewed, unless you mean it’s reviewed to ensure it was written by a “peer” like Robitaille.

Make sure to get information from creditable sources. There are reputable individuals who have valuable information about the process, the potential changes, the rationale for those changes, and directions on how and when to make comments and voice concerns. People who are either directly or indirectly involved with the standards development process are often a good resource. They know what is fact and what is conjecture. Again, you can make inquiries through Quality Digest, which will send them to me or other reliable technical experts.

While Robitaille is touting herself as a go-to source — that’s convenient — the TAG was issuing orders to its members not to discuss anything related to the development process or drafts, and forcing members to remember that only official information could be released. That rule (assuming it even exists — I’m too lazy to look it up) was never followed by the selected TAG consultants or leadership, but then unfairly enforced on everyone else.

Don’t make decisions based on the word of people who purport to have the inside track on what the ultimate revision will include. The nature of the standards development process debunks the concept of insider scoops.

Really? The “nature of standards development process debunks the concept of insider scoops?” Given the fact that nearly all of the “insider scoops” were provided by … you know … actual TAG insiders, what is she on about? What did she have to say when her friends Lorri Hunt and Jack West were giving $1,000-a-head “inside scoops” on ISO 9001:2015 as far back as 2011, when the work hadn’t even started yet?

Then, of course, Robitaille takes a swipe at you filthy skullery maids forced to use — ugh — “social media” to find out stuff.

Social media, by contrast, have little or no filters resulting in an unqualified hodge-podge of fact and opinion.

It’s the usual “get your information only from us, and only when we decide you should get it” junk that comes from the deeply conflicted consultant base of the US TAG 176. It’s also grossly self-serving, in that it ensures the money keeps flowing to Robitaille and her gang of TAG consultants, and not anyone else.