Welcome! Read this first! Then, feel free to introduce yourself here! And if you need to adjust the font size, click the A A A symbols at top right!

Please consider registering
Forum Scope


Forum Options

Minimum search word length is 3 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters
Register Lost password?
sp_Feed sp_PrintTopic sp_TopicIcon
Re-Branded ASQ Must No Longer Manage US TAGs or Standards Activities
sp_BlogLinkWhite Read the original blog post
Christopher Paris
Forum Posts: 625
Member Since:
5 December, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
15 March, 2019 - 4:30 AM
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Image EnlargerIf you haven’t heard, ASQ has dropped “American” from its name, opting to re-brand as simply “ASQ” with it no longer standing for “American Society for Quality.” The ASQ website is undergoing a scrubbing to remove all references to “American” as ASQ shifts to marketing itself as a “global” organization, while it presses to market its activities to three primary foreign markets: China, India and Mexico.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with ASQ shifting its focus from the being a US organization to a global one, and it’s a private company so it can do as it likes. If Americans are irked by this, they can cancel their membership, and many already have. But this does raise some serious questions about what role the new “global” ASQ should have in carrying out official US duties.

First, understand that ASQ is primarily a publishing company, and not a “membership society.” ASQ publishes a host of books, training materials, test preparation products and magazines, which it then only offers at a discount to members; those products are marketed to everyone, however, regardless of membership. ASQ will continue to do this, and it’s “global” rebranding is an attempt to stave of flagging US sales by appealing to non-US markets. Again, it’s ASQ’s right to do so.

Next, however, you must recognize that ASQ has a long history of conflicting its official duties with its publishing and revenue aims. ASQ is tasked with managing key US Technical Advisory Groups (TAGs) in order to develop official US positions on matters pertaining to industry standards. The US TAG 176, for example, is convened to develop official US positions and draft texts on the ISO 9000 series of quality system standards. ASQ acts as the official Secretary for that role, and manages meetings, processes complaints against members, runs schedules, and then oversees individual member activities.

However, ASQ has conflicted its role in the US TAG 176 so that it’s subservient to ASQ’s greater sales goals. For example, the ASQ Secretary Jennifer Admussen has repeatedly refused to respond to issues about TAG 176 elections, TAG activities and TAG fundraising, even though she’s tasked with managing those issues. Instead, Admussen launched professional smear campaigns against the complainants.  In one case, Admussen tried to scuttle a speech at Fordham University on ISO 9001 given by me, and suggested I be replaced by some of ASQ’s writers, such as Jack West or Lorri Hunt. This was a craven move to ensure that any ISO 9001 event was tied to ASQ’s marketing.

The ASQ Secretary has also refused to uphold official ISO and ANSI rules which require TAG membership to be evenly distributed, without any single “interest category” dominating the proceedings. This is, per the ANSI rules of procedure for the TAG, the job of the Secretary. Nevertheless, for decades key ASQ writers such as Jack West and Charles Cianfrani have been allowed to intentionally falsify their interest category so that they were not listed as consultants but something else, despite being two of the world’s most famous ISO 9001 consultants.

Since both West and Cianfrani are such “favored” ASQ writers, ASQ editors have seen grant them special column inches in ASQ publications, despite peer review rules saying that submissions be reviewed “blind,” without consideration of the author. Multiple internal ASQ emails show the editors rejecting submissions on ISO 9001 in order to give room for the approved authors, like (again) West, Cianfrani or Hunt.

When TAG leader Denise Robitaille wrote articles which announced some dubious fundraising for the US TAG, asking for $50,000-a-pop donations, the ASQ Secretary should have assessed whether such fundraising was even legal under ASQ’s 501(c)(3) tax status. Instead, ASQ just ran Robitaille’s articles, and then refused to investigate. ASQ then never reported the fundraising on any annual tax filings, raising further questions as to whether it broke the law. (It’s likely no money was ever collected, because the dollar-value requests were so outlandish, thus saving ASQ from a far bigger headache.)

So if ASQ has been unsuccessful in separating its official duties from those of its publishing arm, then having its publishing arm re-branded for a focus external to the US raises a legitimate point which requires sober consideration: will ASQ no longer be able to adequately manage the TAGs to ensure US interests are put forth? Will it allow its hard-court press to market materials to China, India and Mexico overwhelm its official duties on the US TAGs?

All signs point to yes, given its history.

Again, ASQ can do what it wants with its marketing and company operations. But when managing official US duties, it cannot. China, India and Mexico all have their TAG counterpart organizations, within their countries. Those committees work to represent the interests of their home countries. It is not workable to have the US TAG now be managed so that it grants further representation to those countries, at the expense of US interests. In this case, it is a zero-sum equation: the US only has one voice in ISO votes. If it surrenders that voice to another country, the other country’s voice has doubled, and the US has lost it entirely.

To make the imagery simpler, imagine if the US stopped attending United Nations meetings, and allowed representatives of China to sit in their seat and vote. Again, it’s zero-sum.

So ANSI must restructure the TAGs to have ASQ removed from all management immediately. ANSI can then take on the job itself, since ANSI is the official national standards body for the United States.

Any failure to do so will be catastrophic for the US’ position in ISO, and we will have further ceded our rights of self-determination on the world stage.

Forum Posts: 9
Member Since:
18 June, 2018
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline
20 March, 2019 - 9:38 AM
sp_Permalink sp_Print

Things are worse than what the article implies.   ASQ has jumped in bed with the global Socialists and Communists who are attempting to set global controls over business through ASQ and ISO which benefit Socialist and Communist bureaucracies, and which dissuade private organizations.  This group views themselves as the global authority over all standards.   Their attempt at a global musical instrument standard, launched from China is just one of their latest attempts to globalize.  The US ANSI turned down that standard eventually but was at least considering it.

Jack West and Lori Hunt are making an end round ANSI to control all Standards at a global level, especially Quality Management.   Since when did bureaucrats know more about quality management than those working to meet the expectations of customers on a daily basis?  I personally am not a fan of centralization and bureaucrat control, both tend to stall or eliminate innovation.   Without innovation there is no growth.   Just consider the current cell or smart phone for a minute, think of the innovation of that one device, what it replaced, what its capabilities are.  Consider your life today without it.  Yet would that device have ever existed in a global socialist or communist society where the government owns all the means of production?   I doubt it…. No doubt the elite leaders would have such devices but John Q Public would obviously be restricted by the government.

Even though it might be messy in the long run, The US should never sent the same people to represent it under TC 176 for more than 2 terms of two years. Further no one organization (ASQ) should be representative of all Americans, as it’s too easy to corrupt.  Lastly I don’t  personally put that much stock in Lori Hunt’s abilities, I think there are far better choices to represent American in relationship to Quality, than Ms. Hunt.  What about Kevin Edwards Cahill … Deming’s Grandson?

Forum Timezone: America/New_York
Most Users Ever Online: 64
Currently Online:
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
Mu Beta: 54
dozza: 32
royplchan: 28
jo9977: 23
KH: 20
annie: 17
wayintense: 14
jdgill1963: 13
Richard Billings: 12
labrat: 9
Newest Members:
Richard Billings
Danny Ha
Forum Stats:
Groups: 13
Forums: 43
Topics: 712
Posts: 1514


Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 1
Members: 1654
Moderators: 1
Admins: 1
Administrators: Christopher Paris
Moderators: OQRI