QP_122012

U  A  L  I   T  Y  P  R  O  G  R  E  S  S 

Putting Best Practices to Work

www.qualitypr www .qualityprogress.com ogress.com | December 2012

P

 |  

D  E  C  E  M B  E  R  2  0  1  2 

The Importance Of Employee

Involvement

p. 52

QUALITY PROGRESS

Money Talks S  A  L  A  R  Y  S  U  R  V  E  Y 

V  O  L  U  M E  4  5  /   N  U  M B  E  R  1  2 

GET MORE TRAINING. GET CERTIFIED CE RTIFIED..

KNOW THE  MARKET.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL.

2012 QP Salary Survey offers tips for improving earning potential p.18

SUSTAINING RESULTS 2013 LEAN AND SIX SIGMA CONFERENCE

March 4–5, 2013 | Phoenix, AZ | sixsigma.asq. sixsigma.asq.org org

Lean and Six Sigma have never been more important than they are in today’s business environments. No matter your industry, if you’re you’re just starting to t o discover lean and Six Sigma or a seasoned se asoned veteran, the 2013 2013 Lean and Six Sigma Conference will show you how to apply lean and Six Sigma tools and methodologies, and the steps taken to sustain those results to make a difference in your organization. Enjoy more than 50 sessions, hands-on workshops, keynote speakers, and networking opportunities focusing on: • • • • •

New/Unique Applications With Lean and Six Sigma New/Unique Sigma Technical/Applied/Statistical Tools Lean and Six Six Sigma in Service The Future of Lean and Six Six Sigma The Human Side of Lean and Six Six Sigma

Early-bird pricing available through  January 18, 18, 201 2013.  ASQ Members $1 $1,195 • Nonmembers Nonmembers $1 $1,39 ,395 5

For more information about the 2013 ASQ Lean and Six Sigma Conference,  visit sixsigma. sixsigma.asq.org asq.org..

SUSTAINING RESULTS 2013 LEAN AND SIX SIGMA CONFERENCE

March 4–5, 2013 | Phoenix, AZ | sixsigma.asq. sixsigma.asq.org org

Lean and Six Sigma have never been more important than they are in today’s business environments. No matter your industry, if you’re you’re just starting to t o discover lean and Six Sigma or a seasoned se asoned veteran, the 2013 2013 Lean and Six Sigma Conference will show you how to apply lean and Six Sigma tools and methodologies, and the steps taken to sustain those results to make a difference in your organization. Enjoy more than 50 sessions, hands-on workshops, keynote speakers, and networking opportunities focusing on: • • • • •

New/Unique Applications With Lean and Six Sigma New/Unique Sigma Technical/Applied/Statistical Tools Lean and Six Six Sigma in Service The Future of Lean and Six Six Sigma The Human Side of Lean and Six Six Sigma

Early-bird pricing available through  January 18, 18, 201 2013.  ASQ Members $1 $1,195 • Nonmembers Nonmembers $1 $1,39 ,395 5

For more information about the 2013 ASQ Lean and Six Sigma Conference,  visit sixsigma. sixsigma.asq.org asq.org..

  nterprise nterprise Quality &

PDM

NCMR

QMS Software ISO/TS FMEA

ISO

Nonconforming

ISO 9000

Quality

ISO 13485

PDM

Quality Software

QMS

Nonconforming Nonconform ing Materials

 TL 9001

CAPA NCM ISO

Quality Compliance Software Manufacturing

Quality Assurance

Product Data Management

Manufacturing

Quality Compliance

Process

Nonconformance

Corrective Actions

Discrete

Quality

Manufacturing Quality Compliance

QMS Software Discrete

Risk Assessment

Nonconforming Materials ISO 9000

FMEA

ERP

ISO/TS MRB QMS Software

NCM

ISO 9000

 Supplier &  Materials

ISO/TS

ISO 13485

Discrete ERP

FMEA

 Supplier &    Materials

AS9100

Compliance

Corrective Actions

AS9100

 TL 9001

Nonconforming

Nonconformance

FMEA Quality Systems Software FMEA

Quality Management Software Supplier Rating

Receiving FMEA

Actions Inspections Corrective Manufacturing ISO

ISO

MES

CAPA QMS Software

ISO 9000 Quality Assurance Risk Assessment

Calibration

Manufacturing

PDM

ISO/TS Supplier

ERP

 TL 9001

Product Data Management

ISO 13485

Materials

Process ISO/TS

Receiving   Inspections

CAPA

Calibration

Quality

Quality Software

Process

Supplier

MRB

CAPA

Quality FMEA Manufacturing ISO 13485 Rating

CAPA ISO/TS

QMS

Calibration

ISO 13485 PDM

AS9100

Quality

Calibration

Quality Compliance QMS PDM Manufacturing Receiving   Nonconformance Quality Assurance

CAPA

Product Data Management ISO/TS 16949

Quality

QMS

Process

Inspections

Product Data Management

Calibration

QMS Software

Quality Assurance   Supplier QMS Software QMS & Materials

Calibration

ISO/TS

Quality

Discrete

Calibration

ISO/TS 16949

ISO

Compliance ERP

Process

ISO 13485

Materials ISO/TS MRB

 TL 9001

Process

... ...   st st VALUE : Integrated modules for Quality and FDA Compliance Management: CAPA  CAPA   ange ange Management  Management  Risk Assessment ...and more! events

Risk Management in t t  Quality System Flexible:: Leading edg Flexible edg  exible exible work work ow adapts to all business processes, wit wittt programming : Integrates wit wit 3rd party business systems Scalable:: Readily adapts to enterprise environments, and Scalable deployments

Supplier Management: Management : Collaborates wit wit rs  rs t troug roug  er  er

800-354-4476   [email protected] Business Intelligence

in

decision-making wit wit reds  reds of con congurable c carts and reports

www.etq.com/quality

Putting Best Practices to Work | December 2012 | www.qualityprogress.com

Contents FEATURES 18

SALARY SURVEY

Facing Tight Times Even though this year’s QP Salary Survey didn’t reveal any dramatic change in average salaries, the results can serve as a wake-up call of sorts to get you to reassess your own situation and the factors  you can control to improve your earning potential. Check out all 24 sections (20 online) of the most extensive examination of quality professionals’ salaries, which gives you information on salaries by job title, education, years of experience and certification—and more. by Max Christian Hansen

18

the Numbers 24 Crunching Taking heaps of survey data and making it into meaningful information you can use.

ONLY @

26 Money Multiplied

 www.qualityprogress.com

Salary by job title.

Location, Location, Location 31 Salary by U.S. regions and Canadian provinces.

35 Earnings Rise With Experience Salary by number of years of experience in the quality field.

43 Certainties With Certifications

Salary by ASQ and RABQSA International certification.

• Much More to Say An additional 20 sections of the QP Salary Survey, including four devoted to self-employed consultants. The four sections printed in this issue of QP are also available in the complete online report in PDF format.

• DIY Analysis

52

52

BEST PRACTICES

Get Them in the Game A workforce that helps make decisions and contributes to improvement activities can make a difference. by Carlotta S. Walker 

Use QP’s updated salary calculator tool for fast results and comparisons.

• Hear, Hear Listen to a webcast that features analysis of this year’s survey findings.

• Remote Option Read QP in its new digital format, the perfect way to access the top quality magazine not only on your computer, but also your smartphone, portable digital device or tablet.

• A3 Example An example of a completed problem-solving A3 report to complement this month’s Back to Basics column, “Breaking It Down,” p. 80.

• Back to Basics Translated in Spanish.

QP

DEPARTMENTS 7 Inbox • Further contact with customers.

8 Expert Answers

QUALITY PROGRESS

• Advice on audit scores. • Scoring your suppliers.

Mail Quality Progress/ASQ 600 N. Plankinton Ave. Milwaukee, WI 53203 Telephone Fax 800-248-1946 414-272-1734 414-272-8575

12 Keeping Current • Problems at the polls again. • Four Baldrige recipients named.

16 Mr. Pareto Head 71 QP Calendar 

64

72 QP Toolbox

Email Follow protocol of first initial and full last name followed by @asq.org (for example, [email protected]).

Article Submissions Quality Progress  is a peer-reviewed publica-

tion with 85% of its feature articles written by quality professionals. For information about submitting an article, call Valerie Ellifson at 800-248-1946 x7373, or email [email protected].

74 QP Reviews

COLUMNS 5 Up Front

Author Guidelines

58 3.4 per Million

Moving forward in trying times.

Improve your process even when  you’re missing specifications.

62 Quality in the First Person As the customer, remember you’re not the only one.

64 Career Corner  Making mentoring meaningful.

66 Statistics Roundtable The quality and origin of your data matter.

62

69 Standards Outlook Weighing the benefits of an ounce of prevention.

80 Back to Basics Finding answers with A3 reports.

ASQ’S RECRUITMENT DIRECTORY p. 57

NEXT MONTH - CERTIFICATION STORIES Tapping into the power of certification at different career stages.

- THE SYSTEM OF LEADERSHIP Four elements that make an effective leader.

ASQ’s Vision: By making quality a global priority, an organizational imperative and a personal ethic, the American Society for Quality becomes the community for everyone who seeks quality technology, concepts or tools to improve themselves and their world. Quality Progress (ISSN 0033-524X) is published monthly by the American Society for Quality, 600 N. Plankinton Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53203. Editorial and advertising offices: 414-272-8575. Periodicals postage paid at Milwaukee, WI, and at additional mailing offices. Institutional subscriptions are held in the name of a company, corporation, government agency or library. Requests for back issues must be prepaid and are based on availability: ASQ members $15 per copy; nonmembers $23 per copy. Canadian GST #128717618, Canadian Publications Mail Agreement #40030175. Canada Post: Return undeliverables to 2835 Kew Drive, Windsor, ON N8T 3B7. Prices are subject to change without prior notification. © 2012 by ASQ. No claim for missing issues will be accepted after three months following the month of publication of the issue for domestic addresses and six months for Canadian and international addresses. Postmaster: Please send address changes to the American Society for Quality, PO Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005. Printed in USA.

4

QP • www.qualityprogress.com

To learn more about the manuscript review process, helpful hints before submitting a manuscript and QP’s 2013 editorial planner, click on “Author Guidelines” at www. qualityprogress.com under “Tools and Resources."

Photocopying Authorization Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use or the internal or personal use of specific clients is granted by Quality Progress  provided the fee of $1 per copy is paid to ASQ or the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. Copying for other purposes requires the express permission of Quality Progress . For permission, write Quality Progress , PO Box 3005, Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005, call 414-272-8575 x7406, fax 414-272-1734 or email [email protected].

Photocopies, Reprints And Microform Article photocopies are available from ASQ at 800-248-1946. To purchase bulk reprints (more than 100), contact Barbara Mitrovic at ASQ, 800-248-1946. For microform, contact ProQuest Information and Learning, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106, 800-5210600 x2888, international 734-761-4700, www.il.proquest.com.

Membership and Subscriptions For more than 60 years, ASQ has been the worldwide provider of information and learning opportunities related to quality. In addition, ASQ membership offers information, networking, certification and educational opportunities to help quality professionals obtain practical solutions to the many problems they face each day. Subscriptions to Quality Progress  are one of the many benefits of ASQ membership. To join, call 800-248-1946 or see information and an application on p. 77.

List Rentals Orders for ASQ’s member and nonmember buyer lists can be purchased by contacting Michael Costantino at the Infogroup/Edith Roman List Management Co., 845-731-2748 or fax 845-620-9035.

UPFRONT

QP

QUALITY PROGRESS

Earning Potential Hints at how to get ahead in trying times THIS YEAR’S SURVEY

of the salaries of quality professionals in the United States and

Canada showed little movement over the prior year in terms of average salary, holding firm at about $87,000 from last year. But wait right there! Before you dejectedly slap this issue closed and toss it on the recycling stack, consider this: Stagnancy in salaries doesn’t mean you can’t make more. And that’s where this year’s results come in. Sifting through the numbers and dicing up the data, trends emerge. Chief among them: • With age and longevity in the profession come higher salaries, but the choices you make along the way with regard to education and training can nudge salaries upward.

PUBLISHER William A. Tony

EXECUTIVE EDITOR AND ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER Seiche Sanders

ASSOCIATE EDITOR Mark Edmund

ASSISTANT EDITOR Brett Krzykowski

MANUSCRIPT COORDINATOR Valerie Ellifson

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR Amanda Hankel

COPY EDITOR Susan E. Daniels

• Certifications and Six Sigma training are correlated with higher salaries.

ART DIRECTOR

• Consulting can be lucrative, either as an add-on beyond regular employment or

Mary Uttech

full time. Max Christian Hansen’s analysis of the survey results, “Facing Tight Times,” p. 18, summarizes several of these “levers” to greater earning potential. Beyond the four sections of results presented in the print edition, go to www.qualityprogress.com for 20 additional sections, further breaking down the results and providing interpretation of the findings. At the website, you’ll also find links to a webcast further explaining the results, as well as past surveys and our updated salary calculator. Questions and comments? You can post them on the website. For many people, their first-ever job was working in a fast-food restaurant, and if that describes you, you know how daunting the job can be. One study, cited in the article “Get Them in the Game,” p. 52, says 50% of fast-food restaurant employees turn over in any given year. That is substantial and, obviously, costly to the franchise in direct costs, customer service lapses and training. But how can that be addressed when it’s considered the norm? The answer? Employee engagement. Involving employees can make all the difference. The article describes methods and tips for improving employee engagement in the fast-food environment, but the takeaways can stretch further into other organizational settings, helping you expand your knowledge of ways to engage employees. After all, everyone wants to be trusted and empowered and to feel they’re a part of making decisions that affect them. QP

GRAPHIC DESIGNER Sandy Wyss

PRODUCTION Cathy Milquet

ADVERTISING PRODUCTION Barbara Mitrovic

DIGITAL PRODUCTION SPECIALIST Laura Franceschi

MEDIA SALES Naylor LLC Lou Brandow Krys D’Antonio Norbert Musial Rob Shafer

MEDIA SALES ADMINISTRATOR Kathy Thomas

MARKETING ADMINISTRATOR Matt Meinholz

EDITORIAL OFFICES Phone: 414-272-8575 Fax: 414-272-1734

ADVERTISING OFFICES Phone: 866-277-5666

ASQ ADMINISTRATION CEO Paul E. Borawski

Managing Directors Julie Gabelmann Brian J. LeHouillier Michelle Mason Laurel Nelson-Rowe

Seiche Sanders Editor 

To promote discussion of issues in the field of quality and ensure coverage of all responsible points of view, Quality Progress publishes articles representing conflicting and minority views. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily of ASQ or Quality Progress. Use of the ASQ logo in advertisements does not necessarily constitute endorsement of that particular product or service by ASQ.

December 2012 • QP

5

Featured Resources From the ASQ Knowledge Center FEATURED CASE STUDY

Serigraph’s Universal Language of Quality and Sustainability As vice president of corporate compliance environmental health and safety at Serigraph, Nick Leifeld has earned five ASQ certifications— CQE, CQT, CQA, CMQ/OE, and CSSBB—and led training for other Serigraph employees seeking certifications.

FEATURED WEBCAST

Best Practice in Team Excellence In this first webcast of a three-part series, Laurie A. Broedling and Vern Goodwalt, authors of the ASQ Quality Press book Best Practice in Team Excellence,  introduce you to the International Team Excellence Award framework. You will also learn how you can harness the framework’s power to continuously improve your teams and your organization.

FEATURED BENCHMARKING

ASQ Knowledge Center Offers Collection of APQC Benchmarking Reports APQC is recognized as the primary provider of benchmarking studies related to quality and metrics. Visit the ASQ Knowledge Center for more than 350 benchmarking reports and additional APQC content, including articles and webinars.

Access this month’s featured content and more Web exclusives in the ASQ Knowledge Center at asq.org/knowledge-center/featured.html.

TRAINING

CERTIFICATION  

CONFERENCES

MEMBERSHIP

 

PUBLICATIONS

QP

INBOX

QUALITY PROGRESS

Additional contact

is essentially an exercise in

PAST CHAIR

The rigorous analyses in “Mak-

establishing priorities based on

E. David Spong, The Boeing Co. (retired)

ing Contact” (October 2012,

“bang for the buck.” I recom-

CHAIR

pp. 26-31) and the description

mend the cross-functional

of the tools used yield an ex-

SWOT and PICK teams include

ceptional starting point. Devel-

key customers.

opment of the customer touch

Overall, CTPBM, QFD, SWOT

point business model (CTPBM)

analysis, PICK charting and

process maps and identifica-

attraction, interaction, transac-

tion of all the customer touch

tion and reaction scoring all

points is a relevant and valuable first step.

make great technical sense. Applying these

Regarding customer contact, the article

tools makes for a great lean Six Sigma proj-

said: “A unique customer motivator may

ect, yet they might not be required at the

not exist for each individual touch point

level of effort indicated in the article.

because some touch points might have the

Consider the following statement from

same underlying customer motivator. The

the article: “Cameron successfully improved

output of the QFD (quality function deploy-

its customer relationships after instituting

ment) in regards to the CTPBM is a ranked

the CTPBM. CTPBM has obvious potential

list of customer motivators and technical

value for engaging customers in the VOC

requirements.”

(voice of the customer) discussion.”

Application of QFD would nominally

Saying “QFD and SWOT analyses will

involve customers as key participants, yet I

shed light on which areas need the most

did not sense they had a significant role or

focus” begs the question: Would greater

presence in any of the analyses described.

customer participation make these analy-

I recommend greater customer involvement

ses less burdensome?

in these analyses. Share the touch points

help develop surveys and recommend what

• What have we left out that might be

questions to ask makes the surveys more

• Which of these are most important to  you? • What metrics should we use to measure our success in meeting your needs at

valuable. Cameron’s indicating it no longer needs to rely on “vague and potentially misleading survey results” implies CTPBM analyses might have helped in this area. I sense an underlying desire to apply

these important touch points?

rigorous technical methods to study cus-

Determine which customers to involve

tomers. Rigor is fine and appropriate, but

by selecting your largest, newest, oldest,

customers are not machines. Even though

most or least vocal on past surveys, or by

they might represent corporate entities, the

choosing whatever criteria make sense. But

actors are human subjects, and their be-

get them involved.

haviors are strongly influenced by emotion,

The article also discussed strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats

CHAIR-ELECT John C. Timmerman, Marriott International Inc.

TREASURER William B. (Bo) McBee, Hewlett-Packard Co. (retired)

PARLIAMENTARIAN Karla Riesinger, ASQ

DIRECTORS J. Michael (Mike) Adams, Allegheny Energy Inc. (retired) Belinda Chavez, United Space Alliance Darlene Stoddard Deane, Automotive Components Holding LLC Alexis P. Goncalves, Pfizer Inc. Kathleen Jennison Goonan, Goonan Performance Strategies Harold P. Greenberg, American Certification Corp. Eric A. Hayer, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC Marc P. Kelemen, NanoSynopsis LLC Lou Ann Lathrop, Chrysler LLC Joanne D. Mayo Elias Monreal, Industrial Tool Die & Engineering Richard A. Perlman, Bayer HealthCare Art Trepanier, Lockheed Martin G. Geoffrey (Geoff) Vining, Virginia Tech J. Eric Whichard, JE Whichard & Associates Steven E. Wilson, U.S. Department of Commerce Seafood Inspection Program

QP EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD Randy Brull, chair

Administrative Committee

Surveys can be useful. Having customers

with them and ask the following questions: important to you?

James J. Rooney, ABS Consulting

Brady Boggs, Randy Brull, Jane Campanizzi, Larry Haugh, Jim Jaquess, Gary MacLean, R. Dan Reid, Christine Robinson, Richard Stump

Technical reviewers I. Elaine Allen, Andy Barnett, David Bonyuet, John Brown, Bernie Carpenter, Ken Cogan, Linda Cubalchini-Travis, Ahmad Elshennawy, Tim Folkerts, Eric Furness, Mark Gavoor, Kunita Gear, Lynne Hare, Ron Kenett, Ray Klotz, Tom Kubiak, William LaFollette, Shin Ta Liu, Pradip Mehta, Gene Placzkowski, Paul Plsek, Tony Polito, Peter Pylipow, Philip Ramsey, R. Dan Reid, Wayne Reynolds, John Richards, James J. Rooney, Anil Sengupta, Sunil Thawani, Joe Tunner, Jeffrey Vaks, Manu Vora, Jack Westfall, James Zurn

as well as logic. They also like to be asked what they want.

(SWOT) analyses, and possible, implement,

 John Adkisson

challenge and kill (PICK) charting. The latter

Titusville, FL

December 2012 • QP

7

EXPERTANSWE Keeping score

But some degree of disconnect between

system, is an example in which process

Q: My organization began formally auditing

supplier scores and the quality of delivered

and results are tied together to achieve

its suppliers 18 months ago. Each supplier is

product is not unusual. In fact, you can not

an overall score. QP has published several

 assigned an audit score based purely on the

design a system that perfectly aligns audit

case studies from Baldrige recipients link-

maturity and execution of its quality system,

scores and actual effectiveness from the

ing business excellence to results.

without direct regard for actual product

start.

quality, using measures such as yields, re ject rates and customer-reported failures.

important for a well-functioning system.

reach 80 to 90% alignment, but the balance

Processes without results are useless, and

We have found that to date there is

must happen based on cycles of learning.

results without processes are unsustainable.

no correlation between a supplier’s audit

Full alignment can require months or even

Govind Ramu

 scores and its product quality. For example,

 years of adjustments. I believe you are cur-

Director, quality assurance

 some suppliers with relatively high audit

rently in this stage of post-implementation

 SunPower Corp.

 scores have been responsible for consider-

learning and improving.

 able breakdowns in product quality, while

If your system shows no correlation

others whose quality systems score low

between supplier audit scores and product

 provide consistently high-quality product.

quality, either you are asking the wrong

Is this unusual? If studies have been

questions during the audit, or your auditor’s

 San Jose, CA BIBLIOGRAPHY Bossert, James L., ed., Supplier Management Handbook , ASQ Quality Press, 2004. U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology,  2011 2012 Criteria for Performance Excellence, www.nist.gov/ baldrige/publications/business_nonprofit_criteria.cfm.

conducted on this topic, do they indicate

competency is in question. A disconnect

 product quality does rise when an organi-

also can happen due to a poorly designed

 zation’s quality system—or audit score—

scoring system. For instance, higher weights

Supplier inspections

improves? If so, how long does that take?

for scoring may be assigned to audit sec-

Q: I need to develop an inspection plan for

tions that do not have a direct impact on

incoming supplier checks. I’m looking for

actual product quality, such as yields, reject

frequency suggestions and sample sizes

rates and customer-reported failures.

that are realistic, bearing in mind some

Daniel Mueller   San Diego A: If the audit scores your organization

A well-designed supplier assessment/

 suppliers are more critical than others.  Stacy Gregory 

assigns to suppliers are based on the matu-

auditing system will include a defined

rity and execution of their quality systems,

objective, an infrastructure, a trained cross-

product quality also should be reflected in

functional team of auditors, a score review

those scores. Assigning a maturity score

process, and an effective corrective and

A: Your question contains individual parts

essentially requires evaluating effective-

preventive action system. The supplier au-

that may lead you to an appropriate sam-

ness. For a quality management system,

dit score review process must be dynamic.

pling plan.

assessing effectiveness means determin-

When you see a trend suggesting

Cartersville, GA

First, you noted this is for checking

ing the extent to which customers’ and

deteriorating product quality—such as

incoming supplier material, so you can elimi-

other stakeholders’ expectations, including

declining yields, increasing reject rates and

nate in-process and final—or audit—inspec-

expectations for product quality, are met.

increasing customer-reported failures—you

tion. Next, you mentioned you’re interested

should revisit the supplier’s score. Similarly

in frequency inspection, which implies it will

system is to remove or at least minimize

when a supplier consistently meets or

be performed on a series of lots from the

the effects of supplier deterioration in areas

exceeds goals, its score should r eflect that.

supplier. The need for realistic sample sizes

such as product quality, reliability and on-

Suppliers’ scores also should reflect the ef-

indicates inspection costs are a concern.

time delivery. The design of your supplier

fectiveness of closure of audit findings and

Finally, the last part of your request—

assessment and scoring system should

corrective and preventive actions.

The objective of any supplier assessment

enable your organization to achieve this and identify potentially low-performing suppliers.

8

A well-planned design can help you

In a nutshell, processes and results are

QP • www.qualityprogress.com

The Baldrige Criteria for Performance Excellence, although not an auditing

about dealing with suppliers that are not all critical—indicates you want a sampling plan that is flexible enough to deal with

RS inspection that is more or less stringent.

are doing attribute or variables inspection.

tion and effectiveness of the quality system

Based on those three facets, there are a

The smallest sample sizes can be found

will be required. This includes evidence of

couple of options to consider.

under variables inspection, but many

systematic process improvement based on

organizations now rely on c = 0 attributes

process control and demonstrated product

pling plan. These plans were developed by

plans, which typically are based on minimal

conformance.

Harold Dodge and work well if the supplier

sample sizes.

One may be the use of a skip-lot sam-

If the contractor and customer decide to

generally has good quality. Like chain sampling plans, skip-lot sampling plans also are called cumulative result plans, which typically involve lot-by-lot inspection of a stream of product. In general, such plans require certain assumptions be met regarding the nature

Processes without results are useless, and results without processes are unsustainable.

of the inspection process: • The lot should be one of a continuing series of lots. • You expect these lots to be of the same quality. • The consumer should not expect that

Mil-Std-1916 addresses the importance

use tables for the acceptance of product,

of statistical process control in modern

the approach is more conventional. Given lot

acceptance control by incorporating an

size and verification level (VL), a code letter

evaluation of the quality management

is selected from Table I of Mil-Std-1916.

system (QMS) along with c = 0 attributes

The standard provides seven verifica-

any lot is any worse than any of the im-

sampling, variables sampling and continu-

tion levels, with level seven being the most

mediately preceding lots.

ous sampling plans as alternate means

stringent. The VLs play a role similar to the

of acceptance in one standard. Thus, the

acceptable quality levels of Mil-Std-105E,

the supplier not to pass a substandard

standard is unique not only because there

and they allow for adjustment of the sever-

lot, even though other lots are of ac-

is switching among plans, but also because

ity of inspection. If no VL is specified, the

ceptable quality.

different alternate acceptance procedures

default levels are critical (VII), major (VI) and

Under these conditions, you can use the

may be selected from this standard.

minor (I).

• The consumer must have confidence in

record of previous inspections as a means

Mil-Std-1916 provides two distinct

In addition, tables are provided for three

of reducing the number of inspections

means of product acceptance:

different sampling schemes: attributes,

performed on any given lot.

1. Acceptance by contractor proposed

variables and continuous. Each is indexed

Applications may involve situations in

provision, which requires qualification

by verification level and code letter. They

which extensive and costly tests would

and verification of the QMS associated

are matched so it is possible to switch eas-

be needed on the characteristics of bulk

with the product.

ily from one to another. All attributes plans

materials, such as chemical analysis of

2. Acceptance by tables, which relies on

in the standard have c = 0. Dean V. Neubauer 

incoming raw material composition, or

traditional sampling plans for acceptance.

products made and shipped in successive

The contractor and the customer must

Engineering fellow 

batches from fairly reliable suppliers. Just

decide which approach to use at the out-

Corning Inc.

as units are skipped during the sampling

set. If the contractor elects to rely on the

Corning, NY 

phase of a chain sampling plan, lots may be

quality system to demonstrate acceptabil-

skipped—and passed—under a correspond-

ity of the product, quality system documen-

ing skip-lot plan.1

tation—including a quality plan—will be

Another option is using a published sampling plan, such as Mil-Std-1916.  Your 2

question does not indicate whether you

required to show the system is preventionbased and process-focused. In addition, evidence of the implementa-

REFERENCE AND NOTE 1. For more information on the construction of these plans, see Edward G. Schilling and Dean V. Neubauer,  Acceptance  Sampling in Quality Control, second edition, CRC Press, 2009. 2. U.S. Department of Defense, Mil-Std-1916: Department of Defense Test Method Standard, http://guidebook.dcma. mil/34/milstd1916(15).pdf.

December 2012 • QP

9

QUALITY COUNCIL OF INDIANA  CQIA PRIMER

C

CSSBB PRIMER

C

CQE PRIMER

C

CQT PRIMER

C

PRIMERS

CSQE PRIMER

C

CMQ PRIMER

CRE PRIMER

C

LSS PRIMER

C

C

CQI PRIMER

CCT PRIMER

C

C

CQA PRIMER

CSSGB PRIMER

C

CQPA PRIMER

C

C

Our Primers contain study material for the current ASQ bodies of knowledge plus sample questions and answers. The Primers may be taken into the exam. The completeness of our materials makes them the most widely used texts for Certication Training.

SOLUTION TEXTS Quality Council of Indiana offers detailed solutions to all questions presented in the corresponding Primer.

CD-ROMS

CQE

QCI offers user-friendly interactive software to assist students preparing for ASQ examinations. Each CD contains 1000 total questions. Examinations are timed and summarized graphically. A help le provides explanations and references. The CDs run on Windows XP and newer.

Mail Orders Quality Council of Indiana Order Department 602 W. Paris Ave. W. Terre Haute, IN 47885-1124

Information 812-533-4215

CSSGB

CQA 

Fax Orders 812-533-4216

Telephone Orders 800-660-4215 Internet Orders www.qualitycouncil.com

Juran’s

Implementing

The Quality

Quality

Six

Technician’s

Handbook 

Sigma

Handbook 

6th Edition

2nd Edition

6th Edition

by Juran & De Feo

by Forrest W. Breyfogle, III

by Gary K. Grifth

The essential quality reference for most ASQ exams

A great CSSBB reference

Great for CQT and CQI exams.

En Español

CSSGB PRIMER

Spanish Green Belt

Quality

The Spanish version of the CSSGB Primer.

by Tracy Omdahl

LSS Primer

RAM

Dictionary More than 2500 denitions. Great for any ASQ certication.

Dictionary

The Lean Six Sigma Primer is written to a QCI BoK. There are more case studies and lean content than in any other QCI products. 400 questions are included. A solution text is also available.

by Tracy Omdahl Contains 2800 denitions. Helpful for Reliability and Quality Engineers.

ISO 9001 Internal  Auditing Primer

ISO Primer by Bensley & Wortman

by Greg Wies & Bert Scali A convenient book for training internal auditors to the ISO 9001 expectations. An instructor CD is available.

Reliability & Maintenance  Analyst CD by Bryan Dodson Solve your Weibull, reliability, warranty, Bayesian & Maintenance, prediction & estimation problems.

Measurement Analyst CD

ISO

Presents a thorough treatment of the ISO implementation and documentation process. There are generic manuals on the CD.

Quality System Handbook  by Edenborough

Performs all measurements required in the AIAG manual. Contains ANOVA methods and excellent graphs. QSH

Site and global license available!!! Used by Chrysler, ITT, FedEx, Ford, TRW, GM, HP, U.S. Postal Service

Details the selection, organization, and writing of quality documents. The disk contains procedures and work instructions.

KEEPINGCURRE  ELECTIONS

Gray Area—Again Sunshine state clouds another Election Day

A 

As Americans woke Nov. 7 to another four-

late-night shift was a 10-page ballot domi-

 year term for Preside nt Barack Obama, most

nated by 11 state constitutional amend-

at one Columbus location. “There have been

undoubtedly flipped on the news or logged

ment questions posed by the Republican-

a lot of young first-time voters coming in

on to their website of choice to see the

controlled state legislature. Miami-Dade

who are very excited to vote, and they’re

ubiquitous U.S. map with the electoral votes

Election Supervisor Penelope Townsley said

not in our poll books,” said Sarah Biehl, vot-

broken down. They saw a swath of blue in

it was “the largest in Miami-Dade County

ing location manager at Blackburn Recre-

the Midwest, East Coast and West Coast for

In Ohio, voter registries were a sore point

ation Center.

Obama, and stretches of red in the coun-

“They’re not in the rolls. Or they’re in the

try’s midsection and South for Republican

wrong place. For some of them, the address

challenger Mitt Romney.

is incorrect. We’ve had a lot of issues, and

And there, at the bottom of the map,

it’s not just young people. We had other

bathed in the gray shading of the undecided,

people who had been voting here for years,

was Florida. The Sunshine State was still

and now they’re not in the poll books. And

too close to call the day after the election,

it’s not clea r to me why.”6

a situation many blamed on problems that

Things were predictably difficult in

are becoming as much a part of presidential

hurricane-hit New Jersey, where one elec-

election cycles as attack ads and robocalls.

tion official called a last-minute decision to

How is it that the state continues to

allow email voting a “catastrophe.” Tradi-

be the poster child for voting gone awry?

tionally, the state allows only residents who

In some cases, the snafus are self-made,

history, and that has contributed to the

are overseas or serving in the military to

such as the decision by Gov. Rick Scott to

length of time it has taken.”

request an electronic ballot, but it extended

shorten the early voting period from 14 days

3

Not helping matters was a system voters

the program to those who were displaced

to eight, while also eliminating the abil-

called understaffed, ill-equipped and poorly

by Hurricane Sandy. Instead, the system

ity to vote on Sundays. While that change

organized. At the UTD Tower in Brickell,

was overwhelmed by requests from people

maintained a total of 96 hours for citizens to

FL, workers had difficulty locating voters’

who didn’t fall into any of those categories.

cast their votes, cramming it into a smaller

names in the hard-copy registry, and just

Part of the problem was that a county

window was cited as a primary reason for

two of the eight ballot scanners were func-

clerk’s office is required to respond to each

waits that lasted as long as six hours.

tional, meaning only two people could vote

request. At the Hudson County Clerk’s

at one time. The result was a wait that at

office, for example, eight workers tried to

times exceeded six hours.

respond to 3,000 email requests on Election

1

Those who eschewed early voting because of the interminable lines didn’t have much better luck on Election Day. In

4

Granted, Florida wasn’t the only state en-

Day.7

Miami-Dade County, another six-hour wait

countering problems at the polls. In Pennsyl-

Still, despite the troubles, 49 states and

greeted voters, forcing many polling places

vania, a controversial voter ID law the courts

Washington, D.C., were color-coded by the

to remain open well after the polls officially

had suspended was cited anyway at some

end of election night, leaving Florida the

closed at 7 p.m. At West Kendall Regional

polling places, including several that had

only one shaded gray.

Library, for example, the last voter left after

signs posted that said voters must show ID.

“From now on, easy access to the ballot

1 a.m.—nearly two hours after Obama was

Officials said the signs were printed before

should be the governing principle for elected

declared the winner.

the law was suspended, and their use was

officials and voting supervisors,” proclaimed

the result of miscommunication.

the Miami Herald  editorial board. “Avoid

2

Frequently cited as a reason for adding a

5

(continued on p. 16)

12 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

NT BALDRIGE

4 HONORED AS 2012 AWARD RECIPIENTS Four organizations from four different categories have been named recipients of the 2012 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The recipients, announced Nov. 14, include: • Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control, Grand Prairie, TX (manufacturing category). • MESA Products Inc., Tulsa, OK (small business category). • North Mississippi Health Services, Tupelo, MS (healthcare category). • The City of Irving in Texas (nonprofit category). “The four organizations recognized today with the 2012 Baldrige Award are leaders in the truest sense of the word and role models that others in the health care, nonprofit and business sectors worldwide will strive to emulate,” said Acting U.S. Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank. “They have set the bar high for innovative practices, dynamic management, financial performance, outstanding employee and customer satisfaction, and, most of all, for their unwavering commitment to excellence and proven r esults.” For the first time this year, Baldrige judges also recognized organizations that excelled in one or more of the Baldrige criteria categories. The three organizations honored include: Maury Regional Medical Center, Columbia, TN (strategic planning and workforce focus categories), Northwest Vista College, San Antonio (leadership and customer focus categories) and PricewaterhouseCoopers Public Sector Practice, McLean, VA (leadership and workforce focus categories). A ceremony honoring the organizations will take place during the 25th Quest for Excellence Conference April 7-10, 2013, in Baltimore. For more information about the recipients, visit www.nist.gov/baldrige/ baldrige_recipients2012.cfm.

Q

Who’s Who in NAME: Stephen N. Luko. RESIDENCE: Terryville, CT.

EDUCATION: Master’s degree in mathematics from Central Connecticut State University in New Britain. CURRENT JOB: Statistician, product safety and industrial statistics, UTC Aerospace Systems in Windsor Locks, CT. INTRODUCTION TO QUALITY: Luko said he considers himself fortunate to have been

surrounded early in his career by mentors and other professionals who had been involved in quality activities throughout their careers. In addition, he was introduced early to several influential authors, such as Eugene Grant, Richard Leavenworth, Acheson Duncan and W. Edwards Deming. From these thinkers and from his own personal study, Luko learned the importance of quality in all quarters and its ties to his specialty field of statistics. PREVIOUS QUALITY EXPERIENCE: Over the years, he has taught many industrial short courses on using statistics in engineering and quality applications to engineers and managers. He also has participated on national committees, presented at conferences and taught many college-level courses on math and statistics. ASQ ACTIVITIES: Luko, a senior member of ASQ, is the education chair of the Hartford Section, a member of International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee 69, and the editor of the reviews of standards and related materials section for Quality Engineering . He is also a certified quality engineer and reliability engineer. OTHER ACTIVITIES: Luko is a long-time member of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Committee E11 on quality and statistics. He is also a fellow of ASTM International, the past chair of committee E11 and the recipient of several awards for standards development and writing. PUBLICATIONS: Luko Has written several technical papers, shorter magazine articles and reviews of standards. Luko also contributed to recent editions of ASTM Manual 7  on presentation of data and control chart analysis. RECENT AWARDS: He was named a fellow of ASTM I nternational in 2009, ASQ Dorian Shainin Medalist in 2010 and this year’s recipient of the Harold F. Dodge Award from ASTM Committee E11. PERSONAL: Married for 33 years and has two sons. FAVORITE WAYS TO RELAX: Reading, walking, classical music and classic movies. QUALITY QUOTE: Quality and leadership go hand in hand. In quality matters, leadership is about excellence in development, presentation and execution. It is about showing what quality is by providing examples of the thing being produced—whether goods or services. One way people can contribute to quality is by acquiring deep knowledge and experience in their field and by showing superior task execution in that field. Others will see the example. Excellence is quality.

December 2012 • QP 13

KEEPINGCURRENT GLOBAL STATE OF QUALITY

QUALITY RESEARCH PROJECT BEGINS

ASQNEWS AUTO AWARD Rick Dauch, president

and CEO of Accuride Corp., has received the Quality Leader of the Year Award from ASQ’s Automotive Division. The award honors outstanding industry leaders and dedicated volunteers who have made significant contributions to automotive quality. Dauch was recognized for launching a companywide initiative to adopt consistent quality systems and lean manufacturing principles as part of Accuride’s push to deliver more

steel and aluminum wheels.

 JD MARHEVKO (LE FT), A SQ’s Automot ive Division awards chair, presents Rick Dauch with the division’s Quality Leader of the Year Award at a ceremony last month in Rochester Hills, MI.

DOE WORKSHOP ASQ’s Reliability Divi-

management. The committee also is

sion will offer an eight-hour workshop

looking for individuals with special-

on design of experiments following its

ized skills in Excel and data analysis.

annual Reliability and Maintainability

For more information, contact Geetha

Symposium in Orlando. The workshop

Balagopal at [email protected].

dependable performance for customers. Accuride, based in Evansville, IN, makes

will be held from 1 to 5 p.m. on Jan. 31 and 8 a.m. to noon on Feb 1. The

HEALTHCARE QUALITY WEBINARS

symposium itself will be held Jan. 28-31.

ASQ has released a series of free we-

For more on both events, visit www.

binars featuring Baldrige recipients ad-

rams.org.

dressing critical healthcare quality topics, including patient safety, innovation,

EXAM DEADLINE March 23 is the

aligning physicians with organizational

deadline to apply for certification exams

strategy and customer relationships.

that will be administered at next year’s

The series spotlights best practices from

ASQ World Conference on Quality and

Henry Ford Health System (HFHS) in

Improvement. ASQ will offer the 16

Detroit, Schneck Medical Center in Sey-

certification exams Sunday, May 5, in In-

mour, IN, and Southcentral Foundation in

dianapolis. For more details, visit http://

Anchorage, AK. All three were recipients

wcqi.asq.org/certification.html.

of the 2011 Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. For more information

ITEA VOLUNTEERS NEEDED The Inter-

about the series, visit http://asq.org/

national Team Excellence Awards (ITEA)

hctopics.

Committee is looking for ASQ members to volunteer to assist in the ITEA pro-

MORE LMCs Two new local member

cess. Members can become judges or

communities (LMC) have been formed

serve on subcommittees that focus on

in Mexico—LMC Querétaro and LMC

the overall process, training and criteria

Chihuahua.

14 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

ASQ and several high-profile partners and sponsors have embarked on a quality research project to help organizations worldwide benchmark their use of quality tools, methods and processes, and to identify challenges and future opportunities. The ASQ Global State of Quality Research project will assemble data and case studies, and help organizations compare their own quality pr ocesses, programs and resources to other companies within their i ndustry, region and economic sectors. The research plan will encompass data gathered from corporations in at least 16 countries. Results will be unveiled at ASQ’s World Conference on Quality and Improvement in May 2013 in In dianapolis. ASQ is partnering with the American Productivity and Quality Center (APQC) to conduct and manage the research and report. To participate in the study, visit www.asq.org/globalresearch.

WORDTOTHEWISE To educate newcomers and refresh practitioners and professionals, QP occasionally features a quality term and definition:

Nagara system Smooth production flow, ideally one piece at a time, characterized by synchronization (balancing) of production processes and maximum use of available time; includes overlapping of operations where practical. A Nagara production system is one in which seemingly unrelated tasks can be produced simultaneously by the same operator. SOURCE “Quality Glossary,” Quality Progress, June 2007, p. 51.

HEALTHCARE REPORT

SHORTRUNS

ness standards and best practices for

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY for Testing

disasters and other business interrup-

and Materials (ASTM) International is

tions. Under an agreement with the

now offering a new academic offering

DHS, ANAB developed a program to

for university professors to include

oversee the certification process, man-

technical standards as part of their

age accreditation, and accredit qualified

engineering and business curricula.

third parties to carry out certification.

The ASTM Professor ’s Tool Kit contains

For more information, visit www.anab.

informational tools to help educators

org/news/2012/10/american-bar-associ-

promote awareness of standards in

ation-earns-ps-prep-certification.aspx.

private-sector recovery from natural

the classroom. For more information, visit www.astmnewsroom.org/default.

THE FOOD AND AGRICULTURE

aspx?pageid=2943.

Organization of the United Nations and the International Association for

THE AMERICAN BAR Association

Food Protection have signed a pact to

(ABA) has become the first not-for-

share technical and scientific expertise

profit organization in the country to be

related to food quality and safety. The

certified for disaster preparedness and

memorandum of understanding will

response under the Voluntary Private

help the organizations prevent and

Sector Preparedness (PS-Prep) Pro-

address the increasing risks related to

gram. ABA is the second U.S. business

food safety and quality and their impact

to achieve this distinction. Adminis-

on public health and consumer protec-

tered by the Department of Homeland

tion. For more about the pact, signed

Security’s (DHS) Federal Emergency

in August, visit www.foodprotection.

Management Agency, PS-Prep is a

org/about-us/news-releases/107/two-

voluntary accreditation and certifica-

world-organizations-join-forces-for-

tion program that promotes prepared-

food-safety.

LEAN AND SIX SIGMA CONFERENCE

LSS CONFERENCE FEATURES 50+ PROGRAMS, SPEAKERS

AARON

More than 50 sessions and hands-on workshops focused on lean and Six Sigma techniques, applications and best practices will be featured at the 13th annual ASQ Lean and Six Sigma Conference slated for March 3-5, 2013, in Phoenix. In addition to these programs, two keynote speakers are already scheduled to present at the event: Stacy Aaron, a partner at Change Guides LLC in Cincinnati and an expert in the field of organizational change; and Jeffrey Liker, author and a professor of industrial and operations engineering at the University of Michigan. Watch for more updates on the conference and announcements about other speakers at  http://asq.org/ conferences/six-sigma.

HIGHER QUALITY SERVICE TO PATIENTS CAN SAVE MONEY Improving the quality of service for patients will make healthcare less expensive, according to a new report released by KPMG Healthcare. “In today’s healthcare systems, we tend to pay for piecemeal activities, or for a building or an organization. We are paying individual providers that will do their best on a small portion of the work surrounding a patient’s problem,” said Mark Britnell, co-author of the report and a partner with KPMG.

“

Healthcare systems can deliver better patient outcomes and reduce costs by defining, measuring and rewarding the delivery of quality care.

 ”

“We do not pay for the integration of all these individuals’ activities and efforts, nor do we pay for the results that all this work delivers.” Healthcare systems can deliver better patient outcomes and reduce costs by defining, measuring and rewarding the delivery of quality care, Britnell said. The report, titled “Contracting Value: Shifting Paradigms,” also examines the root causes of suboptimal healthcare around the world and identifies three core principles that can show a clear path to driving value in healthcare systems: Integrated care must be the new unit of payment; meaningful outcomes must be defined and measured; and adding value must be rewarded. For more information from the report, visit www.kpmg.com/global/en/ issuesandinsights/articlespublications/ contracting-value/pages/default.aspx.

LIKER

December 2012 • QP 15

KEEPINGCURRENT Election Day

(continued from p. 12)

problems. Get more machines. No more long lines. No more interminable delays. No more cries of unfairness and disenfranchisement. No more Flori-duh.”8  —Brett Krzykowski,  assistant editor  REFERENCES 1. Gary Fineout, “As Fla. Voters Face Long Lines, Scott Stands Firm,” Associated Press, Nov. 3, 2012. 2. Frances Robles, Martha Brannigan and Daniel

Chang, “Miami-Dade Will Not Have Full Results Until Wednesday,” Miami Herald, Nov. 6, 2012. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Jessica Parks, “Pa.’s New Voter ID Law Causes Confusion, Voters Say,” Philadelphia I nquirer, Nov. 7, 2012. 6. Greg Gordon and Tony Pugh, “Voters Endure Delays, Lines and Misinformation to Cast Ballots,” McClatchy Newspapers, Nov. 6, 2012. 7. Bob Sullivan, “New Jersey’s Email Voting Suffers Major Glitches, Deadline Extended to Friday,” http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_ news/2012/11/06/14974588-new-jerseysemail-voting-suffers-major-glitches-deadlineextended-to-friday. 8. Miami Herald Editorial Board, “Two Words: Easy Access,” Miami Herald, Nov. 6, 2012.

ONLINE ONPAPER

Q P 

SOUND ADVICE This month, listen to a webcast of Max Christian Hansen discussing the results of this year’s QP Salary Survey.

QUICK POLL RESULTS Each month at www.qualityprogress.com, visitors can take an informal s urvey. Here are the numbers from a recent Quick Poll: “What part of your personal life could benefit from a dose of quality?”

STANDARDS

NEW ISO STANDARD TAKES ON CYBERSECURITY CONCERNS

• Managing time more effectively. • Maintaining a tidy kitchen.

14.2%

A newly released International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard will help ensure the safety of online transactions and personal information exchanged over the internet, and protect computers when browsing any websites. ISO/IEC 27032:2012, Information technology—Security techniques— Guidelines for cybersecurity, provides a framework for information sharing, coordination and incident handling. The standard also will

• Keeping order in the garage.

14.2%

Mr. Pareto Head

facilitate secure and reliable collaboration, and protect the privacy of individuals everywhere in the world. In this way, the standard can help to prepare, detect, monitor and respond to incidents such as social-engineering attacks, hacking, malicious software, spyware and other unwanted software. For more information, visit www.iso.org/iso/home/store/ catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail. htm?csnumber=44375.

BY MIKE CROSSEN

16 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

46.5%

• Organizing finances.

25%

Visit www.qualityprogress.com for the latest question: “Have quality control issues and supply chain glitches this year changed your view of Apple?”

• No. I will still buy its products. • Not really. All organizations have occasional problems. • Somewhat. More problems seem to be cropping up. • Yes. I will no longer buy its products.

Do the Write Thing in 2013  QP’s 2013 editorial calendar is out, and we’re looking for writers who want to contribute articles about these topics:

March

Food safety

April

Basic quality

May

Risk management

 June

Supply chain

 July

Careers and career development

August

Future focus: How quality and quality roles are changing

September  Standards and auditing October 

Social responsibility

November 

Global quality

December 

Salary survey

If you want to write for a specific issue, please submit your article at least four to six months before the issue date. If you miss that deadline, don’t worry. Send the article and we might use it in a different issue. And if there’s a topic you would like to write about that’s not listed as one of our featured topics in the editorial calendar, don’t let that dissuade you from submitting the manuscript. We will publish all accepted articles, whether they align with an issue theme or not. Visit www.qualityprogress.com and click on “Author Guidelines” at the bottom of the page for more details.

QUALITY PROGRESS

December 2012 • QP 17 December 2012 • QP 17

SALARY SURVEY TABLE OF CONTENTS Part 1. Regular Employee Results Section 1 Salary by Job Title p. 26 Section 2 Salary by U.S. Regions and Canadian Provinces p. 31 Section 3 Salary by Number of Years of Experience in the Quality Field p. 35 Section 4 Salary by ASQ and RABQSA International Certification p. 43 Section 5 Salary by Six Sigma Training Online Section 6 Salary by Number of Work Hours

Online

Section 7 Salary by Nonexempt vs. Exempt Status

Online

Section 8 Salary by Number of Years in Current Position

Online

Section 9 Salary by Number of Years in Current Position and in the Quality Field

Online

Section 10 Salary by Number of Employees Overseen

Online

Section 11 Salary by Division Size, Organization Size and Location of Headquarters

Online

Section 12 Salary by Industry

Online

Section 13 Salary by Geographic Location

Online

Section 14 Salary by Organizational Quality Infrastructure Online

Facing

Tight Times THE MORE THINGS

stay the same, the

more quality professionals must look for productive

Section 15 Salary by Extent of Quality Responsibilities

Online

Section 16 Salary by Highest Level of Education

Online

Section 17 Salary by Highest Level of Education and Number of Years in Quality

Online

indicator—average salary—has become frustrat-

Section 18 Salary by RABQSA International Certification

Online

ingly stuck in place. As salaries in the United States

Section 19 Salary by Gender and Age

Online

Section 20 Size of Raise and Additional Annual Payments

Online

ways to change. This year, for the first time since QP began its annual salary survey, the most important

and Canada show no significant change from 2011, today’s quality professionals may want to seek strat-

Part 2. Self-Employed Consultant Results Section 21 Consultant Overview

Online

Section 22 Base Earnings by Years of Experience

Online

Section 23 Base Earnings by Education and Training

Online

Section 24 Base Earnings and Rates by Age, Gender and Geographic Location

Online

Note: All sections printed in this issue of QP are also available in the online report in PDF format at www.qualityprogress.com/salarysurvey.

egies to stand out and make their individual stories different from others.  As Table 1 (p. 20) shows, average salaries for full-time employees in the United States and Canada didn’t show much change. If a p-value of 0.05 is taken as the cutoff for statistical significance, the difference between the 2011 and 2012 averages is insignificant for both countries. When p-values are used, smaller values denote higher levels of significance.

QP

       2        1        0        2

Taking control of your career  as salaries show lagging effects of recession

SALARY SURVEY 

by Max Christian Hansen

BECOME A STANDOUT.

ARE YOU WILLING TO MOVE? 

ARE YOU MAKING WHAT YOU SHOULD BE? 

SHOULD YOU LOOK AT OTHER INDUSTRIES? 

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 19

Cost-cutting measures by respondents’ companies /

The averages for other countries aren’t addressed here because there weren’t many respondents from outside the United States

FIGURE 1

   s    t 90%    n    e 80%    d    n    o 70%    p    s 60%    e    r    f 50%    o

and Canada, and between-country  variation is too high to supply good significance levels without large sample sizes.

   e 40%    g    a 30%    t    n    e 20%    c    r    e 10%    P

Adjusting to hard times Of course, the salary stagnation

0

stems from the economic times in

2009

2010

2011

2012

which we live. When the QP Salary Survey was distributed mid-year

Figure 1 includes r esults for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, x International employees

in 2008, many organizations and individuals still hadn’t felt the full effects of the recession that was  just getting under way. The next

 year, the story was very different: 86% of survey re-

cession hits, cost-cutting at the organizational level

spondents reported their organizations were planning

is one of the first effects quality professionals should

some type of cost-cutting measure in response to the

expect to encounter.

recession.

For individuals, unless you are laid off, the effects

We’ve continued to ask about cost-cutting mea-

of an economic downturn can be slower in coming.

sures and, as Figure 1 shows, the percentage of re-

In 2009, for example, only 1.9% of survey respondents

spondents who said their organizations were taking

said they expected a pay cut, while 60.1% expected a

such steps has declined steadily since 2009, so that

raise of some kind. Two years later, the percentage

appears to be a positive sign. But it’s difficult to say

of respondents expecting a pay raise of less than 2%

what the level might have been in better economic

reached a new high of 23.6%. This year, that number

times because the question wasn’t asked before the

went even higher: Respondents who expected a pay

start of the recession.

raise, but one not more than 2%, made up 26.4% of this

What is clear, however, is that the number is de-

 year’s respondents. More information about raises

creasing and shows signs of leveling off. When a re-

can be found in section 20, available online at www. qualityprogress.com.

Changes in average salaries for full-time employees in U.S. and Canada / TABLE 1

Levers of career control Even during booming economic times, QP’s December issue has long been the year’s most popular issue as people snap up the latest salary survey results. But

2011 average

2012 average

Difference

Significance (p-value)

 port such as this—chock-full of data to help you com-

United States

$87,086

$86,743

−$243

> 0.6

 pare where you stand with others—can be even more

Canada

  80,611

84,715

+4,104

0.08

 valuable in your career management. Salary matters

Table 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, International employees

especially in these uncertain times, a salary survey re-

become even more urgent in an uncertain, stagnant economy. The employment landscape in quality includes

Canadian salaries are noted in Canadian dollars.

several factors you can control and ones likely to af-

P-values shown are from simple t -tests of year’s averages within each country.

fect salary. Obviously, there are some things you can’t

20 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

change, such as age and gender. Other factors, such as

QP

       2        1        0        2

 job tenure or quality experience, require staying the course.

To explore whether the benefits of increasing education depend on age, we cross-tabulated education

There are other levers that, while more directly controllable, may not be easy to pull. Take, for exam ple, geographic location. For some young and single

with age. Table 3 (p. 22) shows this information for

SALARY SURVEY 

full-time U.S. and Canadian respondents. Table 4 (p. 22) shows a zoomed-in look at the

 professionals without deep roots, it may be easy to

two education levels most commonly reached by

move across the state, country or international bor-

 ASQ members between the ages of 26 and 65—bach-

ders for a new job and career path. For others, it may

elor’s (or four-year) and master’s degrees—and the

be more difficult. Only a very large increase in salary would make relocation more palatable. Table 2 shows a subjective evaluation of how controllable and influential some career factors are. It should be viewed with two caveats: 1. While some variables are labeled “depends on cir-

Career factors and effects on salary / TABLE 2 Variable

Controllability

Effectiveness

Education level

Highly controllable

High, especially in combination with experience in quality (see sections 16-17).

Certifications/ Six Sigma training

Highly controllable

Variable, but very high when certification matched to position (see section 4); also see “Land the Big One,” Quality Progress, December 2011, p. 20.

Supervisory responsibility

Dependent on soft skills

High effect; supervising others brings clear rewards (see section 10).

Eligibility for overtime

Somewhat controllable

Usually a byproduct of other factors, such as overall responsibility and supervisory duties (see section 7).

Years in quality

Stick with it

High; especially in combination with education (see sections 3, 9 and 17).

Organization

Depends on circumstances; geography may constrain choice of organization

Bigger organizations often pay better (see section 11).

Industry

Depends on circumstances

“Hot” industries tend to come and go, but long-range disparities do exist.

clients.

Geographic location

Depends on circumstances

Usually a matter of finding a fit with an organization.

Remember, these assessments are subjective, just

Age

Stick with it

Salaries tend to increase with age until the highest age brackets (see section 19).

Gender

None

Decreases over time; gender disparities are smaller in recent years and among recent hires (see section 19).

Years in current position

Stick with it

Low; seniority in a position is not nearly as well-rewarded as experience in the quality profession.

Independent consulting (as it affects salary in regular employment)

Depends on circumstances

Usually low.

cumstances,” every variable really does depend to some extent on the individual and his or her place in the world and stage of career. For example, while education is readily available in many parts of the world, it may not be attainable everywhere or accessible to all groups of people. There also continue to be places in which age, gender and other factors restrict an individual’s ability to obtain a degree. 2. Some factors that show high statistical correlation to salary are not rated as highly influential, such as status as an independent consultant. This could be an example of correlation not implying causation. Quality professionals don’t necessarily receive raises because they started moonlighting as independent consultants. It’s more likely that having the most valuable skills brings these  people the highest salaries, while at the same time they have chosen to spend their precious off-the job hours using these skills in work for additional

as your own career decisions must be. You must gather the best data available to you—such as the QP Salary Survey—but interpreting it is as much art as science. Only you can know your own skills, limitations and opportunities.

The education lever Year after year, the QP Salary Survey shows that higher levels of education bring rewards in the form of fatter paychecks. Just as last year’s report took a deep look into the value of certifications, this year we’ll focus on another powerful lever: education.

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 21

QP

       2        1        0        2

SALARY SURVEY 

Average salary by education level and age group

/ TABLE 3

25 or younger

26 to 35

36 to 45

46 to 55

56 to 65

High school or less

$36,2136

$46,86244

$61,14083

$65,515128

$78,39859

—

Two-year program

41,720

54,321

63,829

71,474

162

75,651

$82,43615

Bachelor’s degree

49,40650

65,604418

83,679554

93,117730

94,640416

99,86715

Master’s degree

55,54118

75,460249

96,379400

109,488546

105,138330

114,66630

Doctorate

45,0002

116,01247

119,11846

114,7508

8

84

131,6007

Table 3 includes results for: x Full-time employees, International employees

209

108,15129

319

66 and older  

Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, x Canadian employees,

Superscript numbers denote number of respondents.

differences between the holders of the respective

grouped with those holding two-year degrees, the

degree and the holders of the next lower level of de-

 premium for holding a bachelor’s degree would

gree. For example, in the 26-to-35 age group, those

appear much greater.

who hold bachelor’s degrees earned an average of

For each of these premiums, a pair-wise t-test

$65,604 per year, or $11,283 more than those with

was run on the two groups being compared to as-

two-year degrees or certificates, who earned an av-

sess the significance level. In all cases, the premiums

erage of $54,321.

shown were extremely significant, having a p-value

Those respondents with less than four years of

of less than 0.001 in every case.

education beyond high school are not lumped to-

For some older quality professionals, the ques-

gether. In other words, those with bachelor’s de-

tion remains whether they have enough career years

grees are not being compared to those with high

left for that premium to repay the cost of schooling.

school diplomas or less. If the latter had been

It’s clear, however, that except for perhaps the most expensive degrees and the most senior quality professionals, four-year degrees and beyond are some of the most effective levers to use to move your qual-

Salary premiums for higher levels of education within age groups / TABLE 4 Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree

ity career toward prosperity. QP

26 to 35

36 to 45

46 to 55

56 to 65

$11,283

$19,850

$21,643

$18,989

9,856

12,700

16,371

10,498

Table 4 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, International employees

22 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

MAX CHRISTIAN HANSEN is president of Bright Hat Communications Inc. in Sacramento, CA. The firm does communications consulting for  science-based public policy, quantitative re search and marketing. Hansen has an MBA from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s  Sloan School of Management in Cambridge, MA. He is a member of ASQ.

Because MEIRxRS does it! u On-shore work  u Keep jobs in the U.S.

Contribute to the Economy By u Training and employing

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math professionals u Making jobs available

100 N. Brand Boulevard, Glendale CA 91203 (P) 800.507.5277 or 818-552-2036 (E) [email protected]

www.meirxrs.com

Crunching the Numbers

T

This year’s QP Salary Survey was sent to 54,337 members.

group, which is labeled as “International.” Sections 13 and

Of the 6,857 individuals who started responding to the

24 include the countries represented in this group.

survey, 6,093 completed the questionnaire, for a response

You can learn whether a table or figure includes interna-

rate of 11.2%. There were 47 responses that were com-

tional results by glancing at the information boxes that ac-

 plete but unusable because they included implausible

company the graphics. These boxes also show whether the

earnings data that could not be validated. This left a total

graphics include results from full-time and part-time respon-

of 6,046 usable responses. Each of these responses fell

dents. Some boxes provide additional informative notes.

into one of the employment categories in Table 1.

Of the 24 sections in the salary survey results, 19 can

The data from the 5,682 full-time and part-time regular

be found exclusively at www.qualityprogress.com under

employees and the 55 regular employees who also work

the tab “Tools and Resources.” The website also includes

as self-employed consultants were used to create the 20

the entire survey report in PDF format, which you can

sections in “Part 1. Regular Employee Results.” The data

download. In case you’re not familiar with the statistical

from the 158 self-employed consultants and the 55 regular

terms and job titles in these sections, we’ve explained

employees who also work as self-employed consultants

them here.

were used to produce the four sections in “Part 2. SelfEmployed Consultant Results.” It’s notable that the num-

Statistical terms

ber of regular employees who also work as self-employed

Here are brief descriptions of the statistical terms used in

consultants was down considerably from last year’s 163.

the survey report:

Except for the information provided in Table 1, the salary survey report doesn’t include data from the people who are unemployed, retired or laid off.

• Minimum salary: The lowest salary reported in that  particular group. • Maximum salary: The highest salary reported in that

The vast majority of those who participated in the sur-

 particular group.

 vey worked in the United States and Canada. Because there

• Standard deviation: A measure of dispersion around

were few respondents from other countries, only a few sec-

the mean. In a normal distribution, 68% of cases fall

tions in the salary survey report include results from this

within one standard deviation of the mean, and 95% of cases fall within two standard deviations. For exam-

Employment status of respondents / TABLE 1

 ple, if the mean salary is $70,000 with a standard deviation of $15,000, 95% of the cases are between $40,000 and $100,000 in a normal distribution.

Count A regular, full-time employee

5,608

Percentage 92.8%

A regular, part-time employee

74

1.2

A regular employee who also is a self-employed consultant

55

0.9

158

2.6

Unemployed, retired or laid off for more than six months

73

1.2

Unemployed, retired or laid off within the last six months

78

1.3

A self-employed consultant

• Count: The number of respondents in that particular group. • Mean salary:  The average salary for that particular group. • Median salary: The 50th percentile—that is, the salary at which half the cases fall above and half below. If there is an even number of cases, the median is the average of the two middle cases.

 Job titles Here are the suggested definitions for the job titles used

Table 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, x International employees

24 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

in the 2012 survey. Some of the definitions were compiled by an HR expert and have been revised through the years.

QP

       2        1        0        2

Based on respondent feedback, the titles will continue to be analyzed and revised periodically. All definitions

nal and external customers’ needs and expectations. Educator/instructor: Instructs or trains others on

quality-related topics, tools and techniques. This per-

are intended only as a guide:  Analyst: Initiates and coordinates quality-related

data from production, service or process improvement activities and reports these data using statistical tech-

SALARY SURVEY 

son may be an employee of an organization, or teach in a university or college setting. Green Belt: Operates in support of or under the

supervision of a BB, analyzes quality problems and is

niques.  Associate: Involved in quality improvement proj-

ects but not necessarily full-time. Does not necessarily have primary responsibility for traditional quality man-

involved in quality improvement projects. Has at least three years of work experience. Inspector: Inspects, audits and reports on materi-

als, processes and products using variable or attribute

agement, assurance or control activities.  Auditor: Performs and reports on internal or exter-

measuring instruments and techniques to ensure conformance with the organization’s quality standards.

nal quality system audits. Black Belt (BB): Six Sigma or quality expert. Of-

ten a full-time team leader responsible for implementing process improvement projects in the organization to improve customer satisfaction levels and business  productivity. Calibration technician:  Tests, calibrates, main-

tains and repairs electrical, mechanical, electrome-

The response rate for this year’s QP Salary Survey was 11.2%.

chanical, analytical and electronic measuring, recording and indicating instruments and equipment for Manager: Ensures the administration of the orga-

conformance to established standards. Champion: Business leader or senior manager who

nization’s quality, process or business improvement

ensures resources are available for quality training and

efforts within a defined segment of the organization.

 projects, and is involved in project tollgate reviews.

May be responsible for dealing with customers and

Often an executive who supports and addresses Six

suppliers on quality or performance issues. Typically

Sigma organizational issues.

has direct reports.

Consultant: Provides advice, facilitation and train-

Master BB: Six Sigma or quality expert responsi-

ing on the development, administration and technical

ble for strategic implementations within the organiza-

aspects of an organization’s quality improvement efforts

tion. Qualified to teach other Six Sigma facilitators the

at any or all levels. Has expertise in some or all aspects

methods, tools and applications in all functions and

of the quality field. This person can be from outside the

levels of the organization. A resource for using statisti-

organization or can be an employee of the organization.

cal methods to improve processes.

Coordinator:  Collects, organizes, monitors and

Process/manufacturing/project engineer:  Per-

distributes information related to quality and process

forms engineering work to evaluate manufacturing

improvement functions, possibly including compliance

 processes or performance improvement projects for

to and documentation of quality management stan-

optimization. May develop processes to ensure quality,

dards, such as ISO 9001. Typically generates reports

cost and efficiency requirements are met.

using computer skills and distributes those reports to

Quality engineer: Designs, installs and evaluates

 various users in the organization or among customers

quality assurance process sampling systems, proce-

and suppliers.

dures and statistical techniques. Designs or specifies

Director: Oversees all aspects of the organization’s

inspection and testing mechanisms and equipment.

quality or business improvement efforts, such as de-

 Analyzes production and service limitations and stan-

 veloping and administrating the program, training and

dards. Recommends revision of specifications. Formu-

coaching employees, and facilitating change through-

lates or helps formulate quality assurance policies and

out the organization. Responsible for establishing

 procedures. May conduct training on quality assurance

strategic plans, policies and procedures at all levels so

concepts and tools. Interfaces with all other engineer-

quality improvement efforts will meet or exceed inter-

ing components within the organization and with

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 25

After validation, there were 6,046 useable responses to this year’s salary survey. customers and suppliers on quality-related issues.

es used in development or manufacture. Assesses po-

Reliability/safety engineer:  Uses principles of

tential new suppliers. Works with suppliers to develop

 performance evaluation and prediction to improve the

and improve the entire supply chain. May be involved

safety, reliability and maintainability of products and

in purchasing.

systems. Plans reliability tests and conducts analyses

Technician:   Performs basic quality techniques—

of field failures. Develops and administers reliability

 possibly including calibration—to track, analyze and

information systems for failure analysis and perfor-

report on materials, processes and products to ensure

mance improvement.

they meet the organization’s quality standards.

Software quality engineer:  Applies quality prin-

 Vice president/executive: Establishes the direc-

ciples to the development and use of software and

tion for the development and administration of the

software-based systems. Designs and implements

organization’s quality improvement efforts. Consults

software development and maintenance processes.

with peers on the attitudes and practices of quality

Designs or specifies test methods for software inspec-

throughout the organization to develop an environ-

tion, verification and validation.

ment of continual improvement in every aspect of the

Specialist: As the primary assignment, performs a

specific quality-related function in the organization’s

organization’s products and services. Acts as a cham pion for quality.

quality program. Examples include management representative, statistician and testing expert. Has received

A note on currencies

direct training or has been performing the activity for

For Canadian employees and consultants, salaries

several years. Shows a high degree of skill performing

and earnings are noted in Canadian dollars. For all

that specific activity.

employees and consultants outside the United States

Supervisor: Administers the organization’s quality

and Canada, salaries and earnings are in U.S. dollars.

improvement efforts within a defined department. Has

Exchange rates were supplied by the respondents on

direct reports who implement some aspect of the poli-

the days they completed the survey. In the few cases in

cies and procedures of the quality functions.

which respondents from different countries are evalu-

engineer/professional: Re-

ated together, all salaries are in U.S. dollars. In cases

sponsible for all quality improvement issues related to

in which QP editors needed to convert currencies, the

 vendors and suppliers of materials, products or servic-

exchange rate used was from July 1, 2012.

Supplier

quality

Part 1. Regular Employee Results Section 1. Salary by Job Title

Money Multiplied

M

Most of the quality professionals who responded to

self-employed consultants in addition to their regular,

QP’s annual salary survey were full-time employees—

full-time employment.

that is, they worked 36 hours per week or more for an

 An additional number of respondents were self-

organization. Table 1 (p. 28) shows that these full-tim-

employed consultants only, and the online version of

ers made up the vast majority of our respondents who

this report devotes four sections to analysis of their

were employed by others: 99% in the United States and

demographics and earnings. But here, where we cover

97.1% in Canada. That includes those who worked as

employees, the small number of self-employed consul-

26 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

       2        1        0        2

tants who also worked as employees are worth not-

group because its numbers are few. Any statistics provid-

ing. In addition to the money they earned through their

ed would unlikely be representative of any larger group.

self-employment, they brought home significant sala-

Large sample sizes are needed to safely generalize.

ries from their regular employers.

QP

SALARY SURVEY 

To say someone works part-time covers a tremen-

In the United States, those full-time employees who

dous range of average workweeks. In the United

also were self-employed earned, on average, $65,438

States, for example, the lowest annual earnings for

through self-employment and $110,742 in regular sal-

a part-time professional was $1,000. That must be

ary. In Canada, the numbers are similarly impressive:

a short workweek, indeed. On the other hand, some

$101,333 through self-employment and $121,667 in

 part-timers are working more than 35 hours per week,

regular salary.

and their annual earnings were similar to those of full-

But these numbers should be taken with a grain of

time professionals with similar job titles. For example,

salt because of the small samples of these cases. One

the highest-paid part-time associate earned $75,000,

or two outliers with unusually large salaries or consult-

which was above the average for full-time profession-

ing earnings may skew the numbers high.

als with the same title.

The numbers also don’t address causality. There’s

Figures 1 and 2 (p. 28) show salaries by title for full-

no reason to believe moonlighting is the path to amaz-

time employees in the United States and Canada. The

ing riches. It’s more likely that, in fact, causality works

top earners in the United States were vice presidents/ 

in the other direction: Those with high salaries have

executives, directors and Master Black Belts. In Cana-

the most valuable skills and thus are the ones most

da, Master Black Belts, vice presidents/executives and

likely to find it worth their while to work extra hours

consultants topped the list.

as self-employed consultants.

Table 2 (p. 29) provides detailed information for full-

Few respondents worked part-time, and the QP Sal-

time and part-time professionals in the United States.

ary Survey report does not devote much space to this

Table 3 (p. 30) shows the same information for Canada.

Salary by job title for U.S. respondents

/ FIGURE 1

 Job title (percentage of respondents) Vice president/executive (2.6%)

151,869

Director (9.7%) Master Black Belt (1.6%)

119,408 112,946

Consultant (2.3%)

106,798

Software quality engineer (1.3%)

101,087

Reliability/safety engineer (1.3%)

99,908

Black Belt (2.4%)

93,946

Manager (27.9%)

91,878

Champion (0.2%)

90,047

Educator/instructor (0.6%)

84,546

Supplier quality engineer/professional (3.4%) Process/manufacturing/project engineer (3.4%)

84,390 84,166

Quality engineer (15.4%) Green Belt (0.5%)

74,173

Auditor (3.9%)

74,138

79,575

Specialist (5.2%)

72,261

Supervisor (3.6%)

70,094

Analyst (3.5%)

69,279

Coordinator (2.9%)

57,718

Associate (1.4%)

56,246

Calibration technician (0.4%) Inspector (2.2%)

Figure 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees

53,970 50,558

Technician (4.3%)

46,884

0

$30,000

$60,000 $90,000 $120,000 $150,000 Average salary

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 27

Salary by job title for Canadian respondents

/ FIGURE 2

 Job title (percentage of respondents) Master Black Belt (0.6%) Vice president/executive (1.8%) Consultant (1.5%) Director (9%) Educator/instructor (1.2%) Black Belt (3%) Manager (36.4%) Green Belt (0.6%) Reliability/safety engineer (0.6%) Auditor (4.2%) Supplier quality engineer/professional (1.5%) Process/manufacturing/project engineer (2.4%) Champion (0.9%) Software quality engineer (0.6%) Specialist (6.3%) Quality engineer (11.1%) Supervisor (2.4%) Coordinator (7.5%) Analyst (3%) Associate (1.5%) Technician (1.5%) Inspector (1.5%) Calibration technician (0.6%)

158,000 149,167 129,000 112,934 91,250 90,500 90,365 88,438 81,000 77,943 76,400 76,175 75,828 73,500 72,507 72,503 70,875 66,340 58,645

Figure 2 includes results for: x Full-time employees Part-time employees U.S. employees x Canadian employees International employees Salaries are noted in Canadian dollars.

53,370 50,600 49,800 47,500

$10,000

$50,000

$90,000 Average salary

$130,000

$170,000

Salary by employment status / TABLE 1 Percentage

Average salary earned as an employee

Average base revenue earned as a selfemployed consultant

United States Full-time employee

98.5%

$86,618

—

Part-time employee

0.9

50,931

—

Full-time employee and self-employed consultant

0.5

110,742

Part-time employee and self-employed consultant

0.1

$65,438

Money Talks   Are you satisfied with your  job and salary?  gives me an overview and re“

Being a product manager

sponsibility for the end-to-end 68,200

40,000

delivery and maintenance of our products. This allows me to

Canada Full-time employee

95.3%

$84,034

—

capture the voice of the customer

Part-time employee

2.6

47,456

—

and evangelize it throughout the

Full-time employee and self-employed consultant

1.8

121,667

$101,333

organization.

Part-time employee and self-employed consultant

0.3

60,000

25,000

Table 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, International employees Canadian salaries are noted in Canadian dollars.

28 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

”

Monica McCool Product manager  Satori Software Inc.  Seattle

QP

       2        1        0        2

Salary by job title for U.S. respondents

SALARY SURVEY  / TABLE 2

Standard Count Mean deviation Full-time employees (full-time employees and full-time employees who also work as self-employed consultants) All full-time employees $15,000 $427,250 $35,503 4,977 $86,734 Analyst 15,000 141,000 24,375 175 69,279 Associate 25,200 105,000 19,320 71 56,246 Auditor 17,000 200,000 27,241 195 74,138 Black Belt 45,000 177,000 21,166 121 93,946 Calibration technician 30,000 85,000 15,342 19 53,970 Champion 54,000 140,000 25,107 10 90,047 Consultant 25,000 300,000 39,556 112 106,798 Coordinator 28,000 162,000 22,114 144 57,718 Director 34,000 265,000 36,143 482 119,408 Educator/instructor 41,000 188,000 29,888 32 84,546 Green Belt 36,000 135,000 23,399 26 74,173 Inspector 20,000 120,000 18,337 110 50,558 Manager 28,000 320,000 27,906 1,387 91,878 Master Black Belt 28,000 185,000 27,474 79 112,946 Process/manufacturing/project engineer 26,500 180,300 25,867 170 84,166 Quality engineer 25,000 185,000 21,933 766 79,575 Reliability/safety engineer 43,000 173,000 26,426 64 99,908 Software quality engineer 29,785 185,000 25,299 63 101,087 Specialist 22,000 160,000 26,221 258 72,261 Supervisor 30,000 180,000 22,036 180 70,094 Supplier quality engineer/professional 34,000 135,000 18,564 169 84,390 Technician 22,000 104,900 13,017 213 46,884 Vice president/executive 52,000 427,250 62,100 131 151,869 Part-time employees (part-time employees and part-time employees who also work as self-employed consultants) All part-time employees $1,000 $190,000 $37,824 51 $52,624 Analyst 15,000 60,000 17,459 5 31,400 Associate 46,592 75,000 20,087 2 60,796 Black Belt 78,000 78,000 — 1 78,000 Champion 45,000 45,000 — 1 45,000 Consultant 14,000 120,000 33,317 12 59,065 Coordinator 14,000 64,000 25,658 3 42,333 Director 50,000 50,000 — 1 50,000 Educator/instructor 20,000 20,000 — 1 20,000 Green Belt 15,000 40,000 17,678 2 27,500 Inspector 44,000 44,000 — 1 44,000 Manager 20,000 135,000 50,212 6 69,458 Master Black Belt 85,763 85,763 — 1 85,763 Process/manufacturing/project engineer 1,000 67,000 36,254 3 42,667 Quality engineer 12,345 88,000 32,086 6 46,724 Software quality engineer 21,600 21,600 — 1 21,600 Specialist 35,000 35,000 — 1 35,000 Supervisor 100,000 100,000 — 1 100,000 Supplier quality engineer/professional 5,000 5,000 — 1 5,000 Technician 15,000 15,000 — 1 15,000 Vice president/executive 190,000 190,000 — 1 190,000 Minimum

Maximum

Median $83,000 65,000 55,000 74,000 92,000 53,000 89,500 104,000 51,000 115,293 77,625 70,500 46,500 90,000 110,000 83,500 78,000 99,800 97,850 67,832 67,000 83,000 45,000 140,000 $44,000 30,000 60,796 78,000 45,000 60,000 49,000 50,000 20,000 27,500 44,000 49,375 85,763 60,000 35,000 21,600 35,000 100,000 5,000 15,000 190,000

Table 2 includes results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 29

Salary by job title for Canadian respondents Minimum

Maximum

Standard deviation

/ TABLE 3

Count

Mean

Median

Full-time employees (full-time employees and full-time employees who also work as self-employed consultants) All full-time employees $22,000 $225,000 $31,767 332 $84,715 Analyst 30,000 78,000 14,356 10 58,645 Associate 38,000 62,848 9,853 5 53,370 Auditor 25,000 200,000 43,386 14 77,943 Black Belt 58,000 120,000 17,526 10 90,500 Calibration technician 40,000 55,000 10,607 2 47,500 Champion 62,485 85,000 11,823 3 75,828 Consultant 100,000 175,000 32,288 5 129,000 Coordinator 34,000 150,000 23,696 25 66,340 Director 50,000 225,000 34,758 30 112,934 Educator/instructor 75,000 100,000 11,815 4 91,250 Green Belt 76,875 100,000 16,352 2 88,438 Inspector 22,000 90,000 25,361 5 49,800 Manager 45,000 192,000 25,230 121 90,365 Master Black Belt 120,000 196,000 53,740 2 158,000 Process/manufacturing/project engineer 52,000 114,000 18,644 8 76,175 Quality engineer 45,000 105,000 16,224 37 72,503 Reliability/safety engineer 75,000 87,000 8,485 2 81,000 Software quality engineer 67,000 80,000 9,192 2 73,500 Specialist 42,640 150,000 27,377 21 72,507 Supervisor 40,000 97,000 19,845 8 70,875 Supplier quality engineer/professional 40,000 102,000 23,137 5 76,400 Technician 37,000 60,000 8,706 5 50,600 Vice president/executive 60,000 225,000 56,251 6 149,167 Part-time employees (part-time employees and part-time employees who also work as self-employed consultants)

$80,000 62,500 56,000 69,750 88,500 47,500 80,000 115,000 62,000 108,000 95,000 88,438 42,000 85,600 158,000 71,000 69,000 81,000 73,500 65,000 68,500 76,000 50,000 145,000

All part-time employees Auditor Consultant Director Green Belt Inspector Manager Specialist

$47,000 50,000 71,750 10,001 60,000 11,100 92,000 43,500

$10,001 50,000 60,000 10,001 60,000 11,100 92,000 30,000

$92,000 50,000 83,500 10,001 60,000 11,100 92,000 47,000

$27,150 — 16,617 — — — — 8,976

10 1 2 1 1 1 1 3

$48,710 50,000 71,750 10,001 60,000 11,100 92,000 40,167

Table 3 includes results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, International employees Salaries are noted in Canadian dollars.

Money Talks   Are you satisfied with your job and salary? 

“a fast-path environment where you’re

 Yes, I am. It’s a mid-sized company in always challenged. The salary is a good

”

base for a beginning professional.

30 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

Tatyana Grimmett  Business process  and risk analyst Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board  Alexandria, VA

QP

Part 1. Regular Employee Results Section 2. Salary by U.S. Regions and Canadian Provinces

       2        1        0        2

Location, Location, Location

J

SALARY SURVEY 

 Just like property values and weather, earnings for qual-

in Section 13 of the online survey package. That section

ity professionals varied a good deal by location. In the

breaks down salaries by job title for:

United States, the lowest-paying region delivered salaries

• U.S. states.

6.9% less than the national average, while the best-paying

• U.S. metropolitan areas.

region beat the national average by 10.1%. In Canada, the

• Canadian metropolitan areas.

differentials were even greater, with the lowest-paying

• Other countries.

region providing salaries 41% below the national average. In the United States, the highest-paying region was

the Pacific, where the average salary for all job titles was $95,901. The lowest salaries were paid in the West North

Comparison of salaries in U.S. regions / FIGURE 1

Central region, at $80,734. But the East North Central and East South Central regions weren’t far behind, both pro viding salaries below $81,000.

Pacific

10.4 (95,901)

New England

9.1 (94,730)

Middle Atlantic

5.5 (90,576)

In most regions in which salaries were above or below

South Atlantic

2.6 (89,125)

the national average, they were in line with the cost of

Mountain

−1.4 (85,660)

living. For example, Missouri had a cost-of-living index

West South Central

−3.8 (83,567)

(COLI) of 92.7 (see Figure 3, p. 32), meaning the living

East South Central

−6.9 (80,865)

East North Central

−6.9 (80,838)

expenses were 7.3% lower than the national average. Missouri was fairly representative of the West North Central

West North Central

about 3.7% below the national average. The COLIs in Figure 3 were calculated using the second-quarter 2012 COLIs compiled by the Council for

−7 (80,734)

−9

region, where salaries for quality professionals were

National average salary of $86,734

−6 −3 0 3 6 Percentage difference from the national average salary (region’s average salary)

9

Figure 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees

Community and Economic Research (C2ER). This council calculates COLIs for cities and metropolitan areas that  voluntarily collect information on the cost of groceries, housing, utilities, healthcare and other items.

Comparison of salaries in Canadian provinces / FIGURE 2

The state indexes in Figure 3 were an average of CO-

Province

LIs for the participating areas in each state. Note that Figure 3 doesn’t include a COLI figure for Puerto Rico because C2ER doesn’t provide COLIs for U.S. territories. For more information about COLIs, see C2ER’s website at http://coli.org. In Canada, the highest salaries were paid in Alberta, where they averaged $109,956. The lowest salaries, averaging $49,500, were in Newfoundland and Labrador. This  province provided only two respondents to this year’s

Alberta New Brunswick Quebec Prince Edward Island Ontario Saskatchewan British Columbia Nova Scotia Manitoba Newfoundland and Labrador

survey, while the greatest number of respondents worked

13.9 (96,500) 8.7 (92,105) −3.2 (82,000)

National average salary of $84,715

−5.6 (79,948) −6.9 (78,863) −8.1 (77,889) −11.7 (74,818) −14 (72,856) −41.6 (49,500)

−43 −33 −23 −13

in Ontario.

−3

7

17

27

Percentage difference from the national average salary (region’s average salary)

Tables 1 (United States, p. 33) and 2 (Canada, p. 34) break down regional and provincial salaries by job title.

29.8 (109,956)

More detailed geographically based information for both

Figure 2 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, International employees

countries, as well as the rest of the world, is available

Salaries are noted in Canadian dollars.

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 31

Percentage of respondents and cost of living by state and territory / FIGURE 3 Regions

Alaska 0.1% 135.7

Pacific

East South Central

Mountain

South Atlantic

West North Central

Middle Atlantic

East North Central

New England

West South Central

Washington 1.9% 100.6 Oregon 1.1% 108.6

Montana 0.1% 100 Idaho 0.2% 91.4

Nevada 0.3% 94.9 California 9.5% 130

Wyoming 0% 103.9

Utah 1.3% 92.1 Arizona 1.7% 102.7

Colorado 1.7% 99.8 New Mexico 0.6% 97.7

North Dakota Minnesota 0.2% 4.2% 99.5 101.3 South Dakota Wisconsin 0.2% 4.7% 99.7 98.4 Iowa Nebraska 1.5% 0.7% Illinois 94.9 91.6 5.6% Kansas 97 Missouri 0.8% 2.4% 91.9 92.7 Oklahoma 0.8% 90.1 Texas 6.7% 91.4

Hawaii 0.2% 165.8

Figure 3 includes r esults for: x Full-time employees x Part-time employees x U.S. employees Canadian employees International employees Notes: Total U.S. respondents naming a primary state: 5,723. Guam is not represented among 2012 responses. Cost-of-living figures are for Q2, 2012. Source: Missouri Economic Research and Information Center: www.missourieconomy.org/indicators/ cost_of_living/index.stm#top D.C. = Washington, D.C. MA = Massachusetts MS = Mississippi RI = Rhode Island WV = West Virginia

32 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

New Hampshire 0.6% 121 Vermont 0.2% 120.2

New York Michigan 3.5% 133.6 4.4% 95.4 Pennsylvania Indiana Ohio 5.1% 101.7 4.9% 3% 91.3 94.3 WV 0.3% Virginia 92.9 2.9% 95.8 Kentucky 1.3% 89.9 North Carolina Tennessee 3.6% 95.3 Arkansas 2.1% 89.6 South Carolina 0.6% Alabama 1.4% 90.8 MS 1.1% Georgia 96.8 0.3% 92.2 2.4% 94.6 93.9 Louisiana 0.6% Florida 94 3.3% 99.2

Maine 0.3% 112.3 MA 3.5% 121.4 RI 0.3% 125.5 Connecticut 1.7% 132.7 New Jersey 2.1% 128.6 Delaware 0.4% 108.2 D.C. 0.1% 144.4 Maryland 2.1% 123.4

Puerto Rico 0.3% —

Money Talks  What external factors do you foresee having the  biggest impact on quality or the quality profession  in the coming years? 

“industry, but with the need for

Globalization of the semiconductor

”

localization.

SPONSORED BY

Brett Baker   Supplier quality director  Semiconductor quality Texas Instruments, Dallas

QP

       2        1        0        2

SALARY SURVEY 

Salary by U.S. region and job title

/ TABLE 1

Pacific

Mountain

West North Central

West South Central

East North Central

East South Central

South Atlantic

Middle Atlantic

New England

$95,901636

$85,660291

$80,734506

$83,567447

$80,8381,139

$80,865239

$89,125817

$90,576538

$94,730330

Analyst

64,63622

69,55010

68,19426

57,78614

61,95731

73,6899

75,29441

84,57113

72,6579

Associate

53,39513

63,4005

51,3079

35,2405

60,74520

60,0002

64,4449

53,9674

53,4084

Auditor

83,23528

71,50517

69,08625

70,35521

70,77039

66,9729

75,41827

78,82718

68,7116

Black Belt

103,18811

91,85010

90,38315

87,55610

94,39828

74,5002

93,31726

96,15814

103,6005

Calibration technician

65,3754

32,7601

58,3602

47,3333

47,5004

—

53,1114

70,0001

—

Champion

—

71,5002

75,5631

100,5002

90,0001

—

—

98,9703

94,0001

Consultant

112,96213

97,0223

94,88011

103,80012

97,40317

106,1748

105,63624

115,64517

139,2005

Coordinator

54,89715

56,22216

59,54514

62,08518

57,61528

51,2005

55,17625

60,21615

63,8836

140,70657

122,58819

107,50244

109,22048

117,63295

107,41020

119,37390

117,42961

127,74943

Educator/ instructor

95,2504

105,7745

95,5002

73,7504

71,7638

75,0001

80,5005

74,0001

92,0002

Green Belt

80,0003

135,0001

45,9001

50,6502

69,1508

60,0001

80,9185

74,2502

80,0003

Inspector

51,20013

56,83811

51,44612

46,02113

49,51125

45,0001

49,90418

101,19110

57,4297

Manager

101,262169

94,01462

83,819113

93,026143

85,204318

88,73567

94,354248

92,187166

98,07892

Master Black Belt

117,37010

84,3333

109,7609

110,0001

108,06623

80,3002

116,70520

47,19110

151,6673

Process/ manufacturing/ project engineer

93,64321

71,0949

73,92914

93,59414

79,03247

77,05210

99,74328

79,95115

73,37511

Quality engineer

87,339119

77,85349

78,99672

81,03254

75,268185

78,66548

77,96396

80,88480

80,60059

Reliability/safety engineer

109,81712

112,5005

99,69412

102,6673

91,59212

101,0002

94,82512

122,5003

67,6673

Software quality engineer

109,05815

107,5147

92,2557

98,8472

90,3749

—

98,87512

91,7506

117,2305

Specialist

82,39030

66,22819

76,06728

64,65624

68,99247

66,4079

69,31044

72,86030

77,15926

Supervisor

77,49315

76,48911

73,92725

72,60519

63,98938

61,70715

70,03829

62,20617

87,86210

Supplier quality engineer/ professional

94,93320

90,5339

84,01321

94,0638

80,34756

84,8529

81,07914

78,66120

87,48211

Technician

50,54124

40,2138

50,84831

44,71520

46,29372

44,45713

44,01721

45,69016

51,8158

178,05318

189,7869

128,08312

127,2147

135,98928

106,5006

138,62919

169,96620

170,84511

All respondents

Director

Vice president/ executive

Table 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees Superscript numbers denote number of respondents.

The highest-paying U.S. region is the Pacific, where the average salary for all job titles is $95,901. SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 33

Salary by Canadian province and job title    a    i    h   b    s    i    m    t    i    r   u    l    B   o    C

All respondents

   n    a    w    e    h    c    t    a    k    s    a    S

   a    t    r    e    b    l    A

   a    b    o    t    i    n    a    M

   d   r    n   o    a    l   d    d   a    n   r    u   b    a    o    f   L    d    w    e   n    a    N

   c    e    b    e    u    Q

   o    i    r    a    t    n    O

/ TABLE 2    k    c    i    w    w    e   s    n    N    u    r    B

   d    r    a    w    d   d    E   n    a    e   l    s    c   I    n    i    r    P

   a    i    t    o    c    S    a    v    o    N

$77,88948

$109,95644

$78,8637

$72,8569

$79,948176

$92,10532

$49,5002

Analyst

60,0003

73,2232

58,0001

—

50,5004

—

—

—

—

—

Associate

38,0001

—

—

—

55,3333

62,8481

—

—

—

—

Auditor

68,5004

160,0002

—

—

62,9297

—

—

—

—

56,7031

Black Belt

75,0002

80,0001

108,0001

—

89,4005

120,0001

—

—

—

—

Calibration technician

40,0001

—

—

—

—

55,0001

—

—

—

—

Champion

—

82,5002

—

—

62,4851

—

—

—

—

—

Consultant

115,000

105,000

—

—

3

141,667

—

—

—

—

—

Coordinator

53,0001

93,0006

60,0001

34,0001

60,83315

—

41,0001

—

—

—

Director

117,5002

145,0002

—

100,0001

104,16712

114,8909

—

112,0001

—

93,5002

Educator/ instructor

90,0001

100,0001

—

75,0001

100,0001

—

—

—

—

—

Green Belt

—

—

—

—

88,4382

—

—

—

—

—

Inspector

—

22,0001

—

—

56,7504

—

Manager Master Black Belt

1

84,649

19

1

119,356

16

92,680

75,341

3

5

87,711

58

—

87,168

12

$96,5002 $82,0001 $74,8188

—

—

—

58,000

81,000

82,000

79,0683

1

1

1

—

196,0001

—

—

120,0001

—

—

—

—

—

Process/ manufacturing/ project engineer

88,2502

84,9001

—

—

69,6005

—

—

—

—

—

Quality engineer

77,4736

80,6673

—

—

69,54727

98,0001

—

—

—

—

Reliability/safety engineer

—

—

—

—

81,0002

—

—

—

—

—

Software quality engineer

—

—

—

—

80,0001

67,0001

—

—

—

—

Specialist

64,0003

115,0002

48,0001

—

69,85010

78,8333

—

—

—

58,8202

Supervisor

66,0001

82,0002

—

70,0001

58,3333

92,0001

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

76,5004

76,0001

—

—

—

—

56,0001

—

—

—

49,2504

—

—

—

—

—

—

225,0001

—

—

152,5004

60,0001

—

—

—

—

Supplier quality engineer/ professional Technician Vice president/ executive

Table 2 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, International employees

U.S. employees, x Canadian employees,

Salaries are noted in Canadian dollars. Superscript numbers denote number of respondents.

34 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

QP

       2        1        0        2

Part 1. Regular Employee Results Section 3. Salary by Number of Years of Experience in the Quality Field

SALARY SURVEY 

Earnings Rise With Experience

T

ors represent roughly 10-year bands, assum-

Experience in quality for full-time U.S. respondents

ing professionals have a 30-year career. The

2009

differences among the bands are small. Of

2010

Those who choose the quality profession seem to stay there. In Figure 1, the three col-

course, the band representing professionals with more than 20 years of experience is usually the smallest, and the band denoting 10

 years or fewer is the largest, representing a certain small amount of attrition. This year, the band of least experience was as large as it has been in four years. In all likelihood, this represented the hiring of replace-

29.5

34.2

31.4

2011 2012

34.1

34.2

30.8

0

36.4

34.5

32.9

32.9

32.1

20%

More than 20 years

40%

/ FIGURE 1

37.1

60%

10.1 to 20 years

80%

100%

10 years or fewer

Figure 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees

ments for professionals let go in the recent economic downturn, when the least experienced were probably the most vulnerable. One good reason for the high rate of retention among quality professionals is that they are rewarded for their accumulated years of experience, as Figures 2 and 3 (p. 36) show for U.S. and Canadian respondents. For both countries, the slope of the charts clearly shows the increasing rewards that come with  years in the profession. For example, in the United States, respondents with more than 20 years in quality earned on average $35,890 more than those with less than a year’s experience ($99,564  vs. $63,674). In Canada, the difference is even greater, with the most experienced respon-

Salary by years in quality for U.S. respondents / FIGURE 2    )    e   s    c   t    n   n    e    i    e    r   d    e   n    p   o    x   p    e   s    y   e    r    t    i    f    l    a   o    u   e    q   g    f   a    o   t    n    s   e    r   c    a   r    e   e    Y    p    (

More than 20 years (30.8%)

99,564

10.1-20 years (32.1%)

89,644

6.1-10 years (14.8%)

78,864

3.1-6 years (11.8%)

74,267

1-3 years (7.9%)

64,086

Less than 1 year (1.9%)

63,674

None (0.7%)

82,602

0

$20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000 $120,000

Average salary

Figure 2 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees

dents earning $42,570 more than those in their first year ($101,570 vs. $59,000). For specific information on earnings by  job title for respondents with various levels of experience in quality, see Tables 1 (United States, pp. 36-39) and 2 (Canada, pp. 40-42). The statistical measures used in these tables are described in the report’s introduction.

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 35

Salary by years in quality for Canadian respondents    )    e   s    c   t    n    n    e    i   e    r   d    e   n    o    p    x   p    e   s    y   e    r    t    i    l   f    a   o    u   e    q    g    f   a    o   t    n    s   e    r   c    a   r    e   e    Y    p    (

/ FIGURE 3

More than 20 years (23%)

101,570

10.1-20 years (44%)

85,654

6.1-10 years (14%)

76,411

3.1-6 years (11%)

Figure 3 includes results for: x Full-time employees Part-time employees U.S. employees x Canadian employees International employees

72,050

1-3 years (5%)

64,939

Less than 1 year (2%)

59,000

None (1%)

73,500

0

$20,000

$40,000

$60,000

$80,000

$100,000 $120,000

Salaries are noted in Canadian dollars.

Average salary

Salary by years in quality and job title for U.S. respondents / TABLE 1  (CONTINUES (CONTINUED)THROUGH P. 39) Maximum

$80,000

$129,000

$22,218

4

$97,800

$84,000

Less than 1 year

28,000

77,800

19,915

7

50,114

45,000

1-3 years

31,200

125,000

20,705

34

58,488

52,000

3.1-6 years

36,000

121,000

21,463

32

63,715

60,000

6.1-10 years

15,000

113,800

21,554

34

66,035

63,000

10.1-20 years

35,000

141,000

24,860

45

77,537

80,000

More than 20 years

32,000

125,483

22,996

19

85,262

88,000

No experience

25,200

80,000

22,681

4

52,515

47,860

Less than 1 year

26,000

45,000

6,978

5

37,216

38,000

1-3 years

26,000

94,000

21,410

17

49,206

40,000

3.1-6 years

27,000

79,763

13,330

14

54,164

52,400

6.1-10 years

36,400

75,000

14,490

14

56,146

56,000

10.1-20 years

60,000

105,000

14,432

9

78,056

77,000

More than 20 years

39,000

90,000

19,955

8

64,250

56,000

Less than 1 year

40,000

86,716

20,532

4

61,683

51,000

1-3 years

36,000

155,000

33,945

10

66,008

54,080

3.1-6 years

31,341

160,000

26,788

31

60,670

51,492

6.1-10 years

30,000

112,000

19,324

37

70,194

72,000

10.1-20 years

26,500

200,000

26,850

70

75,464

75,000

More than 20 years

17,000

153,200

27,424

43

88,132

90,000

134,400

134,400

—

1

134,400

134,400

Less than 1 year

90,000

90,000

—

1

90,000

90,000

1-3 years

48,700

112,000

21,442

8

80,213

76,000

3.1-6 years

58,000

127,000

17,572

22

88,858

87,000

6.1-10 years

60,000

177,000

26,402

28

98,556

88,305

10.1-20 years

45,000

120,000

15,659

40

92,582

93,500

More than 20 years

66,000

145,000

23,120

21

99,222

96,400

No experience

Analyst

Associate

Auditor 

No experience

Black Belt

Standard deviation

Minimum

Count

Mean

Table 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees

36 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

Median

QP

       2        1        0        2

Salary by years in quality and job title for U.S. respondents / TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Minimum

Maximum

$40,000

$40,000

3.1-6 years

40,000

62,000

6.1-10 years

33,000

10.1-20 years

1-3 years Calibration technician

Champion

Coordinator 

Director 

Educator/instructor 

Green Belt

Standard deviation

Mean

Median

$40,000

$40,000

$15,556

2

51,000

40,000

85,000

20,695

5

57,600

50,000

53,000

55,000

1,414

2

54,000

53,000

More than 20 years

30,000

70,000

15,814

9

54,158

61,445

Less than 1 year

54,000

54,000

1

54,000

54,000

3.1-6 years

61,000

89,000

19,799

2

75,000

61,000

6.1-10 years

79,909

90,000

7,135

2

84,955

79,909

10.1-20 years

75,563

112,000

15,885

4

96,641

94,000

140,000

140,000

—

1

140,000

140,000

Less than 1 year

55,000

100,000

24,214

3

82,667

93,000

1-3 years

25,000

211,200

46,767

13

88,631

79,000

3.1-6 years

50,000

145,000

26,654

12

90,904

84,000

6.1-10 years

61,678

130,000

22,932

15

95,250

97,000

10.1-20 years

68,000

300,000

39,243

39

113,196

109,000

More than 20 years

65,000

250,000

43,126

30

120,896

111,000

No experience

37,500

37,500

1

37,500

37,500

Less than 1 year

40,000

110,000

29,338

7

60,193

45,349

1-3 years

31,512

70,000

11,695

26

50,494

51,000

3.1-6 years

32,000

80,000

12,650

23

50,252

48,000

6.1-10 years

28,000

117,000

21,559

22

57,932

49,545

10.1-20 years

33,000

122,850

20,160

44

58,194

49,000

More than 20 years

32,800

162,000

33,231

21

73,752

67,000

Less than 1 year

69,380

96,000

18,823

2

82,690

69,380

1-3 years

35,000

154,000

35,422

18

96,097

93,000

3.1-6 years

34,000

230,000

38,300

39

111,422

105,000

6.1-10 years

48,000

205,000

40,074

44

110,045

100,000

10.1-20 years

49,000

235,000

32,573

167

118,857

117,000

More than 20 years

55,000

265,000

36,349

212

125,581

122,000

1-3 years

41,000

83,000

21,442

3

64,500

69,500

3.1-6 years

74,000

93,000

9,539

3

84,000

85,000

6.1-10 years

54,000

90,000

25,456

2

72,000

54,000

10.1-20 years

47,000

130,000

30,698

10

82,995

75,000

More than 20 years

61,000

188,000

34,159

14

91,859

78,000

No experience

54,590

54,590

1

54,590

54,590

Less than 1 year

57,600

86,000

20,082

2

71,800

57,600

1-3 years

45,900

70,000

9,330

5

61,080

62,500

3.1-6 years

36,000

77,000

17,244

5

62,120

69,000

6.1-10 years

36,000

100,000

26,129

5

76,200

75,000

10.1-20 years

53,000

112,000

20,098

7

85,471

90,000

135,000

135,000

1

135,000

135,000

More than 20 years

—

Count 1

More than 20 years

Consultant

SALARY SURVEY 

—

—

—

—

Table 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees December 2012 • QP 37 SPONSORED BY

Salary by years in quality and job title for U.S. respondents / TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Minimum

Maximum

Standard deviation

$35,000

$35,000

—

1-3 years

20,000

50,000

3.1-6 years

26,000

6.1-10 years

Less than 1 year

Inspector 

Manager 

Master Black Belt

Process/ manufacturing/ project engineer 

Quality engineer 

Reliability/safety engineer 

Count

Mean

Median

1

$35,000

$35,000

$9,527

11

36,243

38,000

90,000

17,609

19

45,757

39,676

30,000

102,000

19,535

17

52,298

45,000

10.1-20 years

22,000

120,000

20,693

37

53,889

52,000

More than 20 years

31,000

86,000

14,064

25

55,017

54,000

No experience

54,750

156,000

40,354

6

111,095

89,500

Less than 1 year

38,000

144,000

32,917

14

76,713

70,000

1-3 years

28,850

120,500

23,897

66

73,816

72,000

3.1-6 years

34,000

173,000

26,548

124

83,043

79,800

6.1-10 years

39,520

300,000

30,100

178

87,061

84,000

10.1-20 years

34,000

320,000

26,830

501

93,986

92,000

More than 20 years

28,000

214,400

26,970

496

96,212

92,000

1-3 years

71,000

71,000

1

71,000

71,000

3.1-6 years

28,000

130,000

34,852

6

82,468

87,809

6.1-10 years

75,000

143,000

18,276

16

105,783

103,000

10.1-20 years

50,000

175,000

25,627

26

113,310

110,000

More than 20 years

82,400

185,000

25,988

30

123,945

123,700

No experience

45,760

134,500

26,252

8

82,270

83,000

Less than 1 year

55,000

120,000

24,334

7

78,143

70,000

1-3 years

27,000

110,000

23,194

22

67,532

62,000

3.1-6 years

41,756

135,000

23,873

31

81,158

73,000

6.1-10 years

44,000

148,000

23,432

26

82,258

79,000

10.1-20 years

26,500

180,300

27,067

42

85,825

84,000

More than 20 years

41,000

152,000

23,631

34

98,769

94,000

Less than 1 year

45,000

131,220

22,678

18

67,976

56,500

1-3 years

25,000

124,000

17,646

57

67,182

64,500

3.1-6 years

33,000

156,000

18,753

91

73,307

72,400

6.1-10 years

32,500

136,000

18,111

121

75,465

75,000

10.1-20 years

32,000

136,500

20,655

244

79,767

79,000

More than 20 years

37,500

185,000

23,800

233

87,659

84,500

No experience

98,000

98,000

—

1

98,000

98,000

Less than 1 year

57,000

65,000

4,481

3

59,833

57,500

1-3 years

43,000

103,000

33,808

3

82,000

100,000

3.1-6 years

65,000

105,000

17,492

6

82,250

71,000

6.1-10 years

60,000

127,000

31,507

4

88,000

65,000

10.1-20 years

56,000

130,000

15,154

23

93,575

95,000

More than 20 years

75,000

173,000

24,279

24

119,704

115,000

—

Table 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees

38 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

QP

       2        1        0        2

Salary by years in quality and job title for U.S. respondents / TABLE 1 (CONTINUED) Minimum

Maximum

Standard deviation

$68,000

$68,000

—

Less than 1 year

94,694

103,000

1-3 years

85,000

3.1-6 years

No experience

Software quality engineer 

Specialist

Supervisor 

Supplier quality engineer/ professional

Technician

Vice president/ executive

SALARY SURVEY  Count

Mean

Median

1

$68,000

$68,000

$5,873

2

98,847

94,694

132,400

24,741

3

112,800

121,000

65,000

90,000

17,678

2

77,500

65,000

6.1-10 years

60,100

150,000

28,496

8

100,795

98,000

10.1-20 years

29,785

150,000

22,370

26

95,777

95,000

More than 20 years

60,000

185,000

27,905

20

110,441

102,000

No experience

60,100

85,000

17,607

2

72,550

60,100

Less than 1 year

35,000

65,000

8,958

8

49,563

50,000

1-3 years

22,000

100,000

17,572

28

52,426

49,500

3.1-6 years

40,000

115,000

20,488

37

66,338

65,000

6.1-10 years

28,992

147,500

26,240

52

66,399

60,000

10.1-20 years

34,000

130,000

23,155

63

76,392

75,000

More than 20 years

38,988

160,000

27,323

68

86,970

87,000

No experience

60,000

87,500

14,050

4

71,875

60,000

Less than 1 year

43,000

75,000

13,786

4

58,125

52,000

1-3 years

30,000

115,000

22,508

13

58,538

54,000

3.1-6 years

40,000

91,000

14,292

29

60,973

58,000

6.1-10 years

34,000

90,000

13,749

27

61,152

62,000

10.1-20 years

42,500

135,000

20,502

57

74,974

75,000

More than 20 years

40,000

180,000

27,262

46

79,195

75,000

Less than 1 year

54,000

54,000

1

54,000

54,000

1-3 years

34,000

88,000

17,288

8

58,925

52,500

3.1-6 years

60,000

122,000

14,369

19

80,662

76,000

6.1-10 years

57,000

115,210

16,680

28

84,132

80,000

10.1-20 years

37,000

135,000

19,680

52

83,931

82,000

More than 20 years

40,000

132,000

16,759

60

89,965

90,000

No experience

70,000

70,000

—

2

70,000

70,000

Less than 1 year

40,000

58,000

6,745

6

44,500

42,000

1-3 years

30,000

70,000

7,948

40

40,915

40,000

3.1-6 years

26,630

72,000

8,727

30

42,676

40,000

6.1-10 years

22,000

90,000

14,684

41

44,461

41,558

10.1-20 years

25,000

90,000

12,994

48

50,113

45,760

More than 20 years

31,200

104,900

14,227

45

53,112

50,000

1-3 years

70,000

240,000

69,506

4

154,827

150,000

3.1-6 years

90,000

195,000

35,519

8

127,838

106,704

6.1-10 years

90,000

233,500

39,759

10

133,875

125,000

10.1-20 years

52,000

300,000

48,728

40

138,844

140,000

More than 20 years

60,000

427,250

71,394

68

165,533

150,000

—

Table 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 39

Salary by years in quality and job title for Canadian respondents / TABLE 2 (CONTINUES (CONTINUED)THROUGH P. 42) Minimum

Maximum

Standard deviation

Count

$30,000

$30,000

—

1

$30,000

$30,000

3.1-6 years

50,000

60,000

$7,071

2

55,000

50,000

6.1-10 years

58,000

68,446

5,323

3

63,815

65,000

10.1-20 years

65,000

78,000

6,557

3

71,000

70,000

More than 20 years

42,000

42,000

—

1

42,000

42,000

3.1-6 years

62,848

62,848

—

1

62,848

62,848

6.1-10 years

50,000

60,000

5,033

3

55,333

56,000

10.1-20 years

38,000

38,000

—

1

38,000

38,000

Less than 1 year

44,000

44,000

—

1

44,000

44,000

3.1-6 years

25,000

78,000

24,061

4

56,250

50,000

6.1-10 years

63,000

67,500

3,182

2

65,250

63,000

10.1-20 years

42,000

120,000

33,022

5

81,341

80,000

More than 20 years

85,000

200,000

81,317

2

142,500

85,000

1-3 years

83,000

83,000

—

1

83,000

83,000

3.1-6 years

80,000

120,000

17,858

4

94,250

85,000

6.1-10 years

58,000

58,000

—

1

58,000

58,000

10.1-20 years

80,000

108,000

12,685

4

96,750

94,000

1-3 years

55,000

55,000

—

1

55,000

55,000

3.1-6 years

40,000

40,000

—

1

40,000

40,000

6.1-10 years

85,000

85,000

—

1

85,000

85,000

10.1-20 years

62,485

80,000

12,385

2

71,243

62,485

Less than 1 year

105,000

105,000

—

1

105,000

105,000

3.1-6 years

115,000

115,000

—

1

115,000

115,000

6.1-10 years

100,000

100,000

—

1

100,000

100,000

10.1-20 years

150,000

150,000

—

1

150,000

150,000

More than 20 years

175,000

175,000

—

1

175,000

175,000

Less than 1 year

41,000

53,000

8,485

2

47,000

41,000

1-3 years

34,000

66,000

12,720

5

52,600

50,000

3.1-6 years

39,500

65,000

18,031

2

52,250

39,500

6.1-10 years

62,000

92,000

15,535

3

74,667

70,000

10.1-20 years

45,000

150,000

29,509

11

75,000

62,000

More than 20 years

73,000

75,000

1,414

2

74,000

73,000

1-3 years

85,000

85,000

—

1

85,000

85,000

3.1-6 years

110,000

110,000

—

1

110,000

110,000

6.1-10 years

110,000

137,000

15,044

3

119,667

112,000

10.1-20 years

50,000

150,000

23,987

15

101,433

105,000

More than 20 years

86,000

225,000

47,451

10

131,251

104,510

Less than 1 year Analyst

Associate

Auditor 

Black Belt

Calibration technician Champion

Consultant

Coordinator 

Director 

Table 2 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, International employees Salaries are noted in Canadian dollars.

40 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

Mean

U.S. employees, x Canadian employees,

Median

QP

       2        1        0        2

Salary by years in quality and job title for Canadian respondents / TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)

SALARY SURVEY 

Minimum

Maximum

Standard deviation

Count

3.1-6 years

$75,000

$75,000

—

1

$75,000

$75,000

10.1-20 years

100,000

100,000

—

2

100,000

100,000

More than 20 years

90,000

90,000

—

1

90,000

90,000

6.1-10 years

76,875

76,875

—

1

76,875

76,875

10.1-20 years

100,000

100,000

—

1

100,000

100,000

6.1-10 years

40,000

40,000

—

1

40,000

40,000

10.1-20 years

22,000

90,000

28,593

4

52,250

42,000

1-3 years

58,000

85,000

10,733

5

75,800

80,000

3.1-6 years

45,000

130,000

23,323

13

79,682

81,000

6.1-10 years

60,000

171,000

28,791

14

89,679

84,000

10.1-20 years

50,000

162,400

19,952

52

89,481

89,000

More than 20 years

52,000

192,000

30,640

37

97,590

89,000

10.1-20 years

120,000

120,000

—

1

120,000

120,000

More than 20 years

196,000

196,000

—

1

196,000

196,000

Less than 1 year

70,000

70,000

—

1

70,000

70,000

1-3 years

62,500

84,900

15,839

2

73,700

62,500

10.1-20 years

52,000

84,000

22,627

2

68,000

52,000

More than 20 years

70,000

114,000

24,846

3

85,333

72,000

Less than 1 year

70,000

70,000

—

1

70,000

70,000

1-3 years

65,000

65,000

—

1

65,000

65,000

3.1-6 years

65,000

65,000

—

1

65,000

65,000

6.1-10 years

45,000

100,000

16,204

8

66,625

63,000

10.1-20 years

50,000

105,000

16,865

19

76,585

70,000

More than 20 years

47,500

98,000

17,235

7

70,643

75,000

Reliability/safety engineer 

3.1-6 years

75,000

75,000

—

1

75,000

75,000

6.1-10 years

87,000

87,000

—

1

87,000

87,000

Software quality engineer 

6.1-10 years

80,000

80,000

—

1

80,000

80,000

10.1-20 years

67,000

67,000

—

1

67,000

67,000

No experience

62,000

62,000

—

1

62,000

62,000

1-3 years

54,500

54,500

—

1

54,500

54,500

3.1-6 years

42,640

72,000

20,761

2

57,320

42,640

6.1-10 years

50,000

55,000

2,887

3

51,667

50,000

10.1-20 years

52,000

150,000

31,093

9

78,333

65,000

More than 20 years

48,000

120,000

28,952

5

86,300

78,500

No experience

85,000

85,000

—

1

85,000

85,000

10.1-20 years

40,000

92,000

17,916

6

64,167

66,000

More than 20 years

97,000

97,000

—

1

97,000

97,000

Educator/instructor 

Green Belt

Inspector 

Manager 

Master Black Belt

Process/ manufacturing/ project engineer 

Quality engineer 

Specialist

Supervisor 

Table 2 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, International employees

Mean

Median

U.S. employees, x Canadian employees,

Salaries are noted in Canadian dollars.

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 41

Salary by years in quality and job title for Canadian respondents / TABLE 2 (CONTINUED)

Supplier quality engineer/ professional

Technician

Vice president/ executive

Minimum

Maximum

Standard deviation

Count

$40,000

$40,000

—

1

$40,000

$40,000

10.1-20 years

75,000

76,000

707

2

75,500

75,000

More than 20 years

89,000

102,000

9,192

2

95,500

89,000

1-3 years

37,000

37,000

—

1

37,000

37,000

3.1-6 years

56,000

60,000

2,828

2

58,000

56,000

6.1-10 years

50,000

50,000

—

1

50,000

50,000

More than 20 years

50,000

50,000

—

1

50,000

50,000

10.1-20 years

60,000

225,000

67,623

4

138,750

130,000

150,000

190,000

28,284

2

170,000

150,000

3.1-6 years

More than 20 years

Table 2 includes results for: x Full-time employees, Part-time employees, International employees

Mean

U.S. employees, x Canadian employees,

Salaries are noted in Canadian dollars.

Years of experience in quality by job title

/ FIGURE 4

 Job title (average salary) Vice president/executive ($152,237)

52.3

Calibration technician ($53,970)

30.8

47.4

Director ($119,408)

10.5

42.1

44

Educator/instructor ($84,546) Master Black Belt ($112,946)

34.6

43.8

Consultant ($106,798) Specialist ($72,261) Supervisor ($70,094)

26.4

33.3

41.9

30.5 26.8

28

31

32.3

Quality engineer ($79,506)

26.6

36.2

35.7

Software quality engineer ($101,040)

29.1

35.9

35.8

Supplier quality engineer/professional ($84,381)

25

32.9

37.5

Manager ($91,852)

21.4

31.3

38

Reliability/safety engineer ($99,908)

16.9

25.8

31.9

37.6

34.8

38.4

24.4

25.6

49.2

31.7

42.8

Inspector ($55,467)

22.7

33.6

Auditor ($74,138)

22.1

35.9

Technician ($46,897)

21.2

22.6

56.1

Process/manufacturing/project engineer ($84,166)

20

24.7

55.3

Black Belt ($93,946)

17.4

Coordinator ($57,718)

11.3

Analyst ($69,279)

10.9

Champion ($90,047) Green Belt ($74,173)

49.6

30.6

54.9

12.7

76.1 25.7

63.4 40

10

50

26.9

3.8

0

20% 1 0 o r f ewer yea rs

Figure 4 includes r esults for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, International employees

42 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

42.1

33.1

14.6

Associate ($56,246)

43.6

SPONSORED BY

69.2

40%

60%

10 .1 to 20 yea rs

80%

100%

More th an 2 0 y ears

Median

QP

       2        1        0

Part 1. Regular Employee Results Section 4. Salary by ASQ and RABQSA International Certification

       2

SALARY SURVEY 

Certainties With Certifications

L

Last year, the QP Salary Survey report highlighted the

These are the most statistically significant in the figure.

 value of certifications that are closely matched to one’s

Table 1 (p. 44) shows selected ASQ certifications

 job title. Viewing things more generally, this year’s

with the percentage of U.S. and Canadian respondents

survey results tell the same story as in most previous

holding each certification. Table 2 (p. 45) shows the

 years: Any ASQ certification is associated with a higher

same information for selected RABQSA International

salary, but salaries are even higher for those who hold

certifications.

more than one certification.

Table 3 (p. 46) shows the salary premium earned by

Figure 1 shows average salaries for U.S. respon-

holders of specific ASQ certifications in certain job cat-

dents by the number of ASQ certifications they hold.

egories. These pairings were selected in the detailed

Similar charts in past years have shown a steady up-

analysis that went into the feature article accompany-

ward trend in salaries as the number of certifications

ing the 2011 QP Salary Survey and were chosen based

increases. This year, however, there’s a blip: Those

on their high statistical significance. Please refer to

who held four certifications had lower average salaries

that article at http://asq.org/quality-progress/2011/12/ 

than those who held three or even two certifications.

salary-survey/land-the-big-one.html for more detail

Note that only 2.49% of respondents held four certifications. This is a relatively small number of data

and for insight into how to use certifications strategically in your career.

 points, and the number may be skewed downward by

Table 4 (p. 47) shows average salaries for U.S. re-

a few low salaries. The bulk of respondents, making up

spondents by job title and ASQ certification held. Table

more than 95% of the total, hold up to three ASQ certi-

5 shows the same information for Canadian respon-

fications, represented by the first four bars in Figure 1.

dents.

Salary by number of ASQ certifications held by U.S. respondents / FIGURE 1 $150,000    y    r    a    l    a$100,000    s    e    g    a    r    e $50,000    v    A

0

84,760

85,268

  92,569   93,291   91,837

None One Two Three (43.94%) (33.51%) (12.48%) (6.05%)

Four (2.49%)

  98,694

  102,809

Five Six or more (0.72%) (0.8%)

Number of ASQ certifications (percentage of respondents) Figure 1 includes r esults for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, U.S. employees, Canadian employees, International employees

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 43

Money Talks  What do you like best about working in quality? 

“work dynamics and efficiency. Working to In all of my jobs, I have tried to improve improve things is in my DNA.

Mike Halbirt  Internal auditor   Salem-Keizer School District  Salem, OR

The bulk of respondents, making up more than 95% of the total, hold up to three ASQ certifications.

Percentage of respondents holding ASQ certifications / TABLE 1 2012

2010

2008

Certified quality auditor

22.9%

24.1%

24.2%

Certified quality engineer

20.4

23.7

21.6

Certified manager of quality/organizational excellence

12.6

13.7

12.6

Certified Six Sigma Black Belt

8

8.3

6.8

Certified quality technician

6.3

7.4

8

Certified Six Sigma Green Belt

6.1

5.2

3.6

Certified quality improvement associate

4.4

3.7

3.8

Certified quality inspector

3.5

4

3.9

Certified reliability engineer

2.5

3.1

2.5

Certified software quality engineer

2.2

2.5

2.6

Certified quality process analyst

1.3

1.2

0.7

Certified calibration technician

1.3

1.3

1.2

Certified biomedical auditor

1.2

0.8

0.7

1

0.9

0.6

Certified HACCP auditor Certified Six Sigma Master Black Belt

0.5

—

—

Certified pharmaceutical GMP professional

0.4

0.4

—

44.4

40.9

None

43.1

Table 1 includes results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, International employees GMP = good manufacturing practice. HACCP = hazard analysis and critical control point.

44 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

Calculated Queries

$$$$$$

Check out QP’s updated online salary calculator for quick results and comparisons. The calculator lets you choose from several variables so you can pinpoint a specific salary figure. It also lets you get a broader view of average salaries by comparing categories to one another. Access the tool at

www.qualityprogress.com/ salarysurvey.

QP

       2        1        0        2

Percentage of respondents holding RABQSA certifications / TABLE 2 (CONTINU (CONTINUED) ED) Certification

Percentage

SALARY SURVEY 

Money Talks 

Qual Qu alit ity y ma mana nage geme ment nt sy syst stem emss (Q (QMS MS)) le lead ad au audi dito torr

5.95 5. 95% %

Internal auditor

4.74

QMS auditor

2.01

AS9100 auditor

1.69

Environmental system lead auditor

0.82

QMS provisional auditor

0.78

RABQSA integrated process control (IPC) QMS lead auditor

0.61

AS9100 aerospace experience auditor

0.45

Mana Ma nage geme ment nt sys syste tem m cert certifi ifica cati tion on bod body y lead lead aud audit itor or

0.45 0. 45

Environmental system auditor

0.43

AS9 S910 100 0 ae aero rosspa pace ce in indu dusstr try y ex expe peri rie enc nced ed au audi dito torr

0.35 0. 35

RABQSA IPC QMS auditor

0.28

QMS associate auditor

0.22

Occu Oc cupa pati tion onal al hea healt lth h and and safe safety ty (OH (OHS) S) lea lead d audi audito torr

0.20 0. 20

QMS principal auditor

0.20

AS9110 auditor

0.19

Food safety auditor

0.19

Food safety lead auditor

0.19

Certification

HACCP practitioner auditor

0.17

Certified wind farm Australia auditor

0.02

Management consultant

0.15

Dissabi Di bili lity ty ser erv vic ices es au audi ditt pe pers rson onne nell cer erti tific fica ati tion on

0.02 0. 02

OHS auditor

0.15

Environmental system associate auditor

0.02

Management system certification body provisional auditor

0.11

Environmental system business improvement auditor

0.02

Skill examiner

0.11

Food safety associate auditor

0.02

AS9110 aerospace experience auditor

0.09

HACCP practitioner associate auditor

0.02

Laboratory assessor

0.09

HACC HA CCP P pr prac acti titi tion oner er bu busi sine ness ss im impr prov ovem emen entt aud audit itor or

0.02 0. 02

Professional trainers

0.09

Info In form rmat atio ion n sec secur urit ity y man manag agem emen entt sys syste tems ms au audi dito torr

0.02 0. 02

Food safety principal auditor

0.07

0.02

Laboratory lead assessor

0.07

Management system certification business improvement

Management sy system ce certification bo body au auditor

0.07

National food safety auditor

0.02

Environmental system provisional auditor

0.06

OHS associate auditor

0.02

HACCP practitioner lead auditor

0.06

Res espo pons nsib ible le ca care re ma mana nag gem emen entt sys yste tem ms aud udit ito or

0.02 0. 02

Laboratory associate assessor

0.06

Resp Re spon onsi sibl ble e car care e man manag agem emen entt sys syste tems ms le lead ad au audi dito torr

0.02 0.0 2

Management system certification body principal auditor

0.06

Safe design professionals certification

0.02

Security management systems auditor

0.02

OHS provisional auditor

0.06

APIQ auditor

0.04

AS91 AS 9110 100 0 aer aeros ospa pace ce in indu dust stry ry ex expe peri rien ence ced d aud audit itor or

0.04 0. 04

OHS principal auditor

0.04

QMS business improvement auditor

0.04

Aged care professional

0.02

CALA laboratory lead assessor

0.02

SPONSORED BY

What do you like best about working  in quality? 

“thing—always. ” Kristina Skowronek

Pride in doing the right

Quality assurance manager  Boiron USA Newton Square, PA

Percentage of respondents holding RABQSA certifications / TABLE 2 (CONTINU (CONTINUED) ED) Percentage

None

85.10

Table 2 includes results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, x U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, International employees APIQ = Australian Pork Industry Quality Assurance Program. CALA = Canadian Association of Environmental Analytical Laboratories. HACCP = hazard analysis and critical control point.

Dece De cemb mber er 20 2012 12 • QP 45

Money Talks 

 All 24 in 1

Q P  P 

The entire QP

What do you like best about working in quality? 

Salary Survey, comprised of the four sec-

“tackling the chronic efficiency

tions printed in this issue and

Nothing is more rewarding than

20 posted online, is available in one PDF file.

killers, bringing the appropriate

Download individual

team together, finding the root cause, developing a realistic

sections or all 24 sections

solution, and implementing

bundled in one when you visit

and motivating the necessary

a special webpage developed

change.

for this annual report:

”

www.qualityprogress.com/

Matthias Batlogg  Quality manager Nuclear power plant division Erne Fittings GmbH  Schlins,  Schl ins, Aust Austria ria

salarysurvey.

Differences in salary for ASQ certification / TABLE 3  Job title

Certification

Salary premium

Supervisor

Certified quality auditor

$13,004

Auditor

Certified quality auditor

8,116

Calibration technician

Certified calibration technician

Manager

Certified manager of quality/ organizational excellence

8,943

Quality engineer

Certified manager of quality/ organizational excellence

11,661

Auditor

Certified Six Sigma Black Belt

24,708

Manager

Certified Six Sigma Black Belt

8,767

Reliability/safety engineer

Certified reliability engineer

14,434

Supplier quality engineer/ professional

Certified quality engineer

14,434

15,944

Table 3 includes results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, x U.S. employee employees, s, x Canadia Canadian n employe employees, es, Intern International ational employees

46 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

This year’s survey results tell the  ass same story a in most previous  year  ye ars: s: An Anyy ASQ certification is associated with a higher salary, but salaries are higher for those who hold more than one certification.

QP

       2        1        0        2

SALARY SURVEY 

Salary by ASQ certification and job title for U.S. respondents / TABLE 4 (CONTINU (CONTINUED ED ON P. 48) Certified Certified biomedical calibration auditor  technician

Certified HACCP auditor 

Certified Certified pharmaceumanager of tical GMP quality professional

$102,852630

Certified quality auditor 

Certified Certified quality quality improvement engineer  associate

United States $98,56960

$64,97462

$90,06543

Analyst

—

—

40,0001

88,53812

Associate

—

—

—

85,0001

85,8074

30,0001

72,6005

80,8689

Black Belt

—

—

75,0001

96,87413

Calibration technician

—

—

Champion

—

—

Consultant

108,0001

—

Coordinator

—

All respondents

Auditor

Director

142,6005

$105,86021

$90,5081,166

$94,2441,027

$69,697226

—

76,16933

83,00820

73,05111

58,0001

72,61510

77,0002

55,07013

79,6673

77,385117

89,85715

60,02014

—

102,08116

95,63224

65,0002

—

—

—

53,9073

—

—

108,5002

—

—

102,5001

122,16010

108,0001

108,36715

120,89315

47,0002

47,0001

59,8673

45,0001

60,10029

77,4177

55,19220

115,0001

123,6117

123,948108

172,0004

119,744112

126,75878

103,18112

61,52210

—

— 103,5004

Educator/instructor

—

64,6001

—

90,7564

—

70,0004

86,1205

79,2003

Green Belt

—

—

—

92,0003

—

94,0002

85,0003

53,0001

Inspector

55,0001

—

75,0001

75,0001

—

68,53516

48,7504

38,0007

Manager

99,17821

82,84211

90,44716

99,177255

106,8005

95,097363

97,208275

81,85852

—

—

—

123,30011

—

115,07010

121,36916

—

Process/manufacturing/ project engineer

80,0001

45,0001

—

96,37512

89,9701

91,36919

90,55336

69,3684

Quality engineer

86,12617

77,3129

101,6673

90,03379

75,0001

84,923181

84,118330

71,11424

Reliability/safety engineer

—

43,0001

—

99,5004

—

88,1506

105,30015

—

Software quality engineer

98,5002

—

—

99,9205

—

98,3258

97,6956

87,0001

Specialist

103,5002

58,6005

83,5543

86,54622

60,1001

74,19880

87,26328

50,79418

Supervisor

—

67,6673

68,0002

86,82018

62,0001

80,35238

83,04433

62,73314

82,3333

—

—

92,06725

132,0001

88,23662

88,66978

88,8577

54,0001

44,5004

—

48,00419

49,50810

44,83114

112,2001

144,26229

132,0001

146,00826

149,69724

Master Black Belt

Supplier quality engineer/professional Technician Vice Vi ce pr pres esid iden ent/ t/ex exec ecut utiv ive e

— 139, 13 9,00 000 03

49,46816 127,0001

115,8405

Table 4 includ includes es results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, employe es, x U.S. U.S. employe employees, es, Canadia Canadian n employees, International employees Superscript numbers denote number of respondents. HACCP = hazard analysis and critical control point. GMP = good manufacturing practice.

SPONSORED BY

Dece De cemb mber er 20 2012 12 • QP 47

Salary by ASQ certification and job title for U.S. respondents / TABLE 4 (CONTINU (CONTINUED) ED) Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified quality Six Sigma software quality quality reliability Six Sigma Six Sigma process Master quality inspector  technician engineer  Green Belt Black Belt analyst Black Belt engineer 

None

United States All respondents

$71,891176 $71,93766

$67,296312 $111,050126 $100,642403 $84,701308 $119,88025 $106,163111 $84,5551,999

Analyst

62,4001

62,8997

52,2007

92,2777

78,32312

63,54620

—

98,1112

65,17881

Associate

45,0001

48,0273

51,9725

—

68,3822

61,2103

—

105,0001

52,82133

Auditor

65,7504

89,0005

53,5637

—

98,4673

80,0195

—

89,7512

69,65551

109,3611

—

109,3611

111,3532

95,25559

98,4888

—

98,8332

93,77438

39,3333

—

45,5006

—

—

70,0001

—

—

46,4415

Champion

—

—

—

140,0001

109,1883

—

—

—

77,9856

Consultant

—

—

78,0001

129,2502

129,34613

98,69317

187,5002

250,0001

100,95653

Coordinator

65,2504

53,7104

56,5009

—

64,0001

65,7333

—

46,0002

58,31777

123,9176

140,0001

108,29510

146,90010

126,17940

116,81216

124,3758

136,5006

119,424231

Educator/instructor

—

120,0001

120,0001

104,0001

98,3333

97,5004

—

—

87,71418

Green Belt

—

—

—

—

67,3002

71,49916

—

—

73,5005

Inspector

70,52825

42,0001

49,28015

—

—

53,0834

—

—

50,49747

Manager

85,67743

81,10313

79,12574

112,82729

96,28682

91,3333

111,78924

87,783595

Black Belt Calibration te technician

Director

99,937112

162,0001

156,0001

140,5002

129,2504

113,64632

82,4001

121,2504

—

112,61425

—

89,5002

58,1254

104,3675

92,24432

82,99424

—

108,5001

81,32561

Quality engineer

67,51039

64,5569

67,14763

93,40918

87,37647

75,16757

82,0001

Reliability/safety engineer

—

—

—

106,67434

97,5002

83,7002

—

107,6814

93,35819

Software quality engineer

—

—

—

104,8002

114,6001

91,5003

—

102,02040

102,14716

Specialist

54,0003

59,9005

55,76821

105,5002

94,6229

68,16712

78,0001

125,1005

68,809106

Supervisor

61,25010

62,3605

70,52116

118,0001

85,0007

80,5569

—

117,2052

63,93675

Supplier quality engineer/professional

78,6005

109,9002

78,50018

96,4136

98,4569

86,83610

88,3333

95,6673

79,93040

Technician

47,98928

48,0006

49,33349

—

50,0002

45,4206

—

55,0001

45,921105

208,0002

115,55012

101,0405

147,6673

—

Master Black Belt Process/manufacturing/ project engineer

Vice Vic e presid president ent/ex /execu ecutiv tive e 148 148,60 ,600 02

112,2001

118,7333

95,99115

75,998248

157,32664

Table 4 includ includes es results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, employe es, x U.S. U.S. employe employees, es, Canadia Canadian n employees, International employees Superscript numbers denote number of respondents.

Total Package All sections printed in this issue of QP, as well as the other 20 sections of the survey report, are available online in PDF format at www.qualityprogress.com/salarysurvey.  You can scan this quick response (QR) code with a QR reader or scanner application on your smartphone to connect to this year’s QP Salary Survey.

48 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

Q P  P 

QP

       2        1        0        2

SALARY SURVEY 

Salary by ASQ certification and job title for Canadian respondents / TABLE 5 (CONTINUES ON P. 50) Certified Certified biomedical calibration auditor  technician

Certified HACCP auditor 

Certified Certified pharmaceumanager of tical GMP quality professional

Certified quality auditor 

Certified Certified quality quality improvement engineer  associate

Canada $96,0001

$99,6676

$61,3499

$94,23042

$82,6673

$87,00356

$83,69861

$66,96510

Analyst

—

—

—

—

—

70,0001

42,0001

30,0001

Associate

—

—

—

—

—

57,6163

56,0001

38,0001

Auditor

—

—

50,0001

—

108,0001

86,6673

67,5001

—

Black Belt

—

—

—

—

—

101,0002

101,0002

—

Calibration technician

—

47,500

—

—

—

—

—

—

Champion

—

—

—

62,4851

—

82,5002

82,5002

62,4851

Consultant

—

—

—

115,0001

—

—

—

—

Coordinator

—

—

39,500

—

—

69,500

—

63,0002

Director

—

125,7504

—

99,5638

—

130,4005

85,0001

—

Educator/instructor

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Green Belt

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Inspector

—

—

—

—

—

40,0001

All respondents

2

3

23

4

1

22

—

—

96,000

—

90,333

90,920

88,000

85,162

89,998

90,0533

Master Black Belt

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Process/manufacturing/ project engineer

—

—

—

70,0001

—

70,0001

90,0003

70,0001

Quality engineer

—

—

70,0001

73,3333

—

63,7545

72,35620

73,0001

Reliability/safety engineer

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Software quality engineer

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Specialist

—

—

42,6401

74,2502

52,0001

95,2504

110,0002

—

Supervisor

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Supplier quality engineer/professional

—

—

—

89,0001

—

82,0002

95,5002

—

Technician

—

—

—

—

—

—

60,0001

—

Vice president/executive

—

—

—

182,5002

—

225,0001

140,0001

—

Manager

1

3

24

Table 5 includes results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, International employees Salaries are noted in Canadian dollars. Superscript numbers denote number of respondents. HACCP = hazard analysis and critical control point. GMP = good manufacturing practice.

SPONSORED BY

December 2012 • QP 49

QP

       2        1        0        2

SALARY SURVEY 

Salary by ASQ certification and job title for Canadian respondents / TABLE 5 (CONTINUED) Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified Certified quality Six Sigma software quality quality reliability Six Sigma Six Sigma process Master quality inspector  technician engineer  Green Belt Black Belt analyst Black Belt engineer 

None

Canada All respondents

$89,40110

$78,4725

$69,24626

Analyst

—

70,0001

—

Associate

—

—

Auditor

42,0001

Black Belt

$91,45826

$84,39816

$89,2077

$88,065160

—

42,0001

50,0001

—

68,4461

65,2005

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

83,9638

94,0001

—

105,0001

—

90,7147

93,0002

—

—

89,0002

Calibration technician

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Champion

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

Consultant

—

—

—

115,0001

—

110,0002

—

115,0001

Coordinator

70,0001

—

70,0001

—

—

—

—

—

71,00016

170,0001

—

—

—

150,0001

85,0001

150,0001

108,0001

112,76715

Educator/instructor

—

100,0001

—

—

—

—

—

—

88,3333

Green Belt

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

88,4382

Inspector

42,0001

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

55,6673

Manager

74,0101

93,3601

78,71911

86,2502

123,3336

87,8936

95,0002

93,0002

92,72464

Master Black Belt

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

158,0002

Process/manufacturing/ project engineer

—

—

77,0002

—

68,4502

84,0001

—

—

66,2502

Quality engineer

73,0001

73,0001

55,3005

—

72,4297

61,5002

—

—

71,70010

Reliability/safety engineer

—

—

—

87,0001

—

—

—

—

75,0001

Software quality engineer

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

73,5002

—

Specialist

48,0001

—

56,5002

150,0001

75,0001

75,0001

—

—

70,95511

Supervisor

—

—

55,0002

—

92,0001

—

—

—

73,0005

Supplier quality engineer/professional

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

58,0002

56,0001

56,0001

53,0002

—

—

—

—

—

43,5002

225,0001

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

132,5004

Director

Technician Vice president/executive

$104,9005

$113,3333

Table 5 includes results for: x Full-time employees, x Part-time employees, U.S. employees, x Canadian employees, International employees Salaries are noted in Canadian dollars. Superscript numbers denote number of respondents.

50 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

SPONSORED BY

141,6673

SAVE THE DATE 2013 WORLD CONFERENCE ON QUALITY AND IMPROVEMENT

May 6 – 8, 2013 | Indianapolis, IN Managing Change

Learn best practices, successes, and proven techniques from keynote speakers and presenters representing an array of countries, backgrounds, and industries. Featuring sessions and workshops from several quality disciplines, the conference highlights the positive impact that quality can have on your business, your community, and your world. These are the World Conference on Quality and Improvement 2013 focus areas: • • • • •

Today’s Technology Landscape Customer Awareness Sustaining Results Globalization Quality Fundamentals

Learn more about the World Conference on Quality and Improvement at wcqi.asq.org.

Get Them

In the Game Emphasize employee involvement to lift your organization by Carlotta S. Walker In 50 Words Or Less • An engaged workforce is a crucial aspect of any quality-focused organization. • Ensuring employees are engaged in the workplace means getting them involved in making key decisions. • Doing so will result in an empowered staff focused on making the organization the best it can be.

BEST PRACTICES

A HIGH-PERFORMANCE, quality-oriented workforce is integral to the creation of a sustainable competitive advantage for any organization in any sector. Unfortunately, employees often lack the enthusiasm and motivation needed to facilitate quality im provement, and this leads to employee attrition.1 The key to developing a high-performance, quality-oriented workforce is maintaining a high level of employee engagement. The importance of this can be illustrated by examining something everyone is familiar with—the fast-paced, dynamic, quality-oriented environment of quick-service restaurants (QSR), more commonly referred to as fast-food restaurants.

December 2012 • QP 53

QSRs are food-service establishments with limited

Engagement advantage

service and menu offerings. They typically offer drive-

Employee engagement is the “extent of workforce com-

through services, wherein the restaurant’s customers

mitment, both emotional and intellectual, to accom-

 place and pick up their orders in their vehicle.

 plishing the work, mission and vision of the organiza-

Most QSRs do not offer liquor, beer or wine, and

tion.”5 Fostering a high level of employee engagement

they rely heavily on their narrow menus to attract

is a significant advantage to any organization because it:

 price-sensitive consumers through top-of-mind and

• Replaces an adversarial mentality with trust and co-

impulse purchases. But they’re extremely successful at capitalizing on consumers’ desire for fast service, a clean and crisp ambiance, and accurate orders.

operation. • Allows employees to develop skills and leadership capabilities.

The QSR industry is a segment of the broader res-

• Increases employee morale and commitment.

taurant industry. In 2011, the industry as a whole gen-

• Fosters competitive advantage.

erated $604 billion in revenue in more than 960,000

• Helps people understand quality principles.

locations worldwide. The restaurant industry also em-

• Allows employees to resolve issues immediately.

 ployed about 12.8 million people in 2011.

2

• Improves quality and productivity. 6

The effectiveness and efficiency an experienced employee develops is not easily replaced. But employee attrition rates in the restaurant sector

Employee engagement is a significant factor in driv-

are high in relation to other industries in the private

ing organizational sustainability, success and competi-

sector. According to the Nation’s Restaurant News, up

tive advantage, and is demonstrative of the relation-

to 50% of the staff at any QSR will turn over each year.

3

ship between the employee and employer. 7 Employees

The high attrition rates in the QSR industry may be at-

who exhibit high levels of organizational engagement

tributed to low levels of employee engagement within

are:

the organization.

• Committed to helping the organization succeed.

High turnover rates are considered the norm in the QSR industry and other subsegments of the broader res-

• Energetic and creative in their efforts to satisfy customers and deliver results.

taurant industry. Perhaps it wouldn’t be so accepted if

• Satisfied with working for their organization.

the industry realized just how much turnover adversely

• Able to resolve issues in a timely fashion.

affects product quality and customer service at the

• Action-oriented.

store level. That’s because the level of product quality

• Vested in the success of the organization. 8

and customer service typically deteriorates during the training and acclimation periods for new employees.

Furthermore, employee engagement is a vast construct built on the foundation of other major HR

In addition to the indirect impact employee engage-

management constructs, such as job satisfaction, or-

ment has on a QSR’s bottom line, employee engage-

ganizational citizenship behavior and employee com-

ment also has a direct impact—it costs QSR organiza-

mitment.9 But employee engagement is much broader

tions an estimated $1,750 to replace each employee

in scope than the aforementioned HR management

who leaves the organization.

4

Ultimately, the effectiveness and efficiency an expe-

constructs because it correlates directly with job performance.

rienced employee develops over a period of time is not easily replicated by newly hired employees. It follows,

Getting involved

then, that increasing the level of engagement of QSR

The primary factor that affects employee engagement

employees will decrease turnover, leading to improved

is employee involvement, which refers to “any activity

 product quality and customer service, thus creating a

by which employees participate in work-related deci-

competitive advantage for the organization.

sions and improvement activities, with the objectives

54 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

BEST PRACTICES

of tapping the creative energies of all employees and improving their motivation.”

10

It’s critical for leaders to continually measure em ployee engagement because of how vital it is to the

There are eight levels of employee involvement that

organization’s success. They can accomplish this by

lie on a continuum ranging from leaders sharing infor-

administering an employee opinion survey, which can

mation with subordinates to subordinates making de-

most effectively assess employee engagement with

cisions and resolving issues autonomously:

help from a five-step survey process:

1. Information sharing.

1. Prior to administering the survey, provide a summa-

2. Dialogue.

ry of the results of the previous employee engage-

3. Special problem solving.

ment survey.

4. Intragroup problem solving.

2. Discuss prior results with the entire staff.

5. Intergroup problem solving.

3. Allow 15 minutes for the employee to complete the

6. Focused problem solving. 7. Limited self-direction. 8. Total self-direction. 11 Returning to the QSR world, the level of employee involvement is minimal at best. Employees are almost

questionnaire in a quiet area. 4. Analyze results of the survey and review the results with the entire staff, allowing ample time for questions and answers. 5. Review any unexplainable survey results. 14

never involved in the problem-solving process because

In addition to this five-step approach, leaders also

the system dictates they must defer to managers when

can deploy tools to predict the propensity of potential

 problems arise.

employees’ engagement, which will increase the orga-

In addition, the dialogue within QSR organizations is often one-sided because employees are never asked

nization’s likelihood of hiring employees who are predisposed to being engaged in the workplace.

for their input at the store level of the organization. They are never self-directed, and information sharing

Core functions

in QSRs is usually limited to notes posted on a break

 Another useful strategy involves core self-evaluation

room bulletin board.

(CSE), which refers to a “subconscious belief that

The limited level of employee involvement in a QSR

affects the way a person regards him/herself and the

has an adverse effect on the level of employee engage-

environment.” It’s a higher-order personality trait that

ment, which may lead to increased employee turnover

consists of four facets: “self-esteem, locus of control,

and, more importantly, poor product quality and cus-

generalized self-efficacy and emotional stability versus

tomer service.

neuroticism.” 15 CSE has been found to be positively correlated with

Measuring engagement

employee engagement, so it follows that if CSE mea-

Measuring employee engagement is integral to the suc-

surements are integrated into the selection process,

cess of quality-oriented organizations because the data

leaders will be able to select individuals with higher

gathered are “useful in determining the effectiveness

levels of CSE, thus increasing the likelihood of employ-

of work systems in contributing to an organization’s

ing an engaged workforce. This makes the criterion of

12

strategic objectives.”   Measuring employee engage-

CSE as crucial during the selection process as educa-

ment also provides a foundation on which deficiencies

tion level and practical experience.

can be improved. There are two types of outcome measures that can

Ensuring an engaged workforce, however, takes more than selecting the right criteria during the inter-

be derived from employee engagement assessments:

 view process. There are two primary ways in which

1. Hard measures consist of items such as the number

leaders can improve employee involvement, thereby

of teams that were formed, the rate of growth, em ployee turnover and absenteeism.

increasing employee engagement: 1. Make employees an integral part of the

2. Soft measures are items such as the “perception

decision-making process. Rather than announcing

of teamwork, perceptions of management effec-

key strategic changes using notes on a bulletin board,

tiveness, engagement, satisfaction and empower-

leaders should schedule employee meetings to discuss

ment.” 13

 proposed changes and solicit feedback. For example,

December 2012 • QP 55

BEST PRACTICES

leaders could ask for feedback regarding new product

organizations can create a high-performance, quality-

offerings or service programs. Employees are more

oriented workplace that follows a cycle of success (see

likely to take pride in their work if they are involved in

Figure 1).

the decision-making process.

Employees are the face of any organization. Con-

2. Empower employees to make decisions

sequently, frontline employee engagement has just as

 when addressing customer complaints. This allows

much of an impact on the organization’s success as

employees to take action immediately, thus reducing

functional areas such as R&D because frontline em-

further customer dissatisfaction. If employees are giv-

 ployees are directly charged with providing a product

en the autonomy to make decisions when remedying

and service to customers.

customer complaints, such as replacing a customer’s

Ultimately, organizations get only one opportunity

order or giving the customer a refund, they are placed

to make a first impression with exceptional product

in a position to immediately salvage the customer’s ex-

quality and customer service. When the workforce is

 perience with the establishment.

comprised of engaged employees, it increases the likelihood of making a positive first impression on custom-

Key to success

ers, thus creating a competitive advantage that will be

Unequivocally, employee engagement is the key to cre-

difficult to rival. QP

ating and sustaining a high-performing, quality-oriented workforce. Engaged employees are the power that  propels organizations to greatness because engaged employees are more committed to their organization’s mission and vision. Engaged employees also outperform unengaged employees in areas such as quality and service. 16 By continually engaging their employees, quality-focused

Cycle of success

/ FIGURE 1

High employee involvement Competitive advantage

High employee engagement

Increased organizational success

REFERENCES 1. Mike Bolton, “Get Staff Involved in Quality Initiatives,” Quality Progress, February 2004, pp. 62-67. 2. National Restaurant Association,  2011 Restaurant Industry Pocket FactBook , www.restaurant.org/research/facts. 3. Linda Ray, “Employee Turnover Statistics in Restaurants,” Houston Chronicle , http://smallbusiness.chron.com/employee-turnover-statisticsrestaurants-16744.html. 4. Jerry Newman, “Tackling Turnover,” QSR Magazine, www2.qsrmagazine. com/articles/columnists/jerry_newman/124/turnover-1.phtml. 5. James R. Evans and William M. Lindsay, Managing for Quality and Perfor mance Excellence, eighth edition, South-Western Cengage Learning, 2010. 6. Ibid. 7. Solomon Markos and M. Sandhya Sridevi, “Employee Engagement: The Key to Improving Performance,” International Journal of Business and Manage ment , Vol. 5, No. 12, pp. 89-96. 8. Amy Richman, “Everyone Wants an Engaged Workforce: How Can You Create It?” Workspan, Vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 36-39. 9. Newman, “Tackling Turnover,” see reference 4. 10. Evans and Lindsay, Managing for Quality and Performance Excellence , see reference 5. 11. Jack D. Osborne, Linda Moran, Ed Musselwhite and John H. Zenger,  SelfDirected Work Teams, McGraw-Hill, 1990. 12. Evans and Lindsay, Managing for Quality and Performance Excellence , see reference 5. 13. Ibid. 14. John J. Lucey, “The Impact of a Communications Strategy and Five-Step Survey Process on the Improvement of Employee Engagement,” Manage ment Services, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 9-15. 15. Rania Shorbaji, Leila Messarra and Silva Karkoulian, “Core-Self Evaluation: Predictor of Employee Engagement,” The Business Review , Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 276-283. 16. J.T. Kostman and William A. Schiemann, “People Equity: The Hidden Driver of Quali ty,” Quality Progress, May 2005, pp. 37-42.

Decrease in employee turnover 

Higher levels of customer  service

56 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

Production  of quality products

CARLOTTA S. WALKER is a franchise field consultant  at Kumon North America in Troy, MI. She earned a  master’s degree in HR administration from Central Michigan University in Mount Pleasant. Walker is a  member of ASQ.

Special Advertising Section

Quality Leads, Quality Employers, Quality Jobs The job hunt can be daunting—especially knowing where to start.

Looking for a progressive, quality-oriented company that fits your skills and desires? Turn to ASQ’s Recruitment Directory for your next dream job. With an impressive, vast database of employers ready to add  you to their team, ASQ is the perfect place to find the position that best matches your goals and experience.

MILWAUKEE SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING FACULTY Milwaukee School of Engineering invites applica�ons for a faculty posi�on at the Assistant or Associate Professor level for Fall 2013 teaching in the Industrial Engineering program within the Mechanical Engineering Department. This full-�me faculty posi�on requires teaching primarily in the areas of applied sta�s�cs, quality, Six Sigma, and reliability. Secondary areas of interest include opera�ons research, data mining, and lean manufacturing. This posi�on requires an earned doctorate in Industrial Engineering (or a related field), relevant industrial experience, and a strong interest in effec�ve undergraduate teaching integra�ng theory, applica�ons and laboratory prac�ce. In addi�on to teaching du�es, the successful candidate will be expected to become involved with academic advising, course/curriculum development, supervision of student projects, and con�nued professional growth through a combina�on of consul�ng, scholarship, and research. Excellent communica�on skills are required. The review of applica�ons will begin as they are received and con�nue un�l the posi�on is filled. Interested candidates should submit a resume/CV, statement of teaching philosophy, and names of three references to:

Milwaukee School of Engineering Human Resources 1025 North Broadway Milwaukee, WI 53202 Email: [email protected]

YOUR QUALITY ADVISOR Are you in a bind at work? Are you looking to clarify a term or methodology? Have you run into a problem where nobody seems to have the answer? Do you wish you had a quality mentor? Someone you could turn to when you run into a roadblock? You do. QP’s experts will provide answers and insight to  your toughest quality queries. Simply email your situation, question or problem to [email protected], and QP’s subject matter experts will offer their sage advice in our Expert Answers department.

MSOE IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER

December 2012 • QP 57

3.4 PER MILLION

BY FORREST W. BREYFOGLE III

No Specification? No Problem Improving process performance when missing specifications IN A COLUMN earlier this year, 1 I

 provided a value-chain example, which

satellite-level metric reporting, which has

referenced a nine-step approach  for

included metrics such as lead time, work

a similar format to 30,000-foot-level re-

determining an organization’s long-lasting

in process (WIP) and profit margins. In

 porting, except a financial measurement

operational metrics and how to decide

30,000-foot-level reporting, if the pro-

(such as profit margin) is being tracked.

where to focus improvement efforts

cess’s individuals control chart has a re-

so the entire enterprise benefits. The

cent region of stability, you can conclude

Median and frequency

techniques provided enhancements to the

the process is predictable.

 A useful approach for this no-specifica-

2

balanced scorecard method. 3

The next obvious question is: What is

Step two of this nine-step system is to

tion situation is to describe an estimated

 predicted for the metric? To address this

median and an 80% frequency of occur-

create a business fundamental perfor-

in terms of percentage nonconformance,

rence for the stable regions of the process

mance map or value chain, which links

 process capability and performance index

metric at the 30,000-foot level. With this

functional processes with performance

(C  p, C  , P  and P  pk), or sigma quality  pk  p

form of reporting, four out of five events

measures that can be tracked at the

level, a specification is needed. But many

are expected to occur in this range of

metrics don’t have one.

 values. This percentage value can be de-

30,000-foot level.

4-7

Through this approach, measurements

To get around this shortcoming, orga-

termined mathematically using a Z   table

track quality, cost and time perfor-

nizations sometimes create targets and

mance of each function over time. If

analyze them as if they were specifica-

 performance function is not satisfactory

tions. But this practice can yield decep-

 proach. Figure 1 is an individuals control

relative to big-picture enterprise needs

tive results because targets are often

chart that indicates predictability (that

and desires, the process for creating that

subjective, and then you may be playing

is, a recent region of stability). Data from

metric will need improvement. With this

games with these objectives.

the latest stable region of the 30,000-foot-

approach, a business metric improvement

or a statistical computer program. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate this ap-

That’s why it’s important to know

level control chart can be considered a

need can create a pull for process im-

how to deal with 30,000-foot-level metric

random sample of how you expect the

 provement effort to enhance its measure-

reporting when there is no specification

 process to perform in the future without

ment performance.

such as lead time and WIP. The follow-

any process improvement events. This is

ing techniques also can be applied to

shown in Figure 2.

 A figure in my previous column

8

With a histogram, as illustrated in Figure 2, it is difficult to determine the desired 10% and 90% area-under-the-curve tailed values. Therefore, the reporting of a median and 80% frequency of occurrence rate using a probability plot is a better reporting alternative. This type of presentation provides a good process baseline from which desired improvements can be assessed. From this plot, quick estimations also are available for differing percentage and response levels. This approach also can be applied to non-normal distribution situations, which often occur in transactional processes in which zero is a lower bound. For ex-

58 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

Individuals control chart indicates predictability / No time sequencing of data

FIGURE 1

Assessing current process performance / FIGURE 2

Time sequencing of data

99

Source: Forrest Breyfogle, Integrated Enterprise Excellence Vol. III—Improvement Project Execution: A Management and Black Belt Guide for Going Beyond Lean Six Sigma and the Balanced Scorecard, Bridgeway Books, Citius Publishing, 2008.

95       e 90       g       a 80        t       n70       e 60       c 50       r 40       e        P30

90%

10%

50%

20

ample, the time to conduct a task cannot

results if nothing was

10 5

be a negative number. The only difference

done differently from

1

is that an individuals control chart for

the previous meet-

single readings would need a normal-

ing creation process.

izing transformation, and the appropriate

During my term, we

 probability distribution would need to

could assess whether

reflect this transformation (for instance,

our efforts to improve

lognormal).

attendance were ef-

Source: Forrest Breyfogle, Integrated Enterprise Excellence Vol.III—Improvement P roject Execution: A Management   and Black Belt Guide for Going Beyond Lean Six Sigma and the Balanced Scorecard, Bridgeway Books, Citius Publishing, 2008.

fective.

Tending to attendance issues

This situation does

 About 15 years ago, when I became chair

not differ much from a metric that might

attribute response (a member attends a

of ASQ’s Austin Section, I thought section

be expected from business or service

specific meeting or does not) that can be

meeting attendance was important to

 processes: A process exists that needs to

modeled using a binomial distribution.

address and chose an improvement in

be improved, but there are no real speci-

But if we could track how many mem-

this metric as a measure of success for

fication limits. Some organizations have

bers attended meetings as a continuous

set a goal and used this as a specification

response, this could provide an easier to

The process of setting up and conduct-

limit to determine process capability and

understand and more actionable mea-

ing a professional society session meeting

 performance indexes. But this should be

surement response.

with a program is more involved than you

avoided because the practice can yield

might think. Steps in this process include

questionable results, as noted earlier.

my term.

9

confirming a guest speaker and topic

What you would like is an alternative

The normal distribution can be used to approximate a binomial distribution when np and n (1- p) are at least five, with

selections, arranging a meeting room,

approach that can quantify—in easy-to-

 n being the sample size, and  p being the

finding ways to announce and promote

understand terms—how the process is

 proportion attending meetings. Because

the meeting, and addressing many other

 performing and when an improvement

the ASQ Austin Section membership

tasks and issues.

was made.

was about 800 ( n) during the baseline

To determine whether attendance

Most people attending a monthly ASQ

timeframe and the proportion of people

improved during my term, we needed a

section meeting are members of the local

attending meetings was between 4 and

baseline that would indicate expected

section, so attendance is technically an

8% (0.04 and 0.08), a normal distribution

December 2012 • QP 59

3.4 PER MILLION could be used to approximate meeting

newsletter to every other month due to

attendance for these section meetings.

recent cash-flow issues. Our focus was

With this continuous response track-

• Videotape programs for broadcast on

not trying to drive improved attendance

ing approach, previous Austin section

through the output measurement (that

meeting attendance could be reported at

is, “do better” because attendance is not

the 30,000-foot level, as shown in Figure

meeting our goal).

3. The individuals control chart in this re-

and other public media. cable TV. • Arrange for door prizes for meeting attendees. • Send welcome letters to visitors and

The executive committee had some

new members. • Post job openings on the website and

 port-out reveals the process has a recent

control over the implementation of

region of stability, so you can conclude

 process changes but no direct control

email notices to those who might be

the process is predictable.

over how many people actually decided

interested.

Based on this, capability and perfor-

to attend meetings. The proposed process

• Submit a “From the Chair” article to

mance metric statement can be made:

changes (many seem common today but

the newsletter chair on time so the

The estimated median section-meeting

weren’t in the late 1990s) we focused on

newsletter is mailed on time.

attendance is 45 with an 80% frequency

implementing with the executive commit-

The term of a section chair was July 1

of occurrence for attendance between 34

tee team were:

to June 30. There were no June, July and

and 57. If a larger attendance is desired

• Work closely with the program chair to

 August meetings. My term encompassed

than what is predicted, process improve-

define interesting programs and secure

meetings from September 1997 to May

ments are needed.

commitments from all presenters

1998. Figure 4 includes the baseline met-

before the September meeting.

rics attendance during my term.

Establishing a goal

• Create an email distribution list for

The first meeting during my term

 A stretch goal was set to increase

 ASQ members and others. Send

had an out-of-control point to the bet-

monthly mean attendance by 50%. We

notices during the weekend before the

ter. In this meeting, there was a panel

knew the stretch goal was going to be

meeting.

discussion that had an unusually large

exceptionally difficult to meet because

• Build a website.

number of attendees. This point was

we needed to reduce the frequency of our

• Submit meeting notices to newspapers

excluded from the future estimate

Meeting attendance: September 1993-May 1997

/ FIGURE 3

Probability plot Normal

I-chart 70

UCL = 69.68

99

Mean StDev N 90 AD P-value

95 60 80

     e      c      n50      a       d      n      e       t       t 40      A

–

X = 45.14

     e      g      a       t      n 50      e      c      r      e      P

45.14 9.018 36 0.460 0.246

50

20

30

10 5 LCL = 20.59

20    3    9  4    9  4    9  4    9    5    9    5    9  6    9  6    9    7    9   /   /    2  /    8  /    3  /    9  /   /    0  /    3  /    9    3   4    9  /   1  /  1    5  /  1   1    2  /   4  /   1  1  /    3  /  1    0  /  1    2  /  1   1

1

        8         5   .         3         3

30

        4         1   .         5         4

40 50 Attendance

        7   .         6         5

60

70

Month LCL = lower control limits UCL = upper control limits – X = mean

60 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

The process is predictable. The estimated median is 45, with 80% of the occurr ences from 34 to 57.

Meeting attendance: September 1993-September 1998 Probability plot Normal

I-chart 1

99

2

Mean StDev N 90 AD P-value

120 1

95

100    e    u    l    a    v    s    l    a    u    d    i    v    i    d    n    I

80

UCL = 78.9

60

–

X = 55.8

   e    g    a    t    n    e    c    r    e    P

/ FIGURE 4

80

55.75 7.046 8 0.450 0.200

50

50 20

10

40 LCL = 32.6

5

20

1

   3    9  4    9  4    9  4    9    5    9    5    9  6    9  6    9    7    9    7    9    7    9    8    9    9  /   1    3  /   1    2  /   /    8  /   /    3  /   /    9  /   1  4  /   1    0  /   1    3  /   1  1  /   /    8  /   1    3  /   /    9   1  /    5  /   1    2   4   1  1    3  /    0  /    2  /    9  /   1    5  /   1

        2         7   .         6         4

40

        5         7   .         5         5

        8         7   .         4         6

50 60 Attendance

70

Month

LCL = lower control limits UCL = upper control limits – X = mean

The process is predictable since the last process change (special cause condition not considered). The estimated median attendance is 56, with 80% of the occurrences from 47 to 65.

because it was believed to be a special

 A best estimate for the new process

cause. But leadership should consider

was there would be an average of 11

setting up this type of meeting in the

more people attending. Also, the vari-

future because it seemed like this

ability in attendance between meetings

 program format c ould draw more at-

might have been reduced from 23 (57-34)

tendees than the norm.

to 18 (65-47) for 80% of the meetings.

The control chart indicated a shift to greater attendance. Also, a t-test

What good metrics lead to

indicated a significant improvement in

It is important to have good metrics that

attendance during my tenure as section

lead to the 3Rs of business: Everyone do-

chair, which presumably was from our

ing the right things and doing them right

 process improvement efforts. This level

at the right time.

of attendance could be expected in the

The described method for reporting

future if the new process was sustained

and improving process capability and

with future section chairs. Estimated

 performance when there is no specifica-

 values for previous and expected future

tion is a method that can help organiza-

attendance rates are included in Table 1.

tions achieve this objective. QP

Comparing processes

/ TABLE 1 Previous process

New process

Mean attendance

45

56

80% frequency of occurrence for attendance

34 – 57

47 – 65

REFERENCES 1. Forrest W. Breyfogle, “Inputs Into Action,” Quality Progress, January 2012, p. 52-55. 2. Forrest W. Breyfogle, Integrated Enterprise Excellence Volume II—Business Deployment: A Leaders’ Guide for Going Beyond Lean Six Sigma and the Balanced Scorecard, Bridgeway Books/Citius Publishing, 2008. 3. Robert S. Kaplan and David P. Norton, “The Balanced Scorecard—Measures that Drive Performance,” Harvard Business Review, January-February 1992. 4. Forrest W. Breyfogle, “Control Charting at the 30,000-foot-level,” Quality Progress, November 2003, pp. 67-70. 5. Forrest W. Breyfogle, “Control Charting at the 30,000-foot-level, Part 2,” Quality Progress, November 2004, pp. 85-87. 6. Forrest W. Breyfogle, “Control Charting at the 30,000-foot-level, Part 3,” Quality Progress, November 2005, p. 66-70. 7. Forrest W. Breyfogle, “Control Charting at the 30,000-foot-level, Part 4,” Quality Progress, November 2006, p. 59-62. 8. Breyfogle, “Inputs Into Action,” see reference 1. 9. Forrest W. Breyfogle, Integrated Enterprise Excellence Volume III—Improvement Project Execution: A Manage ment and Black Belt Guide for Going Beyond Lean Six  Sigma and the Balanced Scorecard,  Bridgeway Books/ Citius Publishing, 2008.

FORREST W. BREYFOGLE III is  president and CEO of Smarter Solutions Inc. in Austin, TX. He earned  a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Texas. Breyfogle is an ASQ fellow and recipient of the 2004 Crosby Medal.

December 2012 • QP 61

QUALITY IN THE FIRST PERSON

BY JULIAN D. SMITH

Who Is the Customer? Lean Six Sigma helps keep perspective during shopping debacle THE CHRISTMAS season is a good time

we couldn’t stop until it was complete.

begging for help. The store managers

to study processes because shopping

That day would have been exhausting, but

were somewhere, but they weren’t at the

 provides a prime example. During this

think of the rest I could have enjoyed on

front of the store where the ugliness was

time, men tend to revert to a “hunter-

the other designated shopping days.

occurring.  At that point, I launched into my lean

gatherer” state (“Here’s a gift! I am done! Now I can watch football!”), while women

Cash register crisis

Six Sigma Master Black Belt mindset. “The

have checked for sales and are diligently

Instead, there my wife and I were two

quickest way to fix this is to announce

searching for the optimum gift—regard-

days before Christmas waiting in line at a

that all cash transactions can move to

less of the effort required to obtain it.

local clothing store. We had just found the

the front,” I told my wife. I followed that

If you don’t like these gender-asso-

 perfect gift for our last grandchild, and we

thought up with, “Everyone writing a

ciative remarks, shoppers come in other

were officially done—that is, as soon as

check can move to the front.”

classifications, too. Some prefer to stop

we paid for the item and left the store.

at the store on the way to the event rather

The store was crowded, and the check-

In my mind, this would satisfy the needs of the customer—or at least the

than dedicate a long period of time to

out lines were long. We were about eight

customer I thought was most important:

shopping. Others shop in August, shop on-

to 10 people away from the register in our

me. I had cash in my pocket and a check-

line or give everyone gift cards. I actually

line. I was observing the activities around

book to boot. My needs could have been

advocated to my wife that we wait until

me and noticed the lady trying to check out

met immediately, but my wife gave me the

Dec. 24 to do all of our shopping, knowing

in the line next to ours had a massive order.

reality check. “You know they aren’t going

When the final scan

to do that,” she said in her patient tone.

was done, she swiped

 And she was right. I had ignored the long

her credit card—and

list of other customers.

the store’s entire computerized checkout

More than meets the eye

system locked up. All of

They put blinders on horses that work in

the lines stopped. I saw

cities so they won’t be distracted by see-

the woman put her head

ing what’s going on around them. That’s

in her hands down on

how I saw the situation as the customer

the counter, and when

in the store that day. I didn’t see the many

she picked her head up,

other customers in that situation, and

she was crying. I don’t

that’s unfortunate because first of all, I

know what her plans

know better, and secondly, I teach better.

were for after shopping, but if she had any, they

a suppliers, inputs, process, outputs and

were just ruined.

customers diagram early in the process. We

The mood of the

also know that a customer often becomes

store changed imme-

a supplier to the next customer, and some-

diately. The clerks at

times your customer also is your supplier.

the registers, recogniz-

Knowing these things, let’s take a look

ing that the customers

at some of the customers I was ready to

were about to turn on

ignore:

someone, were frantic on their in-store phones

62 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

In lean Six Sigma, we learn t o develop

 All of the customers that intended to pay with debit or credit cards. As

A customer often becomes a supplier to the next customer, and sometimes

your customer also is your supplier. a person that chooses to pay with cash

of monies owed. My desire for them to

we’re the only one. Anytime you think you

or a check, I recognize I am a minority.

handle my request would have required

are the only customer with needs to be

To meet my specific needs (and expedite

them to perform work that is probably not

met, make sure you take a realistic look

the end of my shopping), I was willing to

in their normal scope.

at the situation and see the rest of the

bypass the wants and needs of the other customers. The clerks. It’s difficult to recognize

customers. Then ask yourself: Is getting

The purchasing and logistics organization. It is possible that by scanning

 your needs met interfering with meeting

items individually at the register, the store

their needs? QP

sometimes, but they are customers, too.

can track its inventory and sales trends.

They have several suppliers, and I am

By expecting them to sidestep their own

one of them. I supply them items to scan

systems, I not only wanted to participate

before they total the amount and request

in disrupting their information flow, but I

 payment from me. The IT organization

also wanted the clerks to go around their

is supposed to supply the clerks with a

standard work. Once again, I know better,

working system that scans items, totals

and I teach better.

the amount and, in cases such as credit and debit cards, facilitates the collection

It’s easy to get myopic about who the customer is, especially when we think

 A New

Digital Format Quality Progress readers can now access their

 JULIAN D. SMITH is the team lead for lean Six Sigma at the Millennium Corp. in Arlington, VA. He earned a  master’s degree in manufacturing  management from Kettering Univer sity in Flint, MI. A senior member of  ASQ, Smith is an ASQ-certified quality engineer and Six Sigma Black Belt. He  also is an Advanced Integrated Technologies-certified lean  Six Sigma Master Black Belt and a Shainin LLC-certified Red  X Master.

Putting Best Practices to Work L  I   Y 

www.qualityprogress.com | December 2012

P

E   |  

E  E  E 

The Importance Of Employee

Involvement

p.52

QUALITY PROGRESS

Money Talks GET MORE TRAINING.

L  Y  E  Y 

issues yet another way: a digital, flipbook style

KNOW THE  MARKET.

GET CERTIFIED.

O BACK SCHOOL.

that’s perfect for reading on your computer screen or on your portable digital device or tablet. This new offering makes it easy 2012 QP Salary Survey offers ti for improving earning potential p.

to browse your favorite articles, then share L 

with friends or social networks, store and

E   /   E 

search. Access the new digital version at www.qualityprogress.com

QUALITY PROGRESS

December 2012 • QP 63

CAREER CORNER

BY RUSSELL T. WESTCOTT

Trade Your Expertise Realize career gains from a peer-to-peer mentoring relationship MOST READERS have an idea of what a

Peer-to-peer mentoring can ultimately

organization didn’t realize was that putting

mentor is: “A wise and trusted counselor or

develop into communities of interest with

these bright stars together in one environ-

teacher.”1 Perhaps you have either received

multiple peers exchanging knowledge,

ment created a collection of independent

counsel or knowledge from an experienced

skills and experience.

egos, each determined to gain power and  prestige over their peers. Each person felt

mentor or mentored a person seeking your

It’s a tradeoff 

there was only one best way—their way—

I started my quality management consulting

and a Tower of Babel 2 developed: It was

ated by the mentee or offered by a mentor

business with knowledge and some experi-

as if no one in the group spoke the same

to a person who could use some help.

ence in about 75 to 80% of the protocols,

language.

Typically, the mentor has more seniority

 practices and procedures pertinent to the

than the mentee by virtue of organizational

quality field, although gained from several

until the concept of a “mini-scule” was

 position, specialized expertise and knowl-

 prior fields. I sought a peer within the qual-

developed. A “mini-scule” was a voluntary

edge, or years of experience. But there is

ity field who had similar experience and

lunchtime, half-hour class in which each

a lesser-known mentoring relationship—a

knowledge of a majority of topics, technol-

individual from the group presented a

 peer-to-peer relationship.

ogy and tools that paralleled my experience.

business-related topic of his or her choice

advice. The mentoring relationship may be initi-

 A peer-to-peer mentoring relationship

My peer provided counsel, teaching and

 Attempts to integrate the group failed

and within his or her area of expertise.

consists of two individuals, each with

guidance I needed to provide a consistent,

This approach grew from one day a week

their own unique repertoire of knowledge,

comprehensive and competitive quality

to five days a week, ultimately bringing in

skills and experience, who are willing

experience for clients. In turn, I provided

 presenters from throughout the company

to share with each other regardless of

insights from previous industries, projects

to show and tell.

 position level, academic level or length of

and assignments. The ease of the quid pro

service. The relationship is different t han

quo approach sustained the relationship we

audit function to demonstrate their knowl-

the typical approach because there is little

created, and we became partners.

edge and expertise. The program gave

concern for organization levels (both are

Often in peer-to-peer relationships,

These classes allowed individuals in the

attendees a venue to appreciate and absorb

 peers in that regard) or other status-related

there is a situation in which two people

the competencies of their peers. It vastly

conditions.

realize they both have a vacant spot they

improved communication and collabora-

need or want to fill, and that they have

tion within the function, leading to higher

something to trade—such as skill, knowl-

 performance in quality and productivity.

The individuals are not inhibited in sharing. Give and take is much less restrained.

edge, information, strategy

The “mini-scule” ran for three years.

or approach. They have a mutual motivation to obtain

Ups and downs

the missing elements and

There are some downsides to peer-to-peer

recognize that sharing with

mentoring. A peer in the role of mentor

someone could fill the gap.

doesn’t have the high-level power and

For example, a company decided to transform its

such as protecting the mentee, sponsoring

internal auditing func-

the mentee, and providing resources and

tion by infusing it with

development opportunities for the mentee.

40 new individuals with a

64 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

ability to effect change for the mentee,

Each peer in the peer-to-peer mentoring

wide variety of academic

role must be willing to put aside any signs of

achievements and practical

“I’m better than you” for the relationship to

work experiences. What the

work. The information, advice and counsel

Each peer in the peer-to-peer mentoring role must be willing to put aside any signs of ‘I’m better than you’ for the relationship to work. each mentor provides his or her peer must be given without intent to undermine the peermentee’s thoughts, position or own knowledge and skills. In the peer-to-peer relationship, the trading of expertise should be as evenly balanced to avoid conflicts or the feeling of inferiority. Neither party should be upset if their peer doesn’t accept what is being offered. Debate is fine. Open dispute is inadvisable.  An advantage of the peer-to-peer mentoring relationship is that there are often many

st

21  ANNUAL

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

ISO 9000/QMS

T  he Wor ld  ’s Lea di n g  Co nfere nce o n I SO 9 0 0 0 & QM S St a nd  ard  s

more competent peers to choose from than

February 18-19, 2013 Hilton San Diego Resort & Spa San Diego, California USA

there are available (and competent) senior managers. Peers may better understand and identify each other’s needs and wants. Peer mentoring thrives when peers agree to exchange something they have and the other wants. In addition, confidentiality can be easier to maintain. To establish a peer mentoring relationship, seek individuals who have one or more work-

ISO 9000/QMS

NEXT GENERATION

related qualities, competencies or attitudes  you want to develop. Be sure you have some-

trustworthy peers to share with. Try it—you’ll

Learn how to prepare your organization for the road ahead. The new generation of the ISO 9000/QMS will incorporate both new technology and updates to the standards. This Conference will help you guide your organization as the ISO 9000 Standards evolve.

like it. QP



REFERENCES



thing to offer in exchange. Ensure the chosen individual is not an intense competitor for  your present or desired position. Look for

1. “Ment or,” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 2. Wikipedia, “Tower of Babel,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Tower_of_Babel (case sensitive). RUSSELL T. WESTCOTT, based in Old Saybrook, CT, consults on strategic planning,  project management, quality management  systems, work-life planning and career coaching. He is an ASQ Fellow and an  ASQ-certified manager of quality/organi zational excellence (CMQ/OE) and quality  auditor. Westcott is editor of the CMQ/OE Handbook , third edition, co-editor of the Quality Improvement Handbook , and author of other books and many articles. He  serves on the Quality Management Division Advisory Committee  and Thames Valley Section executive board.

 

Receive Amazon's Kindle with Early Registration*

50+ Sessions and 20 Tracks with Distinguished Speakers who are Leaders and Gurus in their Fields Conference organized in CMQ/OE Refresher Workshop association with ASQ CQA Refresher Workshop AS9100: Aviation, Space & Defense Industry QMS Standards Workshop

Hotel Information

Conference Registration Fee

The group rate is $174 for single or double occupancy with the group code “ISO-LSS”.  Government rate rooms are available for $133. Tel: 1 (877) 313-6645 for reservation www.sandiegohilton.com

Conference registration fee starts at $995 for individuals, and $945 for government and groups with the “A2013-QP1” registration code. Registration will start on Oct. 1, 2012. * Please see the registration form for further details .

Conference Contact Tel: +1 (412) 782-3383; 1 (888) 236-9940 www.iso9000conference.com; Email: [email protected]

December 2012 • QP 65

STATISTICS ROUNDTABLE

BY RONALD D. SNEE AND ROGER W. HOERL

Inquiry on Pedigree Do you know the quality and origin of your data? THE MEDIA FREQUENTLY report on examples of situations in which results from statistical studies are not reproduc-

good quality. Textbooks further teach us

apparent (crossed versus nested factors,

to assume all data are “random samples.”

quantitative versus qualitative factors and

In practice, we know this isn’t always the

responses, and factor levels).

ible. A recent article in the New York Times

case and, in fact, it is the exception rather

reported how a sophisticated study went

than the rule. Fellow Statistics Roundtable

sampling and testing understanding almost

wrong—not due to poor analysis, but rather

columnists Necip Doganaksoy and Gerry

certainly contain:

because of poor data quality. 1 Genomic

 J. Hahn properly discussed the challenges

• Erroneous results.

studies at Duke University showed promise

of getting the right data at the beginning of

• Models that have poor prediction ac-

4

in directing cancer treatment, but when

a study.  But what do we do when the data

 patients weren’t achieving the positive

are already in hand?

outcomes expected, two statisticians were called in to reexamine the research.  “Dr. (Keith) Baggerly and Dr. (Kevin)

Poor quality data with or without process,

curacy. • Results that can’t be reproduced by

In the world of farm animals, horses and other livestock, if you want to assess

other investigators. Reproducibility is more than just the

and predict the quality of an animal and

use of a wrong analysis. The Duke study is a

Coombes found errors almost immediately.

how it will perfom, you look at its pedigree.

classic example of this. The data pedigree

Some seemed careless—moving a row or

Triple Crown-winning horses often produce

issue is also critical to success.

column over by one in a giant spreadsheet—

winning offspring. Similarly, assessing the

while others seemed inexplicable. The Duke

 pedigree of the data can help you avoid

An observation

team shrugged them off as ‘clerical errors.’

accepting poor quality data at face value,

In general, observational data often have

In the end, four gene signature papers were

as well as performing the wrong analysis of

reproducibility issues. Observational data

retracted. Duke shut down three trials using

the data. This means evaluating:

are observed under very specific circum-

the results. (Lead investigator) Dr. (Anil)

• The science, engineering and structure

stances, but people try to generalize the

Potti resigned from Duke…His collaborator

of the process or product from which

results too broadly. Some (not all) of the

and mentor, Dr. (Joseph) Nevins, no longer

the data were collected.

conclusions from the famous Framingham

directs one of Duke’s genomics centers. The cancer world is reeling.” 2-3 The analysis was not the primary issue in this case. Data quality was. The lesson

• The data collection process used to

Heart Study, done entirely observationally,

obtain and prepare the data for analysis. • How the measurements were made. Understanding the data pedigree is criti-

were refuted after randomized trials were done. In that study, for example, the more saturated fat people ate, the lower their

learned is to always carefully consider

cal to ensure the data quality is known and

serum cholesterol, which is clearly not

 proper data collection and, wherever pos-

understood. Data collected without con-

consistent with medical understanding of

sible, proactively collect data that answer

trols and careful administration of the data

diet and cholesterol. 7

the key questions about the process. It is

collection process often contain erroneous

a poor practice to rely on whatever data

results, mistakes in data values and missing

 vational data revealed higher death rates

happen to be available or to assume sophis-

data. The fact the data reside in electronic

for pipe smokers than cigarette smokers. 8

ticated analytics can overcome poor data

files says nothing regarding the quality of

Surprised investigators dug a little deeper

quality. Most statistical textbooks address

the data. Data mining as practiced seems to

and discovered cigar smokers tend to be

data quantity, but few discuss the critical issue of data quality.

be making these tenuous assumptions.

5-6

Knowing how the data were collected also is critical to performing the correct

There’s another example in which obser-

much older than cigarette smokers. In other words, the higher death rates were driven by age, not pipes.

Deep understanding of data

analysis of the data. The data structure and

Much of our quality technology and statis-

sources of variation are easily identified.

are all too common with observational

tics literature assumes that data are what

The form of the model that best fits the

data. We note in passing that all data

is needed to solve the problem and are of

structure and situation becomes more

collected on manufacturing and service

66 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

Such potentially erroneous inferences

 processes without the benefit of a care-

to study the hourly data used to compute

fully designed data collection process (for

the second-highest value.  A plot of the

 process associated with the data oper-

example, using a designed experiment)

hourly CO values for the period in question

ated, it was discovered a 24/7 three-shift

should be viewed as observational data

showed 10 consecutive hourly readings of

operation was conducted by four operating

with the limitation discussed earlier.

39 ppm, with four out of the next six hourly

teams. In effect, the shift variable in the

readings at 39 ppm and the remaining two

model was measuring the time of day effect

readings at 36 ppm.

(shift-to-shift variation) and differences

What should you look for? Consider these actions when you’re looking at your data’s overall pedigree:

9

This small amount of variation over a 16-hour period is not typical of variation in

 After a careful discussion of how the

among the teams. When the shift and team effects were

hourly CO readings and does not represent

added to the model as different variables,

examples give a closer look at what statisti-

an accurate characterization of the air quality

the results were better behaved. It was con-

cians and quality professionals often do

in the area of the sampler. It is highly prob-

cluded there was no difference between the

in their daily work. The first story relays a

able these data are the result of equipment

two raw material sources, and team four—

data quality issue.

malfunction. A similar problem was found

due to its greater experience—produced

 Assess data quality. The following

The ambient air quality standard for car-

in the CO data from Cincinnati in 1968.

10

 yields that were 5% higher than the others

bon monoxide (CO) was 9 ppm (eight-hour

 Assess the measurement process.

teams, which was a large increase due to

average), not to be exceeded more than once

When evaluating data quality, you should

the high volume of product produced by

 per year. Thus, the second-highest value over

always think about the measurement pro-

the process. This unexpected finding pro-

an eight-hour period in a year was being used

cess: how the measurements were made

 vided a method to increase process yields.

to assess the air quality in the vicinity of the

and who made the measurements. Opera-

Understand how the product was

sampler. This raised concerns because the

tor differences are a common occurrence.

made. A process engineer was concerned

second-highest value is highly variable due to

Operator fatigue could result in using

about frequent stops of the production line

sampling variation, meteorological variation

shortcuts in measurement procedures and

caused by defective plastic components

and traffic volumes.

data that are recorded incorrectly (for ex-

 jamming the sorter wheel.11 The engineer

ample, transposed digits and test random-

discovered each component had the

sampling station in 1971, the second-

ization not used). The measurement gauge

number of the mold cavity that made the

highest CO value was 35 ppm with the

could be used out of calibration, but that’s

component stamped on the component.

maximum value of 39 ppm, well above the

unknown to the operator and produces in-

The engineer requested his operators

standard. Researchers thought it prudent

correct data. Different operators also could

collect the defective components each time

round off the results differently.

a stoppage occurred. At the end of the day,

It had been reported that at the Denver

For example, an improvement project

he reviewed the accumulated defective

Hypothesized 4 x 8 mold cavity design

was shut down in the measure phase be-

 parts and recorded the number of defective

cause it was discovered the measurement

components for each of the mold cavities

TABLE 1

instrument had not been calibrated for two

that had made the defective parts.

 years. After calibration, the product prob-

The summary of the data showed the de-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

lems completely disappeared (zero defects)

fects were associated with 16 mold cavities.

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

and resulted in $157,000 of savings per year

The remaining 16 cavities had no defects.

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

in scrap. Case closed.

These data could have been sent to the sup-

Understand how the process oper-

Defects arrayed by mold cavity number  TABLE 2

 plier of the components, but the engineer

ates. The next case involves the need to

decided to think more about the data: How

deepen your understanding of the data ped-

could the mold be structured? A single line

igree to properly analyze and interpret the

of 32 cavities didn’t make sense.

results of an experiment. The initial analy-

 After considering several candidate geo-

sis of an experiment to evaluate a second

metric configurations, a 4 x 8 array seemed

17

6

0

0

0

1

13

19

source of raw material supply produced no

to match the data suggesting the cavities at

12

6

0

0

0

0

12

17

significant effects, except a three-factor in-

the ends of the mold were being “starved”

34

5

0

1

0

0

5

21

teraction involving shift differences, which

for material (see Tables 1 and 2. When the

17

5

0

0

0

0

8

28

was believed to be spurious.

data and configuration were presented to

December 2012 • QP 67

STATISTICS ROUNDTABLE the supplier, the 4 x 8 mold cavity array

the issue, but data pedigree was. Only after

shown in Table 3. In general, you should

was confirmed, and the supplier agreed to

a clear understanding of how the product

always look for data issues—from the be-

get the mold cavity “starving” corrected

was produced could the problem be solved.

ginning to the end of the project. Trust, but

immediately. In this example, data quality was not

Check experiment assumptions. A

two-level factorial experiment was run on  production equipment in which there was

Assessing the data pedigree / TABLE 3 • Graphics of data and process di agrams (schematics) are almost always helpful in assessing data pedigree and understanding the problem.

• Assess the data pedigree before, during and after the analysis.

• Before: Understand the process, sampling procedure, data collection, analysis preparation and measurement system. • During: Constantly check the data and results with the “does this make sense” test, aided with extensive use of graphical displays. • After: Evaluate the results to ensure results and conclusions make sense regarding what is known about the problem being investigated. If possible, verify with new data.

• Check experiment assumptions and data collection process.

• Is the randomization used understood? Is there any evidence of split plotting?

found few significant variables creating

trace back and identify the origin of each

surprise and concern because the variables

data point?” A good principle to remember

were all thought to be important.

is that data are guilty until proven innocent,

 A review of how the experiment was conducted revealed the experimental runs took about nine months to complete. The experiment had not been blocked, creating a possible design flaw when considering the experiment was conducted over a long time period.  An assumption of designed experiments is that all variables in the design are to be held constant, except for the variables being varied according to the design. This assumption is unlikely to be satisfied because  processes are dynamic and likely to change over a long time period.  A residual analysis identified a trend in residuals over the length of time the experiment was conducted. The residuals had not been previously evaluated, which

• Equipment warmup effect ignored or unknown?

be significant, but the lack of good experi-

• Data quality. Look for:

a time trend variable was added to the model, more of the variables were found to

Cuthbert Daniel’s analysis of the bean field trial identifies a similar situation. 12 The residual variance of the model was high. Daniel plotted the residuals on the field-plot layout and found a significant within-block

• Results and trends that don’t make sense given the technical background of the problem.

the blocks may have been too big and not

• Missing information and data critical to a useful analysis and making sound conclusions.

the field prior to deciding on block size may

how the data were collected? Can you trace back and identify the origin of each data point?

68 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

not the other way around. QP REFERENCES 1. Gina Kolata, “How Bright Promise in Cancer Testing Fell Apart,” New York Times, July 8, 2011. 2. Ibid. 3. Darrel Ince, “The Duke University Scandal—What Can Be Done?” Significance-Statistics Making Sense, September 2011, pp. 113-115. 4. Necip Doganaksoy and Gerald J. Hahn, “Getting the Right Data Up Front: A Key Challenge,” Quality Engineering, Vol. 24, No. 4, October-December 2012. 5. Emmett Cox, Retail Analytics—The Secret Weapon,  John Wiley and Sons, 2012. 6. Thomas H. Davenport and Jeanine B. Harris, Competing on  Analytics—The New Science of Winning, Harvard Business School Press, 2007. 7. William P. Castelli, “Concerning the Possibility of a Nut…”  Archives of Internal Medicine, July 1992, Vol. 152, No. 7, pp. 1,371-1,372. 8. George Cobb and Stephen Gehlbach, “Statistics in the Courtroom,” Statistics: A Guide to the Unknown, fourth edition, Thomson Brooks/Cole, 2006, pp. 3-18. 9. Ronald D. Snee and John M. Pierrard, “The Annual Average: An Alternative to the Second Highest Value as a Measure of Air Quality,” Air Pollution Control Association Journal, 1977, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp 131-133. 10. Ibid. 11. Ellis R. Ott, William C. Frey and Louis A. Pasteelnick, “Some Fundamentals of Statistical Quality Control,” Transactions of the 23rd annual all-day conference on Quality Control and Statistics in Industry, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ, Sept. 11, 1971, pp. 1-16. 12. Cuthbert Daniel, Applications of Statistics to Industrial Experimentation, John Wiley and Sons, 1976.

ment design cast a cloud over the findings.

• Data that are clearly wrong. For example, grossly atypical values or pregnant males.

• Bottom line. Do you really understand

 Always ask yourself, “Do I really understand how the data were collected? Can I

many consider to be an analysis flaw. When

• Was there a protocol for data collection, including sampling, and was it followed?

is an invaluable tool to assess the data.

time available in the process. The analysis

• Has the possibility of within experiment non-homogeneity been evaluated?

• Check data collection process.

 verify. Constant use of graphical displays

trend. Random block designs assume there is no within-block variation. This suggests

BIBLIOGRAPHY Hoerl, Roger W., and Ronald D. Snee, Statistical Thinking—Im proving Business Performance, John Wiley and Sons, 2012. © 2012 R onald D. Snee and Roger W. Hoerl RONALD D. SNEE is president of Snee  Associates LLC in Newark, DE. He has  a doctorate in applied and mathematical statistics from Rutgers University in New Brunswick, NJ. Snee has received  ASQ’s Shewhart and Grant Medals. He is an ASQ fellow and an academician in the International Academy for Quality.

homogeneous. A more careful evaluation of have been helpful.

Do I really understand? Guidance on how to proceed and what to look for when assessing data pedigree is

ROGER W. HOERL is Brate-Peschel as sistant professor of statistics at Union College in Schenectady, NY. He has  a doctorate in applied statistics from the University of Delaware in Newark. Hoerl is an ASQ fellow, a recipient of the ASQ’s Shewhart Medal and Brumbaugh Award, and an academician in the International Academy for Quality.

STANDARDS OUTLOOK

BY JOHN E. “JACK” WEST

Get in Front of the Problem Preventive action remains a poorly understood concept CONSIDERING THE unfortunate fact

• Clause 5.4 requires you develop quality

that product recalls and their disastrous

objectives and plan the quality system

results seem relatively common, it’s curi-

to meet those objectives and customer

ous why so many organizations resist for-

requirements.

mal efforts to address preventive action.

• Clause 7.1 requires you plan product

 preventive action tools and is best addressed during process planning. 2. Manage risk of failure. Organiza-

tions can use techniques such as failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and

It seems some organizations will even

realization and determine how you’ll

 process FMEA to assess the risk of future

search their corrective actions to find a

ensure requirements for the product

failures of new products and processes.

few issues to characterize as preventive

are met.

With such tools, risk is prioritized to

 just to satisfy auditors. But preventive action isn’t working on

• Clause 7.3.1 provides rules for planning design and development processes,

help assess which ones offer the most economical applications.

 problems that have already happened.

which means considering the interrela-

Rather, it’s looking ahead to what could

tionship of design review, verification

evaluating and executing cost and perfor-

happen in the future. It’s a mindset in

and validation with the various phases

mance trade-offs for products. They also

which the organization continually asks:

of the design work.

can be used to mitigate risk associated

What if?

• Clause 7.5.1 requires you plan the pro-

Risk-assessment tools are useful in

with product performance—for example,

It seems obvious an ounce of preven-

duction and service delivery processes

warranty claims and loss of good will—

tive action costs much less than a pound

so they’re conducted under controlled

and liability exposure, which by itself

of corrective action. So why do organiza-

conditions.

makes a compelling case for an aggressive

tions resist? Perhaps it’s the thought that,

 preventive action process.

even under the best of circumstances,

The right moment

 preventing every problem and nonconfor-

The message should be clear: Well-planned

ty. Uncertainty can be characterized as one

mity is exorbitantly expensive.

 processes are the key to a successful QMS.

of four types: process variation, foreseen

That’s because the most appropriate time

uncertainty, unforeseen uncertainty and

 preventive action at the optimal stage

to consider preventive action is during

chaos uncertainty. In any organization, all

in the development of a quality manage-

 planning. Organizations have three differ-

of these forms of uncertainty exist to some

ment system (QMS). They don’t think

ent ways in which they can develop preven-

degree, depending on the nature of the

about preventive action until long after it

tive actions during the planning processes:

organization, its products, its culture and

has ceased to be an effective alternative.

1. Reduce complexity and the num-

Organizations typically don’t apply

3. Anticipate and manage uncertain-

the markets it serves. Obviously, manag-

Doesn’t it make sense, however, that a

ber of process interactions. Every step,

ing unforeseen uncertainty is difficult, but

key purpose for implementing a QMS is to

resource or control adds new interactions

developing strategies for the other types is

 prevent the occurrence of problems?

to a process and increases its complex-

certainly a good use of planning time.

It is astounding to me that ISO

ity. Because each step has at least two

You can, for example, plan to use

9001:2008 does not make that objective

interactions—and often many more—that

statistical process controls to control

crystal clear. The closest it comes is in

have their own steps and processes, the

uncertainties due to variation. But if fore-

clause 8.5.3, which states: “The organiza-

number of interactions increases much

seen uncertainty is dominant—as it is, for

tion shall determine action to eliminate

faster than the number of steps.

example, for organizations requiring Food

the causes of potential nonconformities

Complexity also increases the opportu-

and Drug Administration approval of new

to prevent their occurrence. Preventive

nities for things to go wrong. In terms of

drugs—then emphasizing contingency

actions shall be appropriate to the effects

 preventing nonconformity or undesirable

 planning, training or decision-tree models

of the potential problems.”

 process performance, it’s worthwhile to

might be more appropriate.

On the other hand, the standard has several requirements related to planning:

consider simplifying processes. Process simplification is one of the most effective

For organizations frequently facing unforeseen uncertainty—for example, an

December 2012 • QP 69

STANDARDS OUTLOOK army conducting a military mission—con-

being rejected before they are understood.

If purchased materials or services have

 ventional tools such as program evalu-

The controls are actually simple and, with-

high potential impact on either the final

ation and review technique charts are

out delving too far into the details, can be

 product or the realization processes, more

relatively useless. Using iterative external

summarized as follows:

robust control is required. If, for example,

scans of the environment to uncover

• Plan the design and development

the fastener is used to connect aircraft

 potential opportunities and threats would

stages, as well as the design review,

fuselage sections, the controls will be

 prove more effective. The information

 verification and validation activities.

more extensive than if the bolt is used in a

could be incorporated quickly into strategy and tactics.

• Manage the design and development interfaces. • Control the determination of design

noncritical application. It is the intent of ISO 9001 to require an organization to think about what makes

Design and development

and development inputs, and ensure

sense from its customer’s perspective. The

In addition to the planning requirements,

outputs meet input requirements and

 purpose of this work is to prevent prob-

several controls specified in ISO 9001:2008

are suitable for subsequent review, veri-

lems with purchased items. Then there is

should result in preventive actions.

fication and validation activities.

the outsourcing of processes. In that case,

Take, for example, the design and

• Conduct the design and development

the decision process to determine the con-

development requirements of clause 7.3.

review, and the verification and valida-

trols needed is even more important, and

Design and development departments

tion activities needed to ensure the

the execution of these decisions can cer-

often think of themselves as special, and

 product will meet the design inputs

tainly be classified as preventive action.

in a sense they are. After all, they hold the

specified in the inputs and customer’s

keys to an organization’s product innova-

application needs.

Deadly chains of events

tions. If they are not innovative and clever

These design and development controls

In cases of very serious failures, such as

in developing new designs customers

are intended to ensure the design meets

airplane crashes or oil-well blowouts,

need, the organization will fail.

requirements. In other words, they pre-

there often is no single root cause. Rather,

 vent problems.

there’s a chain of events that if broken at

People in such situations seem to naturally resist controls. Can you blame them?

any point would not result in a disaster.

They are under tremendous pressure to

Procurement and outsourcing

Teaching employees to look for and elimi-

innovate, yet they’re expected to follow a

The purchasing process requirements de-

nate potential links in a chain of events

set of rules laid down in an international

scribed in clause 7.4.1 of ISO 9001 permit

that could lead to catastrophe is another

standard. From their point of view, such a

the organization to decide the “type and ex-

true preventive action.

demand may appear to be absurd.

tent of control” to be used for purchasing.

Often, I have heard this sort of objec-

The organization’s selection of controls

These are just a few examples, but you should take away the idea that preven-

tion voiced at the very mention of ISO

should be based on the effect of the

tion is a way of thinking—a mindset. It’s

9001 design controls. Sometimes, the

 purchased materials or services on the

a thinking process that can and should be

reaction comes before the speaker even

 product realization processes and on the

taught and used in daily work. When that

knows what controls are required, much

ultimate products delivered by the organi-

is the way you work, preventive action

less understands the pros and cons of

zation to its customers.

will become a key factor in the sustainable

implementing them. The perception is that

If purchased materials or services—for

 placing controls on design and develop-

example, a threaded fastener that is used

ment will limit innovation and creativity,

inside a noncritical subassembly—have

inject nonvalue-adding activities into the

little impact, minimal control is needed.

design and development process, or im-

Minimal control may be generally accept-

 pose additional cost or time conditions.

able for commodity-type purchased mate-

It’s discouraging to hear these controls

rial and for simple services.

TAKE ACTION

Preventive and corrective actions are something every organization should be well-versed in, and John E. “Jack” West is here to help. Check out his previous Standards Outlook column, “Spring Into Action,” at www.qualityprogress.com.

70 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

success of your organization. QP BIBLIOGRAPHY

International Organization for Standardization, ISO 9001:2008—Quality management systems—Require ments.

 JOHN E. “JACK” WEST is a member of  Silver Fox Advisors in Houston. He is  past chair of the U.S. Technical Advi sory Group to the International Organization for Standardization Technical Committee 176 and lead delegate of the committee responsible for the ISO 9000 family of quality management  standards. He is an ASQ fellow and has co-authored several  ASQ Quality Press books.

QPCALENDAR  JANUARY 2-5

IISA Conference: Statistics, Sci-

FEBRUARY 3-5

sociation at amstat.org. Safety Management I. Las Vegas.

ence and Society. Chennai, India. Visit the

Visit the American Society of Safety Engi-

International Indian Statistical Association

neers at www.asse.org.

at www.iisaconference.info.

7-9

Improving Your Project Manage-

ment Skills: The Basics for Success. Morristown, NJ. Visit the American Management Association at www.amanet.org.

21-24

6-8

ASQ Conference. Rocky Mountain

Quality Conference. Denver. Visit http:// asqdenver.org.

21-22

Assuring Product Safety,

Recall Management and Product Accelerated Test Data Analy-

Liability Prevention. Milwaukee. Visit

sis. Webinar. Call Hobbs Engineering at

Randall Goodden International at www.

303-465-5988 or visit www.hobbsengr.com.

randallgoodden.com or email info@

21-24

randallgoodden.com. ProMat 2013. Chicago. Visit

Orleans. Visit the American Statistical As-

MARCH 4-5

ASQ Conference. Lean and Six

Sigma Conference. Phoenix. Visit http:// asq.org/conferences/six-sigma.

18-19 ASQ Conference. Conference on Quality in the Space and Defense Industries. Cape Canaveral, FL. Visit http://asq.org/conferences/aviation-spacedefense/index.html. Based on reader feedback, QP Calendar will no longer appear in the print edition of the  magazine. To search for ASQ related confer-

Material Handling Industry of America at

21-23

www.promatshow.com.

ference on Statistical Practice. New

American Statistical Con-

ences and events, please visit http://asq. org/conferences-events.html.

ASQLEARNINGINSTITUTE UPCOMING CLASSROOM-BASED TRAINING  JANUARY Virtual courses listed online.

FEBRUARY Phoenix 4-5 Systematic Problem Solving for Sustained Improvements With Quality Tools 4-6 Root Cause Analysis 4-8 Black Belt/Quality Engineering Statistics

5-7 Certified Biomedical Auditor Exam Preparation 6-8 Certified Manager of Quality/ Organizational Excellence Refresher 6-8 SPC Implementation 6-8 Software Requirements Engineering

MARCH Phoenix 1-2 Lean Bronze Certification Review Program

4-8 Introduction to Quality Engineering

6 Business Process Management Orientation Workshop

4-8 ISO 9001:2008 Lead Auditor Training (RABQSA certified)

6-7 Lean Leadership Skills Workshop

4-8 Reliability Engineering 4-8 Software Quality Engineering

Las Vegas 11-12 16-hour ISO 9001:2008 Lead Auditor Training (RABQSA certified)

11-12 Auditing for Improvement 11-12 Failure Mode and Effects Analysis 11-13 Internal Auditing to ISO/IEC 17025 11-15 AS9100:2009 Lead Auditor Training (Rev. C) (RABQSA certified) 11-15 Introduction to Quality Management 13-14 Cost of Quality: Finance for Continuous Improvement 13-15 ISO 9001:2008 Internal Auditor Training (RABQSA certified) 13-15 Practical Measurement Uncertainty 14-15 ISO 17020 for Forensic Testing Agencies

VISIT WWW.ASQ.ORG/LEARNINGINSTITUTE FOR DETAILS.

December 2012 • QP 71

QPTOOLBOX Ratchet GearWrench has released the 120XP ratchet. The hand tool features 120 positions for every full rotation, allowing it to turn fasteners with a swing arc of as little as three degrees. Its design makes it easy for automotive technicians to reach fasteners in severely limited access applications. The 120XP has a 60-tooth gear that alternately engages its double-stacked pawl technology to produce the 120 positions and three-degree swing arc. The ratchet’s teardrop-shaped head has a low profile, which also improves access in tight spaces. The product exceeds the

in the transmitter module, while measur-

configured using

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ing data is transmitted to the computer-

a direct connection to a

strength requirements.

ized numeral-controlled (CNC) machine

PC or laptop in a safe area. It also allows

through a receiver and interface.

for configuration in hazardous locations.

The 120XP ratchet’s long handle is ergonomically designed to provide comfort

The OP32 system can be used to

• Call: 800-635-6898.

and a good grip for users.

retrofit existing machines. Marposs sup-

• Call: 800-688-8949.

plies measuring software packages for the

• Visit: www.gearwrench.com.

most common CNCs. The OP32 precision

Reed relays

system is reliable in extreme working

Standex-Meder Electronics has released

Optical transmission probe

conditions.

the KT Series of high-isolation reed relays.

Marposs’ OP32 compact optical probing

• Email: [email protected].

The KT Series is ideal for use in green ap-

system is designed for use in micro-

• Visit: www.marposs.com.

plications, such as photovoltaic technol-

milling machines, small machining centers

• Visit: www.cosasco.com.

ogy or hybrid vehicles. It is particularly

and in machines with a limited working

Wireless corrosion transmitter 

helpful in measuring isolation resistance

area.

The Corrater CWT-9020 LPR wireless cor-

across several components in a solar

rosion transmitter from Rohrback Cosasco

energy system prior to grid connection,

In the OP32, the probe is integrated

72 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

is designed for online corrosion

preventing injury or further current leak-

monitoring of water systems in

age.

electrically hazardous areas.

It is available in three coil voltages of

After installation, com-

5V, 12V and 24V, and all three versions are

puted corrosion rate and pitting

available in either surface or through-hole

tendency are transferred from

mounting. They are packaged in a hermeti-

the gateway directly into your

cally sealed thermoset molded encapsula-

distributed control system or a

tion with switching voltages of 1000V and

specialty software package for

coil resistances of 150 Ohms.

smaller-scale systems. The wire-

• Call: 800-870-5385.

less corrosion transmitters are

• Visit: www.meder.com.

Ultrasonic thickness gage

axial piezoresistive accelerometer series

Olympus has introduced the handheld

designed for the high-reliability measure-

45MG ultrasonic thickness gage, a com-

ment of short-duration shock parameters

pact device featuring measurement and

across three axes and in three orthogonal

software options. The thickness gage is

directions. It is suited for applications in

compatible with Olympus’ dual-element

which impact source or direction may be

and single-element transducers. Applica-

less apparent.

tions range from wall-thinning measure-

The sensor also incorporates integral

ments of internally corroded pipes using

mechanical stops for added ruggedness

dual-element probes to precise thickness

and over-range protection, with two fixed

measurements of thin materials using

resistors for per-axis shunt calibration.

single-element transducers.

The Endevco model 7268C series is ideal

ODM, the material is doped with different

for vehicle crash testing, crash sled test-

density black pigments. Raw material in

single-element transducer option, the

ing, general shock monitoring or short

plate and block form, as well as ma-

45MG is capable of making thickness mea-

duration shock testing when used within

chined reflectance plates and reflectance

surements on many materials, including

specified ranges.

standards with protective housings, are

metals, plastics, composites, glass and

• Call: 800-309-6151.

available. Gray-scale ODM with reflec-

ceramics. This feature allows for precise

• Visit: www.meggittsensingsystems.

tance values of 2%, 20%, 50% and 70%

When used with the code-activated

measurements with a resolution of 0.0001

Based on pure polytetrafluoroethylene

com.

in. or 0.001 mm. range of weather conditions and difficult

Optical diffuse material

inspection environments.

Gigahertz-Optik now offers

• Call: 800-225- 8330.

its optical diffuse material

• Visit: www.olympus- ims.com.

(ODM) pigmented in different

The 45MG is built for use in a wide

grades of gray. White diffuse

Accelerometer series

reflecting synthetic material

Meggitt Sensing Systems has announced

with 98% reflection is used

the Endevco model 7268C, a miniature tri-

in many optical applications, including integrated sphere coating, laser cavities or reflectance standards. Grayscale material at different reflectance

are stocked. Other reflectance values are

levels is required in many calibration

available on request.

tasks, such as qualifying the linearity of

• Email: [email protected].

optical sensors.

• Visit: www.gigahertz-optik.de.

GOT A QUALITY PRODUCT? Send your product description and photo to [email protected].

December 2012 • QP 73

QPREVIEWS Quick Brainstorming Activities For Busy Managers

brainstorming, this is a good book to own.  James R. Kotterman

Brian Cole Miller, Amacom, 2012, 208 pp.,  $18.95 (book).

drawn from a wide range of disciplines and sources of knowledge.

 Asset Acceptance

The authors include a list of many of the

Warren, MI

45 books they have written. But a rundown

Since its introduction

of what the authors consider to be some of the leading available references for each

Osborn, brainstorming

The Organizational Alignment Handbook: A Catalyst for Performance Acceleration

has become part of

 James H. Harrington and Frank Voehl,

to enhance the value of their l earning.

virtually every prob-

Productivity Press, 2011, 282 pp., $49.95

lem-solving method

(book).

in 1941 by advertising executive Alex

of the main topics addressed would have been a helpful addition for r eaders wishing If you are involved in working on organizational change or planning to be,

since. With more than

For any practitioner

 you should read this book. Granted, you’ll

70 years under our

and advocate of

need to do your own assessment of readi-

belts, it is hard to believe we need another

continual improve-

ness, management commitment and cost

book on the subject. But maybe we do.

ment, or a student of

estimates, and determine the strategic fit

organizational change,

of such a substantial change process at

and straightforward technique. It is easy

this book could open

 your organization. But the needs and seeds

to believe you know everything on how

 your eyes to one of

to help you plan are in this book. Just ask

to do it. But you may be surprised. Miller

the most significant

 yourself: “Is your organization just surviv-

has taken a comprehensive approach to

shortcomings of many

ing, or is it thriving”?

On the surface, brainstorming is a simple

Russell T. Westcott 

brainstorming that combines traditional

improvement change efforts—not getting

methods with some new and creative exer-

the organization working toward the same

R.T. Westcott & Associates

cises. Because this book is written for busy

objectives, at the same time and with bona

Old Saybrook, CT

managers, all of the brainstorming activities

fide commitment at every organizational

can be completed i n less than 15 minutes.

level.

brainstorming is a prioritization process. It

lineating a process to achieve that unified

then explains how to ask the right question,

forward motion—and share some organi-

Improving Business Process Performance: Gain Agility, Create Value, and Achieve Success

follow the basic rules, use traditional and

zations’ results and experiences. Acting

 Joseph Raynus, Auerbach Publishing, 2011,

creative techniques, record ideas and group

on the impetus created from reading this

 345 pp., $79.95 (book).

the results.

book—further expanding on the concepts

This book seeks to

presented, adapting to your organization

integrate business

techniques designed to spark creativity and

and gaining the commitment necessary to

process improvement

produce results quickly. All of the activi-

launch this major organizational change—is

methods currently

ties are accompanied by tips, drawbacks,

the next step.

used today, such as

The book begins by concluding that

The author provides 50 brainstorming

required materials and possible variations.

The authors initiate the first step—de-

The 10 chapters contain 41 figures,

goal question metric,

If I were looking for one good book on

tables and diagrams to elaborate on the

balanced scorecard

brainstorming, this would be it. Although

textual content. A glossary of definitions

and lean—into a

brainstorming is not without its detractors,

and abbreviations is provided. Another

single, eight-step,

its use is so engrained in our problem-

appendix lists some of the 1,100 improve-

solving culture it is not going away anytime

ment tools and methods that may be ap-

The first three chapters of the book

soon. If you want to be fast and effective at

plicable in the different phases. These are

introduce the need for a quantitative busi-

74 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

quantitative business process method.

ness process management (BPM) frame-

tions. The authors stress that the Baldrige

work by explaining what BPM is, how it can

criteria form one of the best frameworks to

by adding metrics compatible with how

help in dealing with change and how to link

ensure healthcare quality excellence and

the Baldrige award is used in healthcare

strategy with performance metrics.

patient safety.

environments.

The next four chapters discuss each of

The book could have benefited however,

Roberto Guzman

Anyone working in the healthcare

the eight components within the quantita-

industry will benefit from this book. Manag-

tive business process method. The last

ers will benefit the most because they

three chapters cover the use of BPM to

have the means to implement and fund

connect strategy and outcomes, the use of

new initiatives in an

quality tools to aid in process management,

organization. Person-

and how to use scorecards and dashboards

nel should experience

to monitor progress.

improved efficiency

The book does a good job of explaining specific topics within the quantitative busi-

GXP Sigma LLC

RECENT RELEASES

and better people

The Lean Handbook: A Guide to the Bronze Certification Body of Knowledge

management.

 Anthony Manos and Chad Vincent, ASQ

ness process method. The main weakness

Quality Press, 2012, 464 pp., $88 member,

This book also

of the book is in the logic connecting the

provides a great way

overall chapter-to-chapter flow of topics,

to set metrics and

 $146 list (book).

especially toward the end of the book. The

measure performance in proven areas.

last three chapters seem to be appendages

Organizations may boost their customer

Quality Risk Management in the FDA-Regulated Industry

rather than fully integrated into the logic of

service and teamwork skills based on the

 José Rodríguez-Pérez, ASQ Quality Press,

the proposed framework.

award criteria, even if they decide not to

 2012, 288 pp., $30 member, $50 list (book).

Overall, this book could be useful for managers wanting to add some quantita-

complete the process.

the examples given are in tone with what

The Market-Driven Supply Chain: A Revolutionary Model for Sales and Operations Planning in the New On-Demand Economy

readers may expect when implementing

Robert P. Burrows III, Amacom, 2012, 288

the Baldrige criteria.

 pp., $39.95 (book).

The authors have a strong under-

tive methods to an existing BPM frame-

standing about the topic and convey the

work. But there are better books for those

message with a smooth transition among

looking for a BPM introduction.

topics. Their knowledge is apparent, and

Brian Cocolicchio New City, NY 

The Executive Guide to Understanding and Implementing Baldrige in Healthcare: Evidence-Based Excellence Glenn Bodinson and Kay Kendall, ASQ Quality Press, 2011, 141 pp., $39.95 member  and list (book). The book is based on the authors’ experiences as Malcolm Baldrige National Quality

Advertisers Index ADVERTISER

PAGE

PHONE

WEB

American Quality Institute

65

412-782-3383

www.iso9000conference.com

EtQ Inc.

1

516-293-0949

www.etq.com

The Harrington Group

2

800-476-9000

www.harrington-group.com

800-507-5277

www.meirxrs.com

Award examiners and consultants. It de-

MEIRxRS

23

scribes the Baldrige award’s history, imple-

Milwaukee School of Engineering

57

mentation of the Baldrige criteria and how

Quality Council of Indiana

to use the process in healthcare organiza-

StatSoft Inc.

[email protected] (email)

10, 11

800-660-4215

www.qualitycouncil.com

OBC

918-749-1119

www.statsoft.com

December 2012 • QP 75

Invite Someone to Start Their Own ASQ Journey Give someone you know the opportunity to take advantage of the same great benefits you receive by inviting them to become an ASQ member. Not only will this impact the career of a friend or colleague, but it will also help you build a personal network to share best practices. As a thank you, you will earn ASQ Bucks for each member you recruit.

It is easy to do! Have the person(s) you are referring enter your member number and name in the “Member Referred By” area on the ASQ online or print membership application. For every person you refer that becomes a n ASQ member, you will receive 5 ASQ Bucks (1 ASQ Buck= $1 USD) to use toward ASQ products.

Visit asq.org/invite to share your passion for quality and invite someone on the ASQ journey.

TRAINING

CERTIFICATION  

  CONFERENCES

MEMBERSHIP

 

PUBLICATIONS

OFFICE USE ONLY 

Membership Application

MBKCJ92 PRIORITY CODE _______________________ Order Number ________________________ Member Number ______________________

Preferred Mailing Address:  Mr.

❑

 Ms.

❑

 Mrs.

❑

 Home

❑

 Dr.

 Business

❑

 Male

❑

❑

Industry:

 Female

❑

❑ Healthcare

❑ Service

❑ Government

❑ Education

D

Member Type: ❑ Full $139

2

The one geographic Section included with Fu ll membership will be determined by your primary address.*

❑ Manufacturing

/ / Date of Birth _________________________________ M

1

Y 

❑ Associate

$81

$ __________________

____________________________________________________________________ First Name Middle Initial Last Name/Family Name

Sections (geographic) may be added to any member type for an additional $20.00 each. Visit www.asq.org for a listing of available Sections.

____________________________________________________________________ Company Name Job Title

Sections cccc , cccc , cccc 

____________________________________________________________________ Business Address Ste.

Contact ASQ to change your assigned Section.

3

____________________________________________________________________ City, State/Province Zip+4/Postal Code Country  ____________________________________________________________________ Home Address Apt./Ste.

____________________________________________________________________  Area Code/Business Telephone Area Code/Home Telephone ____________________________________________________________________ Preferred Email Address Fax   Which one of the following best describes your title? ❑ Contractor

❑ Inspector

❑ Professor

❑ Student

Administrator ❑ Advisor ❑ Analyst ❑ Associate ❑ Auditor ❑ CEO ❑ Chemist ❑ Clinician ❑ Consultant

❑ Controller/

❑ Instructor

❑ Programmer

❑

  Comptroller ❑ Coordinator ❑ Director ❑ Engineer ❑ Facilitator ❑ Foreman ❑ General   Manager

❑ Machinist

❑ Retired

❑ Teacher

❑ Manager

❑ Scientist

❑ Technician

❑ Mechanic

❑ Six

❑ Unemployed

❑

❑ Nurse ❑ Owner ❑ Physician ❑ President ❑ Principal

Sigma Black Belt ❑ Six Sigma Green Belt ❑ Specialist ❑ Statistician

Superintendent

❑ Other

total

Total of all items (1-3):

$ _________

Please submit your application with remittance to:

 ASQ does not sell email addresses to third parties. Mailing Lists ❑ Occasionally ASQ shares its mailing list with carefully selected quality-related organizations to provide you with information on products and services. Please check this circle if you do not  wish to receive these mailings. Member Referred By:

_____________________________________ Member Name

Forum or Division Selection As part of your Full membership you receive participation in one topic- or industry-specific Forum or Division. Use the list below to indicate the Forum or Division number and name. included _____ ______________________ $_____________ (#) Name Additional Forums and Divisions may be added to all levels of membership. Please indicate in the list below the additional Forums or Divisions you would like and total the number you have selected. ❑ Audit (19) ❑ Human Development and Leadership (13) ❑ Automotive (3) ❑ Inspection (9) ❑ Aviation, Space and Defense (2) ❑ Lean Enterprise (23) ❑ Biomedical (10) ❑ Measurement Quality (17) ❑ Chemical and Process Industries (4) ❑ Product Safety and Liability ❑ Customer-Supplier (15) Prevention (25) ❑ Design and Construction (20) ❑ Quality Management (1) ❑ Education (21) ❑ Reliability (8) ❑ Electronics and Communications (5) ❑ Service Quality (16) ❑ Energy and Environmental (11) ❑ Six Sigma (26) ❑ Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (7) ❑ Software (14) ❑ Government (22) ❑ Statistics (12) ❑ Healthcare (18) ❑ Team & Workplace Excellence (27) Additional Forum and Division selections: Full or Associate member ________ x $10 = $________________________

____________________________________________________________________ City, State/Province Zip+4/Postal Code Country 

❑ Accountant

_______________________ Member Number 

Payment Information ❑

Check or money order (U.S. dollars drawn on a U.S. bank) Make check payable to ASQ.

❑

MasterCard

❑ Visa

❑ American

Express

 WHY DID YOU JOIN? To help us understand what’s important to you, please tell us the top three reasons why you became an ASQ member. ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑

Career Development Certification Pricing In-person Networking Involvement in ASQ’s Cause Involvement in SRO Knowledge/Information Leadership Opportunities Online Networking/Communities Product Discounts Training

(Check one)

____________________________________________________________________ Cardholder’s Name (please print) ______________________________________________ Card Number

❑

$_______

___________________ Exp. Date

______________________________________________ Cardholder’s Signature ____________________________________________________________________ Cardholder’s Address You may also j oin online at www.asq.org  ASQ or by calling ASQ Customer Care at P.O. Box 3066 USA and Canada: 800-248-1946 Milwaukee, WI 53201-3066 USA  Mexico: 001-800-514-1564 or fax to 414-272-1734 .  All other locations: +1-414-272-8575 New memberships are effective upon receipt of payment. New members receive one year of membership from the date they join. Members are billed prior to the anniversary date of their membership for next year’s dues. Memberships, even those paid by employers, are nontransferable. All prices are subject to change. In becoming an ASQ member, you have the duty to follow the ASQ Code of Ethics and Society governing documents.

For information on placing an ad, contact Media Sales at 866-277-5666.

  PROFESSIONALSERVICES

Lean Six Sigma Training and certification online by Thomas Pyzdek

Save 10%! Enter coupon code ASQ10 at checkout

www.sixsigmatraining.org /store +1 520-204-1957 UHRIG CONSULTING

Process Tek - Sterility by Design

Redondo Beach, CA 310-798-8442

For sterile products, packages and processes

[email protected]

www.processtek.net

Kailash S. Purohit, Ph. D.

www.uhrigconsulting.com

[email protected]

Customized services in quality management systems: Documentation Development, Process Improvement, Training, Auditing and Problem Solving • ISO 9001 • AS9100/9110/9120 • ISO13485/21CFR820

• ISO 14001 • TL9000 • 6Sigma Tools

I’m Baaaaack! • Facilitating, Training, Coaching! • Lean Principles and Culture • Continuous Improvement • Integrating Lean & Quality • QMS, ISO 9001, TWI, Kaizen, 5S • The Power of Root Cause Analysis! aging gracefully

Mike Micklewright  We provide calibration services of mechanical, dimensional, and electrical gages.

CSSBB, CQMgr, CQA, CQE Arlington Heights, IL PH: 847-401-0822 [email protected]; www.mikemick.com

We are now offering inspection services. We offer on-site services, repair, recall reports, pick-up and delivery, and five-day turnaround service. Some of the items we calibrate are micrometers, surface plates, plugs and rings, torque, pressure, comparators, and meters. Our website is www.qualtechlabs.com.

Need Help With Process & Quality? Lean • Six Sigma • CMMI ®  • ITIL • ISO9000 Lean Documentation • TL9000 • AS9100 Organization Change Management SERVICES Consulting • Staffing • Training • Outsourcing • Support Assessments (Six Sigma, ISO, SCAMPI) • Rent-a-MBB Problem Solving • PMP ®  online training • Free Webinars

SEI Partner • Offices: USA, Israel, India www.aqionline.com, [email protected], 623-878-0906 Credentials: Six Sigma MBB, Multiple ASQ Certs, ISO LA Authors of three bestsellers on Six Sigma, QMS, and ISO Awarded Feigenbaum Medal by ASQ

Quality Systems Enhancement, Inc.  Auditing/Consulting/Training Standards

LSSE is a one-of-a-k ind consulting company designed to provide comprehensive support for all of your Continuous Improvement needs. • Consultation • Training

• Recruiting • Software

800-961-9479 www.leansixsigmaexperts.com

78

QP • www.qualityprogress.com

Excellence Tools

•  ISO Stand ards:  9001, 14001, 50001, 13485/21CFR 820, 15189, 17025, 27001, 31000, AS 9100/9110/9120, OHSAS 18001, TL 9000, TS 16949, etc. •  Food Safety Standard s: BRC, SQF, FSSC 22000, ISO22000, FDA Compliance • Chain of Custody Standards: FSC, SFI, PEFC •  Recycling Standards:  e-Stewards Certification, R2 Certification • Gap Analysis to All Standards

• Design of Experiments • Design for Six Sigma • Lean Enterprise • Lean Manufacturing • Lean Six Sigma • Sustainability  • Bottom Line Improvement (Guaranteed)

Other Tools/Services

• Statistical Problem Solving • Project Management • Internal Auditing Services • Risk Management Industries

 Aerospace, Automotive, Casting, Energy, Healthcare, Environmental, Forest Products, Manufacturing, Packaging, Medical devices, Materials, Services, Telecommunications, Textile, etc.

Quality Systems Enhancement Inc.

1790 Woodstock Rd. Roswell, GA 30075  www.enhancequality.com• [email protected] • 770-518-9967

Quality Institute of America, Inc. Since 1994 Complete Quality, Environmental, Safety, Six Sigma, Consulting, Auditing, and Training Services. Comprehensive Quality Management Software (QISS). • QISS-based ISO-Easy Program • Quality Management Software (QISS) Automating Document and Records Control, Communications, Nonconformance, Corrective-Preventive Actions, Calibration, Maintenance, Training, Audits, and Management Reviews. PH: 281-335-7979. Houston, TX Email: [email protected],

www.qi-a.com www.qisssoftware.com

Looking for Quality Professionals? Place a Recruitment Ad in Quality Progress and reach more than 100,000 readers from all over the world! Contact Media Sales at 866-277-5666.

 

PROFESSIONALSERVICES

Statement of Ownership, Management, and Circulation (Act of August 12, 1970; Section 3685, Title 39, United States Code)

For Accredited Certification Look for the Symbols of Quality

1. Title of Publication: Quality Progress  2. Publication Number: 0033-524X 3. Date of Filing: 09/28/2012 4. Frequency of Issues: Monthly

EAGLE Registrations Inc.

EAGLE Food Registrations Inc.

Highest Ranked Registrar in an independent customer survey! ISO 9001 · AS 9100 · ISO/TS 16949 ISO 14001 · ISO 13485 · OHSAS 18001 Safe Quality Food (SQF) · ISO 22000 FSSC 22000 · SQF Ethical Sourcing Call 800-795-3641 | www.eagleregistrations.com

5. Number of Issues Published Annually: 12     

ISO 9001, AS 9100, ISO 13485, ISO 20000 FDA QSR, Canadian MDR, European MDD Planning, Implementation, Training Process Improvements, Process Validation QMS Internal Audits, Mini-audits Camille Delmotte, MBA, President Phone and fax: 410-426-2269 [email protected] www.QualityEdgeConsulting.com

The source for

6. Annual subscription price: $97.00 7. Location of Known Office of Publication: ASQ, 600 N. Plankinton Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53203 8. Location of Headquarters or General Business Offices of Publisher: Same 9. Name and Address of Publisher: William A. Tony, ASQ, 600 N. Plankinton Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53203; Editor: Seiche Sanders, 600 N. Plankinton Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53203 10. Owner: ASQ, 600 N. Plankinton Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53203

FLASH CARD study aids for certification exams:

11. Known Bondholders, Mortgagees, and Other Security Holders Owning or Holding 1% or More of Total Amount of Bonds, Mortgages, or Other Securities: Not Applicable

ISO 9001 for small business

CQE, CSSBB, STATS, and more.

www.turnkeyiso.com | 908-339-7515

 ww w.qual ityr eview inafl ash.c om

12. FOR COMPLETION BY NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AUTHORIZED TO MAIL AT SPECIAL RATES. The purpose, function, and nonprofit status of this organization and the exempt status for Federal income tax purposes: has not changed during the preceding 12 months

Management System Consultants

13. Publication Title: Quality Progress 

Consulting with a personal touch.

14. Issue date for Circulation Data below: August 2012

• Outsourcing  • Certification Prep • Business Processes • Policies, Manuals and Procedures • Documentation Reduction • Internal and Supplier Audits • Training  • Keynote Speaking/Presentations

 API-Q1 | API- Q2 | ISO 9001 | ISO 14001 ISO 17025 | OHSAS 18001

 www.iso9001group.com | 281-402-6800

15. Extent and nature of circulation Average no. of copies each issue during preceding 12 months

A. Total No. Copies Printed (Net Press Run)

Actual no. copies of Single Issue Published Nearest to Filing Date

62,483

57,500

B. Paid Circulation 1. Paid/Requested Outside-County Mail Subscriptions Stated on Form 3541 51,587 47,633 2. Paid In-County Subscriptions 0

TQM ASSOCIATES INC. “WE’RE

HERE TO SUPPORT YOU”

• Established in 1994 • Women-Owned • Quality Assurance Professionals • Across the U.S. and Worldwide • Temporary or Permanent • Source Inspection • Surveys • Audits • Expediting

800-424-4729 3990 Old Town Ave. #C109 Fax 619-297-3251 San Diego, CA 92110 tqmassociates .com email: [email protected] et

Consultants in Quality Inc.

Classroom Training Aids… � Quincunx

Boards � Sampling Bowls � Catapults � Deming Funnels � And lots more …

Visit us at: www.qualitytng.com Email [email protected] for brochure

Ph: 248-641-7030 Fax: 248-641-7031 PO Box 611 Troy, M I 48099-0611

 Experie nced consulting for accred itation in: •ISO/IEC 17065 Conformity assessment for products, process and service •ISO/IEC 17025 Competency of test labs Contact:  Richard

Stump • [email protected]

Looking for Quality Professionals? Place a Recruitment Ad in Quality Progress and reach more than 100,000 readers from all over the world!

Contact Media Sales at  866-277-5666.

0

3. Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors, counter sales, and other non-USPS paid distribution 8,506

7,729

4. Other Classes Mailed Through the USPS 91

37

60,184

55,399

D. Free or Nominal Rate Distribution (Samples, Complimentary, and Other Free) 1. Outside-County as Stated on Form 3541 0

0

C. Total Paid Circulation

2. In-County as Stated on Form 3541 0

0

56

21

473

449

529

470

F. Total Distri bution (Sum of 15c and 15e) 60,713

55,869

3. Free Mailed through the USPS 4. Free Outside the Mail E. Total Free Distribution

G. Copies not distributed 1,770

1,631

62,483

57,500

H. Total I. Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation (15c divided by 15f times 100) 99%

99%

16. Publication of Statement of O wnership is printed in the December 2012 issue of this publication. 17. I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. William A. Tony Publisher

December 2012 • QP

79

BACK TO BASICS

BY ALBERTO AYULO

Breaking It Down Dissecting the problem-solving A3 report A3 THINKING is based on the plan-do-

a completed problem-solving A3 in its

check-act cycle. This powerful way of think-

entirety using the major phase inspection

team takes the root cause from Block 4

ing is transcribed on a piece of paper (the

 process for a U-2 aircraft as an example.

and assigns specific countermeasures. The

 A3 report) a team of employees can use to

The process is comprised of eight blocks,

countermeasures should only specifically

 produce a desired outcome for a proposed

the first of which is illustrated in Figure 1.

address the root cause and, in theory,

 process. The A3 report is displayed on

Remember there are an infinite number of

should solve the problem identified in

ledger-sized paper (11 x 17 inches) and is

tools you can use throughout this process

Block 1. The completed fifth block is

broken into different sections, each clearly

to populate each block:

 populated with any tool that will outline the

labeled and arranged in a logical flow. The A3 report can be used for problem

1. Clarify and validate the problem.

The team typically starts with a perceived

5. Develop countermeasures. The

countermeasures. 6. See countermeasures through.

solving, but there also are two other ways

 problem and uses data (quantitative, if

The team tracks the countermeasures

of using it: a proposal A3 report and a story-

 possible) to validate whether it is, in fact, a

from Block 5 and ensures each one is ac-

board A3 report. Each report has a slightly

 problem. The completed first block is popu-

complished. The completed sixth block is

different focus, and the experience level

lated with a problem statement and data to

 populated with the tool used in Block 5 to

of those facilitating the initiative may vary,

 validate it (Figure 1).

outline the countermeasures and updated

but the foundation behind each A3 will not change.

2. Break down the problem and identify performance gaps. Next, the team

as each is accomplished. 7. Confirm results and process.

begins to dissect the problem statement

Depending on the course of action, the

Blocks to success

from Block 1 and determines the area of

team begins to track the results as counter-

Similar to the define, measure, analyze,

focus. This is done using targeted data to

measures are accomplished. After all are

improve and control method, the problem-

find specific focus areas that break down

completed, the team will use the data from

solving A3 has a specified path the user

the larger problem into bite-sized pieces.

Block 1 to determine if the countermeasures

must follow from beginning to end. Online

The completed second block is populated

from Block 5 are improving the process. The

Figure 1, found on this article’s webpage

with data determining a focus area.

completed seventh block is populated with

at www.qualityprogress.com, shows

Block 1 of A3 report /

3. Set an improvement target. The

team determines what

continued data from Block 1. 8. Standardize successful processes.

success will look like. The

The team will standardize process only af-

1. Clarify and validate the problem.

improvement target, or

ter confirming successful results validated

The U-2 major phase inspection is averaging 15 days, exceeding the 13-day inspection target, and cannot efficiently sustain worldwide U-2 aircraft operational requirements .

goal, must be relative to the

in Block 7. The completed eighth block is

 problem statement in Block

 populated with tasks that were implement-

1. The completed third

ed to standardize process.

FIGURE 1

U-2 major phase inspection days Sept. 10, 2008 – Feb. 27, 2009

block is populated with an improvement target. 4. Determine root

   s    y    a    d    M    &    O    l    a    u    t    c    A

causes. Using the focus

 As with any other framework, repeated use of the A3 report is the fastest formula to success, as each experience brings a different outlook and a better understanding. QP

areas from Block 2, the    d    d    o    a    o    B    G

team determines the root causes. The completed fourth block is populated using root cause analysis tools and highlights the

Average: 15 Trend = Up

O&M = operations and maintenance

80 QP • www.qualityprogress.com

determined root cause.

 ALBERTO AYULO is the regional continuous improvement manager for the West Region of Johnson Controls in Tempe, AZ. He has a master’s degree in HR management from Webster University in St. Louis. Ayulo is an ASQ-certified lean Six Sigma Black Belt and Project Management Institute-certified project management professional.

ASQ WELCOMES NEW JOURNAL EDITORS LAWRENCE FREDENDALL

Quality Management Journal  Lawrence Fredendall , a tenured professor of

operations management at Clemson University, begins his term as editor of QMJ  in January 2013.

ASQ’S PORTFOLIO

QMJ  links

OF PERIODICALS

the efforts of ac ademic researchers and quality management practitioners. New research that scientifically explores the principles of quality management is sought for the journal.

 join us online VOLUME 12, NUMBER 1

•

•

•

www.asq.org •

 N O V E M B E R 2 0 1 2

FromtheEditor:The EvolutionofSix Sigma p.4 AidYourExperimentsWith AnalyticalStatistics p.8 CityApplies KaizentoBuild BetterProcess p.22

FROM THE BASICS TO THE BOARDROOM

Ideas

JAMES BOSSERT

Bubbling Up Use kaizen events to generate solutions h t atwork p. 16

Six Sigma Forum Magazine www.sixsigmaforum.com

ASQ has named James Bossert,  senior vice president and program manager at Bank of America, as editor of SSFM  beginning January 2013.

Take full advantage of your ASQ membership and explore thousands of articles from ASQ’s journals and magazines. Every new issue features select articles that are free to view and download. When you log in as an ASQ member, you can access articles older than two years—even if you’re not a subscriber.

SSFM  is

the flagship publication of ASQ’s Six Sigma Forum. The magazine’s mission is to provide a holistic view of Six Sigma—from the basics to the boardroom.

Browse all the journals at asq.org/pub/index.html. Members who are not subscribers are welcome to sign up to receive alerts about new issues and access select, free articles by emailing their name, email address, and publications of interest to [email protected].

TRAINING

CERTIFICATION  

CONFERENCES

MEMBERSHIP

 

PUBLICATIONS