Last week I wrote an article: ASQ at an Inflection Point.   I received many personal comments and emails.

I appreciate all comments received.  I value them. There may have been some confusion about the point of my article. Below is a more bulleted approach to the key points.

• The 9001 certification is seen as having less value.  Hence, its decline. ISO 9001 is the largest ISO certification.  The combined certification numbers of the other ISO certification do not match ISO 9001’s. ASQ offers certifications, specific training and books associated with ISO 9001.  To the extent that ISO 9001 certifications decline, ASQ’s revenues decline.

• ISO’s decision to include risk management in its certifications has an impact on how quality it viewed. In 2007 the North Carolina State University international risk survey had poor quality management listed as the tenth highest risk. The next year poor quality management went to fifteen. By 2009, quality management was folded in with other risks, like IT.  It remains so today  The 2020 survey states: “Our existing operations, legacy IT infrastructure, and insufficient embrace of digital thinking and capabilities may not meet performance expectations related to quality, time to market, cost and innovation as well as our competitors, especially new competitors that are “born digital” and with low cost base for their operations or established competitors with superior operations.” By changing the focus to risk, poor quality management becomes just one of multiple risks and organization faces.
• Other professional actors are starting to take notice of risk.  This year the Institute of Internal Auditors conducted its first risk management survey of companies in America.  Respondents, included C suiters and Internal Auditors. IIA is a member of COSO. COSO ERM is a competing enterprise risk management model to ISO 31000. In the summary of the findings, IIA noted that a holistic approach to ERM is needed. Since IIA represents Internal Auditors, the organization sees a role for auditors in risk assessment. New South Wales in Australia, also sees a role for internal auditors in risk management.  It has mandated that all local governments adopt ISO 31000:2018 and implementation be monitored every year by Internal Auditors
•  When poor quality management systems become just one of many risks, annual audits of the quality management systems can be evaluated by internal auditors, as well as, certified periodically by quality auditors. When it is a choice between an ISO 9001 certification, which is increasingly seen as having less value, and having the quality management system audited annually by Internal Auditors, who is the C-Suite and Board of Directors likely to chose?. I suspect the Internal Auditor, because they can evaluate more systems than the quality auditor.  This diminishes the need for quality auditors and related training.  Such an occurrence will erode ASQ’s revenue.
• Many of ASQ’s certifications are more expensive than the same certifications offer by competing organizations. Why get the certification from ASQ, when the same certification is available cheaper from a competing organization?
• When ASQ’s Governing Body decided to appropriate funds from local Chapter, it starved chapters of funds.  My local chapter (Portland, Oregon)  held six meetings last year.  When members use meetings for the Required Instructional Units for recertification, fewer meetings make recertification more difficult. At some point members have to ask: Is the benefit of belonging to ASQ worth the annual membership fee? If the answer is no, membership and revenues decline.
• ASQ’s membership had been declining for years. As noted in the article, the U.S. Department of Labor predicts a decline in quality technician position over the next ten years. While that is just for the United States, it is an indicator of the general trend
• ASQ is having financial difficulties.  The issues, as noted in the petition are numerous.  A key issues is failure of corporate to continually operate within a budget. In addition, the corporate headquarters is costly. With declining membership and a general loss in revenue, it has become a financial burden
• The Governing Board created a rift in membership. A portion of the membership objects to the direction ASQ has taken.  It wants a return to the old status quo. If the rift isn’t healed, some of those members may cease to be members. That would further impact ASQ’s revenue stream.

Once again, I am happy to receive any and all comments.  I find them useful.  But remember, the  dismissive woke nullism, which is so prevalence in most discussions of issues, is neither healthy or productive. To just dismiss an argument, because you don’t agree with it, does not solve, or contribute to the solution of a problem.  ASQ has problems. Serious problems. As an organization, its leaders need to find solutions to those problems.

If the reader is an ASQ member, I encourage you to speak up and help ASQ leadership deal with the problems it faces.