Articles published in The Quality Management Forum may not be reproduced without

consent of the author(s).

A P e e r - R e v i e w e d P u b l i c a t i o n o f t h e Q u a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t D i v i s i o n o f t h e A m e r i c a n S o c i e t y f o r Q u a l i t y

T h e Q u a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t

www.asq-qm.orgAS

®

Inside This Issue

Quality Management

Division

Certified Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence Exam: Development ProcessBy Jerry E. Rice

Introduction

This is the third installment of a three-part series on the revised Body of Knowledge (BOK) for the Certified Manager of Quality/ Organizational Excellence (CMQ/OE). The ASQ exam team completed an update of the CMQ/OE BOK in January 2013. The Quality Management Division of ASQ, as sponsor of the exam, supported this effort by providing subject matter experts at every step in the process.

There were approximately 46 volunteer subject matter experts recruited from various industries throughout North America to help with this Body of Knowledge revision. There are

hundreds of other volunteers who have helped with ongoing development of the exam over the years. Recruiting subject matter experts is a continuous task for the exam subcommittee. All the volunteers involved in the development process enter a confidentiality agreement with ASQ to ensure there is no conflict of interest and that the proprietary aspects of the development process are not divulged.

The exam development process is a robust series of workshops and reviews that ensure the exam is fair to the candidates sitting for it while not diluting the prestige of those holding this certification (see Figure 1). The development process is designed to reflect the

Certified Manager of

Quality/Organizational

Excellence Exam:

Development Process . . . . . .1

Chair’s Message . . . . . . . . .2

Communities of Practice:

From Self-Organizing to

Purposeful Creation and

the Role of Leaders . . . . . . .6

A New QMD Sub-Group

on Linkedin! . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Book Review . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Book Review . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Quality Management

Journal Preview . . . . . . . . . 12

QMF Book Summary . . . . . 17

Coach's Corner . . . . . . . . . 19

Fall 2013V o l u m e 3 9 , N u m b e r 3

Exam Review Workshop

Exam Administration

Constructed Response Scoring

Camera Ready Review

Job Analysis Workshop

StartJob Analysis

Survey

Telephone and One on One Interviews

Item Pool Maintenance

Workshop

Item Writing Workshop

Item Review Workshop

New/Revised Body of

Knowledge Published

Exam Specifications

Workshop

Enough Items in

Pool?

Item Pool Maintenance

?

New Body of Knowledge?

Notify Candidates of

Pass/Fail

Cut Score Study

Item Analysis

Yes

No

YesNo

Yes

No

BOK Scheduled

for Review?

No

Yes

Figure 1: CMQ/OE Exam Development Process

(Certified Manager of Quality/organizational exCellenCe exaM: developMent proCess, continued on page 4)

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

2

Chair’s MessageBy Milt Krivokuca

Chair’s MessageBy Milt Krivokuca

You may be receiving the Fall 2013 edition of the Quality Management Forum (QMF) just as you have finished reading the Summer 2013 edition of QMF. As most of you know, it is unusual for the Quality Management Division (QMD) to deliver our summer edition so late. But the summer edition was somewhat larger and more complex to produce than previous issues, and additional efforts were necessary to revise and edit articles from global authors for whom English is a second language. The solicitation of articles on global perspectives of quality has been one of the strategic goals of QMD, and our success in this area required additional time to prepare that issue for publication. As systems thinking experts, we have learned from this experience, and we have implemented changes to ensure future versions of the QMF will include global perspectives related to practical applications of quality methodologies and theories.

An enhanced QMF is only one of the strategic goals being fulfilled by QMD to increase membership value. I have commented in previous messages how QMD is reaching out to members by participating in several local section events. The events of these past 20 months have provided me an opportunity to meet hundreds of QMD members and to learn how QMD can continue to assure members a positive learning experience. For 2014, we will continue our efforts to engage members through various activities such as local quality events and technical publications, the Quality Management Forum, and select conferences where a direct correlation to the elements contained in the Body of Knowledge for the Certified Quality Manager/Organizational Excellence are appropriate.

Members of QMD, as well as the entire membership of ASQ, will find 2014 to be an exciting year of change. The entire ASQ organization will be implementing some major revisions to the operational structure for both sections and divisions. ASQ will be holding sections and divisions accountable for developing activities and events to engage members and to provide additional value to the membership experience. Many of the Voice of the Customer surveys recently administered have gathered significant information about our need to listen to members and to take actions that meet their needs. The Performance Awards and Recognition (PAR) program has

been in development for almost one full year. The PAR team was comprised of representatives from large and small divisions and sections. Sections and divisions will be provided criteria for planning and budgeting activities to enhance the membership experience. To provide more information about PAR to all ASQ members, a formal marketing communication program is scheduled for implementation this fall.

For QMD members, not much change in our operations or strategic objectives will be evident. We have already been engaged in many of the member value activities contained in PAR. I was honored to be invited to be a PAR team member. Many of the QMD activities have been adopted into the best practices of PAR to be shared with sections and divisions. Although we are proud of being benchmarked, this recognition creates a new challenge for us. The PAR awards are for achieving above and beyond the normal compliance activities required of any section, division, or business. We have set a high level of performance, but raising this performance level will be the challenge for the 2014–2015 leadership team.

The QMD 2014–2015 strategic planning meeting will take place in Tucson AZ on October 12, 2013, and our annual business meeting is planned for October 10th. Both of these meetings are open to all QMD members. During these meetings, PAR, the strategic goals of ASQ, and the QMD resources required to meet these goals, will be finalized. Any QMD member who would like to be more involved or to learn more about how the leadership team of QMD functions, the week of October 9–12, 2013 is an excellent opportunity! QMD members are welcome to attend the leadership team meetings, which will be taking place at the conference hotel, El Conquistador, in Tucson.

Conference week provides a unique opportunity for quality professionals to participate as attendees, observers, and contributors to the quality management process. Conference attendees can meet and speak with authors, attend presentations by subject matter experts, and observe the strategic planning process in action. This event is more than just a typical conference. The take-away for attendees include observing the

Fall 2013

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

3

quality-focused business practices required by quality management systems. For more information, please see the conference link in this QMF or on the QMD webpage at www.asq-qm.org.

The Fall 2013 issue of the QMF includes a lineup of articles on topics that have been identified as critical to the 21st century quality professional. Recent surveys conducted by ASQ of senior leaders from over 30 countries identified eight elements affecting global business today. One of the these eight issues related to global organization success, as identified by global leadership, innovation is featured this month. In addition, the topic of communities of practice and their relationship to leadership is included. Leadership, the basic element for success in any organization or activity, is an ever-evolving area of study to assure a continuous supply of effective leaders who can

successfully meet the challenges to organizations in our global society. The continuing series of articles written to prepare professionals for the CMQ/OE exam in this eddition discusses the CMQ/OE exam development process. Candidates for CMQ/OE certification will benefit by learning the behind-the-scenes thought process utilized by subject matter experts to develop the exams.

The QMD leadership team hopes you find the information contained in this edition of the QMF of value to you and your professional career.

I hope to see many of you in Tucson in October.

Milt Krivokuca DBA ASQ-QMD Chair 2012–2013

Visit the new QMD website at www.asq-qm.org

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

4

current practices in quality management and to represent what employers are looking for with regard to senior leadership in quality management.

Job Analysis SurveyThe development process starts with a job analysis workshop. During this workshop, subject matter experts (SMEs) use various proven techniques to identify and group all knowledge and task areas that could be performed by someone within the quality management field. With the exception of one exam subcommittee member, none of the subject matter experts in the job analysis workshop have ever participated in the ASQ exam development process. The outcome of this workshop is a job analysis survey.

A job analysis survey is emailed to approximately 2,000 ASQ members. (Three hundred eighty-one quality management professionals responded to the job analysis survey during this revision of the BOK.) The survey results are used as input for identifying changes in quality management practices. The outcome of the job analysis survey is to determine what knowledge and skill areas are appropriate to test for the CMQ/OE exam program. The responses to the survey are monitored to ensure a statistically valid sampling of practicing quality management professionals. The ASQ exam staff also conducts telephone interviews and receives communication from other quality management professionals during this time to gain further insight into the typical responsibilities of quality managers and directors from a wide range of industries.

Test Specification DevelopmentOnce the survey results are compiled, a test specification workshop is scheduled to begin development of the Body of Knowledge revisions. Some of the volunteer subject matter experts participated in the job analysis workshop while others SMEs in this workshop are completely new to the exam development process. The test specification team identifies all topics that meet certain criteria for inclusion in the BOK. The test specification is developed based on task and knowledge statements from the job analysis.

The tasks and knowledge areas are assembled into an outline with topics and categories that form the BOK. Once the major topics are identified from the job analysis, and the BOK outline is created, the SMEs develop explanatory subtext that clearly describes the particulars of each subtopic. The number of questions and the time limit for taking the exam are also reviewed and recommendations for any changes are made at this time.

Publishing the Body of KnowledgeOnce the Body of Knowledge recommendations are made, the ASQ Certification Board reviews and approves the changes, and the revised BOK is published. The ASQ exam staff reviews the current item (question) bank against the new BOK. An item-writing workshop is scheduled to create questions in areas where the number of questions in the bank is determined to be low.

This ensures an appropriate number of items are available for the exam developer to produce a number of exams that meet the technical requirements of the Body of Knowledge.

Item WritingAn item-writing workshop consists of 24 subject matter experts who are trained to develop exam questions and understand basic test assessment issues. The subject matter experts write questions on specific areas in the BOK, and all questions are referenced to the approved source material for the exam. In the case of a BOK update such as this, the areas of focus are those where the questions in the item bank are low. For the CMQ/OE exam, this includes constructed response (essay) questions as well. Each question developed at this meeting must have the following characteristics:

• Only one key (correct answer) that must have team agreement

• A reference to support the key (from a list of approved reference materials)

• A rationale for the question that explains what the question is testing, why the key is correct, and why the other options are not correct

• Classification to the most detailed level of the BOK

The ASQ Certification staff work with the subject matter experts to review and edit questions for grammar, style, and other assessment-related characteristics. Constructed response questions have an exposition explaining the rationale of the question and a scoring rubric drafted. Item-writing workshops typically produce 200–300 items over the two-day period.

Item ReviewOnce a question makes it through the reviews in the item-writing workshop, it must be independently reviewed again by another team of subject matter experts before it is approved for use on an exam. The item-review workshop team has no members from the item-writing team, to ensure a review independent of those who wrote the questions. The result of the item-review workshop is to ensure there is only one key (answer) and that the question is clearly written and accurate. These subject matter experts also confirm the reference, classification, and rationale for each item. The item-review workshop is where the questions are approved for use on the exam.

Pre-meeting work at the item review consists of reviewing and keying (answering) approximately 200 items. Each workshop team member spends between three to five hours on preparation for this workshop. When the subject matter experts come to the workshop, they are trained on a variety of assessment issues. Once all components of the item are verified, the item is approved and can subsequently be selected for use in an exam.

Exam ReviewOnce the raw items have been reviewed and approved, an exam can be developed. Each item is reviewed one more time before it makes it to the exam. The exam-review workshop is where the questions on each exam are reviewed prior to exam

(Certified Manager of Quality/organizational exCellenCe exaM: developMent proCess, continued from page 1)

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

5

administration. The ASQ Exam staff creates a draft exam in accordance with the test specifications, reviews it for overlap or cueing between items, and creates a two-column version to send to the exam review team. The team consists of 12 subject matter experts who, prior to coming to the workshop, “take” the exam just as a candidate would. Half of the subject matter experts in this workshop have no previous experience with ASQ exam development, while the other half have previously participated in exam development workshops. Pre-meeting work requires about four hours from each team member. Care is taken to ensure a good mix of experienced and new exam reviewers, as well as diversity in geography and industries represented.

As in the item-review workshop, the team members are asked to comment on the items and send those comments to the ASQ Exam staff, which compiles them for the workshop. At the workshop, the committee members are trained in a variety of assessment issues and then asked to focus on items identified as “problematic” from the at-home review. After all the issues in the exam are resolved, the committee approves the exam, and it can be administered. The exam-review workshop is part of the ongoing exam development process. It is conducted once or twice a year, depending on need.

Camera-Ready ReviewAfter the exam review workshop, the exam is formatted for exam administration. There is one more review of the exam before administration. The camera-ready review is performed by the exam subcommittee and ASQ Exam staff. This review is conducted to eliminate any grammatical errors or readability issues. Exam content is not altered.

Exam AdministrationOnce the camera-ready review is completed and any grammatical and readability issues resolved, the exam is ready to be administered. The CMQ/OE exam is administered per ASQ exam and proctoring guidelines. Global administration occurs in March and October of every year, with special administrations of the exam done at various conferences and events such as World Conference on Quality and Improvement. The first administration of the CMQ/OE exam using the new body of knowledge will be in March of 2014.

Constructed Response ScoringThe CMQ/OE Exam has an additional workshop that other ASQ exams do not. Constructed response scoring is done by a team of 16 CMQ/OEs twice per year to score the constructed response (essay) portion of the exam. Smaller teams are formed throughout the year on an as-needed basis to score any constructed responses from special administrations. Prior to scoring, the team reviews and adjusts the scoring expositions and rubrics for each constructed response question offered on the exam. Each paper is then scored by two people. Consensus between the scorers is required for scores that differ by more than one point. Because no single scorer can score both responses submitted by any one candidate, it takes four scorers in order to score the two constructed response answers from each candidate.

Item AnalysisAn item analysis is performed by the ASQ exam staff and exam subcommittee after exams for which there was no change to the BOK. The statistics for each of the questions are reviewed for any anomalies. Items that scored poorly based on exam statistics are queued for additional review, sometimes a “score all” (all candidates receive credit for a correct answer) is warranted for items that tested too poorly.

Cut Score StudyThe cut score study is performed after the first administration of an exam or, as in this case, the first administration of the exam after the Body of Knowledge is updated. The role of the cut score panel is to function as advisors to the ASQ Certification Board. Discussions center upon recognition of the minimally competent “borderline” candidates. The BOK is used as a guide when outlining the minimum standard expected of a borderline CMQ/OE candidate. The group also takes the diversity of CMQ/OE candidates into consideration during these discussions. The cut score panel must be familiar with both the typical candidate who will be taking the exam (people) and the knowledge requirements of the borderline CMQ/OE candidate (content). The outcome of the cut score study is a recommended passing score for the exam to present to the ASQ Certification Board.

ConclusionThe CMQ/OE exam is a professionally developed exam facilitated by a very professional and experienced exam staff at ASQ headquarters. The Quality Management Division is proud to sponsor this exam and even prouder of the volunteers on the exam sub-committee who make it all happen. It is a demanding task to recruit and fill the various workshops with capable and competent subject matter experts. Many thanks to outgoing exam chair Karen Abrosic-Tolf from Abbot, incoming exam chair Michael Hirt from ADAC Automotive, and Miles Littlefield from Portage, Inc., as well as all the others who have served on the exam subcommittee over the past 18 years. Last but not least, none of this happens without the subject matter experts who volunteer their time and talent in order to make this one of ASQ’s premier exam offerings. They are the ones who ensure the exam is administered fairly while upholding the standards that make the CMQ/OE designation valuable to both the individuals who obtain certification and the employers and clients they work for. Visit the ASQ.org website for more information regarding the full lineup of ASQ certifications.

Jerry Rice is the Vice-Chair of Operations for the Quality Management Division of ASQ. He has spent over a decade assisting with the development of the CMQ/OE in various volunteer roles. He has served in various member leadership roles with ASQ throughout the years. He holds ASQ Certifications in Quality Engineering and Quality Auditing and has been a CMQ/OE since 1996. He has almost 30 years of manufacturing experience filling various roles in quality engineering, manufacturing engineering, quality management and operations management. He is currently the process quality engineer for the Rail Group of Trinity Industries, Inc. in Dallas. He can be reached at rice_jerry@sbcglobal.net.

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

6

Communities of Practice: From Self-Organizing to Purposeful Creation and the Role of LeadersBy Marla J. Hetzel

It is argued that the traditional bureaucratic orientation is no longer appropriate in today’s knowledge economy and increasingly complex environment and, rather, that a learning orientation is needed (Jamali, Khoury & Sahyoun, 2006). In a learning orientation, it is important that leaders accommodate the collaborative, intra-organizational dynamics of working in a knowledge economy, but the models of leadership appropriate for the past century may not accommodate such dynamics (Avolio, Walumbwa & Weber, 2009; Dodgson, 1993; Garvin, Edmondson & Gino, 2008; Gruman & Saks, 2011). Therefore, for many organizations, implementing a learning orientation is significant change (Jamali, Khoury & Sahyoun, 2006; Yukl, 2009).

An intra-organizational form increasingly being used by organizations as change agents in support of a learning orientation is the community of practice (CoP) (Borzillo, 2009; Iqauinto, Ison & Faggian,

2011; Khan & Smith, 2009; McDermott & Archibald, 2010; Rashman, Withers & Hartley, 2009; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). A CoP is generally work-related and focused on a professional activity, skill, or topic and is more specifically defined by Wenger, McDermott, and Snyder (2002, p. 4) as “a group of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise in this area by interacting in an ongoing basis” (Dubé, Bourhis & Jacob, 2005; Iqauinto, Ison & Faggian, 2011). There are three dimensions to a CoP as described in Table 1 below: domain of knowledge, community, and shared practice (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002). A CoP can be face-to-face or virtual and is not limited to an intra-organizational form since it could include other organizations, especially in a case of open innovation. For purposes of this article, a CoP is defined as face-to-face and intra-organizational.

A History of Communities of Practice: An Emerging Tension

Communities of practice were originally conceived of as grassroots and self-organizing structures with minimal management involvement (Dubé, Bourhis & Jacob, 2005; McDermott & Archibald, 2010; Swan, Scarbrough & Robertson, 2002; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). Attributed to the characteristics of spontaneity and “freedom from organizational constraints” (Swan, Scarbrough & Robertson, 2002, p. 478), CoPs are known to promote learning, enable knowledge-sharing, and help an organization achieve its goals, especially in innovation (Iqauinto, Ison & Faggian, 2011; Swan, Scarbrough & Robertson, 2002). Indeed, it has been suggested that in an environment of change, CoPs define what leaders are sometimes unable to articulate clearly to the members of the organization (Khan & Smith, 2007).

Table 1: The Dimensions of a CoP (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2002)

Dimensions of a CoP Defining Attributes

Domain of Knowledge • A “domain of knowledge” defines a set of issues and the sense of members’ identification with a topic or practice.

• Creates a common ground and a common sense of identity that enables members of the community to participate and contribute towards learning and organizational change.

• Legitimizes the CoP by affirming its purpose and value to the organization, stakeholders, and members.

• Inspires members to contribute and participate.

• Enables relevant knowledge sharing and the pursuit of appropriate activities.

Community • A “community” of people includes members who care about the domain of knowledge.

• Creates the social fabric of learning and a process of mutual engagement.

• Fosters relationships based on mutual respect and trust, reciprocity, and belonging.

• Encourages willingness to share and openness to inquiry.

Shared Practice • A “shared practice” is the practice the members of the community develop to be effective in their domain of knowledge.

• A set of frameworks, ideas, information, documents, styles, and stories members share.

• Whereas the domain of knowledge denotes the “topic” the community focuses on, the shared practice is the specific knowledge the community develops, shares, and maintains, which, in time, enables the members of the community to use the knowledge acquired to affect their work efficiency and effectiveness.

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

7

In recent years, management has become more aware of CoPs and their value to organizations (Iqauinto, Ison & Faggian, 2011). As a result, CoPs are being integrated into formal management structures with specific goals, accountability, and executive oversight to ensure they are making contributions and operating efficiently (Koliba & Gajda, 2009; McDermott & Archibald, 2010; Swan, Scarbrough & Robertson, 2002; Wenger & Snyder, 2000). However, it is argued by some that the initial concept of a CoP is in opposition to the “prescriptive ambition to manage CoPs for improved performance” (Probst & Borzillo, 2008, p. 336) and that controlling them for purposes of improving performance “displaces the emancipatory aspirations of the original notion [of a CoP]” (Swan, Scarbrough & Robertson, 2002, p. 478). As such, there is a tension as to whether or not organizations can purposefully create CoPs and, more importantly, how leaders can intentionally establish them for organizational advantage (Dubé, Bourhis & Jacob, 2005; Iqauinto, Ison & Faggian, 2011; Koliba & Gajda, 2009; Probst & Borzillo, 2008; Wenger & Snyder, 2000).

The Purposeful Creation of Communities of Practice and Leaders’ Effects on Followers

I had the opportunity to study the purposeful creation of CoPs and, more specifically, the impact of leaders on establishing them for organization advantage—to examine this so-called tension. The research setting was a non-profit organization experiencing a decline in organizational performance. The CEO initiated change to create what can be described as a learning orientation. He recognized that, as described above, a bureaucratic orientation was insufficient to meet the demands of today’s environment and would put the organization at risk of further decline. A number of CoPs were being purposefully created to serve as change agents in support of the CEO’s initiative.

For more than six months, I used a qualitative grounded theory methodology in my research, which consists of systematic yet flexible guidelines to discover theory and an iterative, inductive, and interactive process for data collection and analysis. It is well suited to the study of behavior that has an interactional element to it and focuses on how the subjective experiences of actors can elicit information on the social situation under examination. Therefore, it involves numerous data collection techniques, and I used literature reviews, unstructured and structured observations, and direct, semi-structured interviews.

The population I studied included 13 individuals from throughout the organization who were selected to manage the CoPs (“chairpersons”) and were differentiated from the leaders who were defined as those in positions of formal authority and whom the chairpersons acknowledged as sources of guidance during the process of purposefully creating the CoPs (“leaders”).

Although there are numerous definitions of leadership, it was conceptualized as an emerging effect of interaction and, to account for the models of leadership that accommodate a learning orientation, it was appropriate to understand leadership effectiveness by understanding leaders’ effects on followers—that is, the chairpersons (Bass, 1990; van Knippenberg et al., 2005). Therefore, leadership effectiveness was based on follower attitudes and perceptions, leaders’ contributions to the quality of group and organizational processes, and achieving the purposeful creation of the CoPs.

Chairpersons Establish Group Identification but Leaders Not Engaged

The chairpersons were excited about the potential for CoPs to serve as change agents—the opportunity to make change facilitated strong group identification. Within a few days of an offsite meeting

to begin the work, relationships developed and a vibrant community among the chairpersons began to emerge.

The chairpersons were committed to their task and recognized the importance of learning since the CoPs were new to them and new to the organization. Over the first few months, they interacted and dialogued in a way that facilitated shared experience and learning—and that made group identification stronger. However, leaders were not engaged and, more importantly, not sharing in the experience and the learning.

The chairpersons perceived leaders as being very important to the purposeful creation of CoPs because it represented change for the organization and they were disappointed by the lack of engagement, which connoted a lack of importance. They believed that, at the organizational level, leaders needed to communicate the value of the CoPs and help others understand their potential for serving as change agents. Furthermore, they perceived leaders as not having an appreciation for learning—including learning how to adapt their leadership style to accommodate the different way of working associated with the change espoused by the CEO.

Leaders Lack a Participatory Style and Chairpersons’ Empowerment is Compromised

As the chairpersons learned, they generated questions and asked leaders for direction. However, leaders were unable or unwilling to provide direction. The strong group identification enabled informal leaders to emerge among the chairpersons. These individuals were trusted to address the gap in leadership. They made recommendations to the leaders but, again, leaders were unable or unwilling to respond and did not share

(CoMMunities of praCtiCe: froM self-organizing to purposeful Creation and the role of leaders,

continued on page 8)

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

8

decision making. As a result, the informal leaders were unable to influence the leaders or make progress.

The lack of a participatory style of leadership impeded progress and the chairpersons realized that they were not empowered. In fact, an important determinant in empowerment is a participatory style of leadership (Yukl, 2010). In addition, the chairpersons began to question leaders’ intentions in purposefully creating CoPs.

Leaders Not Managing Change and Chairpersons’ Perception of Support is Compromised

Over the months, the chairpersons perceived leaders as having failed in their responsibility to manage change at the organizational level. In addition to a lack of direction, the change path was not evident, and buy-in had not been established. The chairpersons questioned the ability of the CoPs to serve as change agents, and their concerns were valid because CoPs are known to be vulnerable if not integrated into the organization (Wenger & Snyder, 2000). More importantly, the chairpersons themselves questioned their ability to act as change agents. They did not perceive leaders as being supportive or having a commitment to the CoPs, which was also demonstrated by their lack of engagement.

Leadership Effectiveness Through the Lens of Social Identity

The chairpersons asserted that there is a role for leaders in the purposeful creation of CoPs. Indeed, it is a role that is all the more important in an environment of change. However, they did not perceive leaders as being effective. I propose that the effectiveness of leaders can be better understood through an emerging theory called the social identity theory of leadership.

According to the social identity theory of leadership, it is important to recognize that leadership is enacted in the context of a social system (Cicero, Pierro & van Knippenberg, 2010; Uhl-Bien, 2006; van Knippenberg et al., 2005). More specifically, it is argued that as followers identify more strongly with a group, the extent to which their leader is perceived to be group prototypical (i.e., representing the collective attitudes, behaviors) becomes more influential in determining leadership effectiveness (Uhl-Bien, 2006; van Knippenberg et al., 2005). In addition, with increasing group identification, group members are more likely to endorse leaders who are perceived to be group-oriented—that is, acting in the collective’s interests (van Knippenberg et al., 2005). Therefore, identification with a group can mediate or moderate leadership effectiveness (van Knippenberg et al., 2005).

In the case of the non-profit organization I studied, there is evidence that the leaders did not display group prototypical or group-oriented characteristics. For example, leaders’ lack of participation in the process of learning was considered uncharacteristic to the group and thus not group prototypical. Some of the chairpersons highlighted that leaders make choices about how to allocate their time and with whom to interact and adapt their behavior accordingly. Thus the lack of participation also connoted unimportance to the chairpersons, which was not considered to be group-oriented.

It is also argued that efficacy is a pre-condition for group identification to be translated into action (van Knippenberg et al., 2005). The concept of efficacy can be generally described as the extent to which a group believes it can effectively accomplish a goal (Mulvey & Klein, 1998; van Knippenberg et al., 2005; Yukl, 2010). There is evidence that perceptions of efficacy are compromised by leadership’s lack of contribution to group-level and organizational-level processes. More specifically, at the group level, the lack

of a participatory style of leadership compromises the chairpersons’ perceptions of empowerment, which is positively related to efficacy (van Knippenberg et al., 2005). In addition, the lack of change management taking place at the organizational level compromises the chairpersons’ perceptions of support, both as individuals and as a group. Likewise, supportive behaviors demonstrated by leadership are positively correlated with efficacy (van Kippenberg et al., 2004).

A Call to Action

So, back to that so-called tension. At the conclusion of my research, I came to agree with a sentiment shared by internationally renowned academic and author Henry Mintzberg, who states, “Community requires a more modest form of leadership that might be called engaged or distributed management” (Mintzberg, 2009, p. 141). Indeed, I would argue that leaders need to confront their loyalty to the legacy practices associated with the models of leadership that fit the traditional bureaucratic orientation and to adopt models of leadership and learn the practices that will encourage a learning orientation and the purposeful creation of CoPs. But what does that look like in practice?

To better describe the role of leaders in the purposeful creation CoPs, I referenced a classic model used to analyze leadership effectiveness and found to be particularly effective in the context of organizational change (Battilana et al., 2010; Yukl, 2009). It includes two competencies: person-oriented and task-oriented (Battilana et al., 2010; Yukl, 2009). The person-oriented skills are described as behaviors that include promoting trust and collaborative interaction among organizational members and establishing a supportive social climate (Bass, 1990; Battilana et al., 2010; Yukl, 2009). Person-oriented behaviors build identification with a team, which is relevant to group identification (Yukl, 2010). The task-oriented skills are described

(CoMMunities of praCtiCe: froM self-organizing to purposeful Creation and the role of leaders, continued from page 7)

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

9

as behaviors that include improving efficiency, establishing routines to achieve organizational goals and objectives, and coordinating activities (Bass, 1990; Battilana et al., 2010; Yukl, 2010).

I recommend that leaders use three approaches to produce group identification and perceptions of efficacy when purposefully creating CoPs. First, leaders should use direct forms of leadership characterized by interaction in order to display group prototypical and group-oriented attitudes and behaviors and thus engender group identification. Second, they should use person-oriented behaviors at the group level to facilitate perceptions of empowerment. Third, they should use person-oriented and task-oriented behaviors at the organizational level to facilitate perceptions of support. It is especially through the latter two approaches that perceptions of efficacy will be facilitated. In the absence of group identification and perceptions of efficacy, the purposeful creation of CoPs may be compromised.

At the close of my research study, the CoPs were officially launched in the organization. However, the chairpersons were uncertain about the future. They did not perceive the purposeful creation as having been completed and did not think that two of the dimensions, domain of knowledge and shared practice had been established. They speculated that the CoPs may become informal networks and, therefore, have a limited role, if any, in serving as change agents.

ReferencesAvolio, B., Walumbwa, F., & Weber, T. (2009). Leadership:

Current theories, research, and future directions. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449.

Battilana, J., Gilmartin, M., Sengul, M., Pache, A., & Alexander, J. (2010). Leadership competencies for implementing planned organizational change. Leadership Quarterly, 21, 422–38.

Bass, B. (1990) Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership theory, research, and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New York: The Free Press,

Borzillo, S. (2009). Top management sponsorship to guide communities of practice. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(3), 60–72.

Cicero, L., Pierro, A., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2010). Leadership and uncertainty: How role ambiguity affects the relationship between leader group prototypicality and leadership effectiveness. British Journal of Management, 21, 411–421.

Dodgson, M. (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures. Organization Studies, 14(3), 375–394.

Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R. (2005). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2), 145–166.

Garvin, D., Edmondson, A., & Gino, F. (2008, March). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 3–11.

Gruman, J. & Saks, A. (2011). Performance management and employee engagement. Human Resource Management Review, 21, 123–136.

Iqauinto, B., Ison, R., & Faggian, R. (2011). Creating communities of practice: Scoping purposeful design. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(1), 4–21.

Jamali, D., Khoury, G. & Sahyoun, H. (2006). From bureaucratic organizations to learning organizations, an evolutionary roadmap. The Learning Organization, 13(4), 337–352.

Khan, Z. & Smith, N. (2007). Driving change: Use communities of practice. Leadership Excellence, 24(7). 10–11.

Koliba, C. & Gajda, R. (2009). Communities of practice as an analytical construct: Implications for theory and practice. International Journal of Public Administration, 32, 97–135.

McDermott, R. & Archibald, D. (2010, March). Harnessing your staff’s informal networks. Harvard Business Review, 83–89.

Mintzberg, H. (2009, July-August). Rebuilding companies as communities. Harvard Business Review, 40–43.

Mulvey, P. & Klein, H. (1988). The impact of perceived loafing and collective efficacy on group goal process and group performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 74(1), 62–87.

Probst, G., & Borzillo, S. (2008). Why communities of practice succeed and why they fail. European Management Journal, 26. 35–37.

Rashman, L., Withers, E., & Hartley, J. (2009). Organizational learning and knowledge in public sector organizations: A systematic review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 11(4), 463–494.

Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Robertson, M. (2002). The construction of “Communities of Practice” in the management of Innovation. Management Learning, 33(4), 477–496.

Uhl-Bein, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social process of leadership and organizing. Leadership Quarterly,17, 654–676.

Van Knippenberg, B., Van Knippenberg, D., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. (2005) Research in leadership, self, and Identity: A sample of the present and a glimpse of the future. Leadership Quarterly, 16, 495–499.

Van Knippenburg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., De Cremer, D., & Hogg, M. (2004). Leadership, self, and identity: A review and research agenda. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 825–856.

Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Wenger, E. & Snyder, W. (2000, January-February). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 139–145.

Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in Organizations (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Yukl, G. (2009). Leading organizational learning: Reflections on theory and research. Leadership Quarterly, 20, 49–53.

Marla J. Hetzel is an innovation professional based in Washington DC. Her interests include community, emerging theories of leadership, innovation, organizational learning, change management, and employee engagement. In 2012, she earned an MS in managing organizational performance from Cranfield University in England. She can be reached at hetzelmj@hotmail.com.

A New QMD Sub-Group on Linkedin!Having just launched in 2012 the “Organizational Excellence Technical Committee,” the OETC Linkedin Group now has over 350 members from 42 countries participating in rich, experiential discussions on various Excellence Frameworks.

Are you interested in the use of excellence criteria such as Baldrige, EFQM, and others to help organizations of all types attain higher levels of performance? Then join the QMDs Organizational Excellence Technical Committee (OETC) on Linkedin. The OETC goals are to be a reference point on excellence frameworks and models; to contribute to a body of knowledge on excellence models; to promote the use of international, national and local excellence programs; to share case studies, lessons learned, and success stories about performance; to make assessment tools available; and to show how quality methods and tools integrate with excellence models. Also visit our webpage for a list of resource materials at http://www.asq-qm.org/organizational-excellence.

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

1 0

Book ReviewBy Milton Krivokuca, DBA

Implementing ISO/IEC 17025:2005: A Practical Guide Bhavan “Bob” Mehta Milwaukee, WI: ASQ Quality Press, 2013

Implementing ISO/IEC 17025:2005: A Practical Guide, by Bhavan “Bob” Mehta, is the most recent ASQ Press publication authored by a subject matter expert with extensive practical experience in ISO and Quality Management Systems (QMS). ASQ: The Global Voice of Quality is an organization recognized for publications that reflect current quality theories and methodologies. This practical guide provides a combination of theory and practical examples to assist with implementation of ISO 17025, a laboratory-specific certification standard universally recognized as a QMS for laboratories.

For a manager or organization not familiar with the ISO (QMS) standards, considering implementation can be an overwhelming experience. The format and complexity of the actual published

ISO standard is very formal and intimidating. Implementing ISO/IEC 17025:2005: A Practical Guide reviews each element of this standard by providing a basic explanation of the activities an organization must include in its QMS to comply with the standard. After each element, author Mehta provides a very basic checklist for the internal quality auditor to assess the organization’s QMS for compliance.

Laboratories are typically subject to very strict regulations as required by the nature of their products or services, as well as elements of industry-specific standards such as ISO 9001, ISO 13485, and AS 9100. Organizations with these existing certifications and an internal laboratory within their operations could consider including any of the specific elements of ISO 17025 to provide a basis for objective evidence of improvements to their existing ISO certification. Many elements of ISO 17025 are common to other ISO standards, and the selective implementation of specific elements is a natural progression for the maturation of a QMS. Even if an organization does not seek to certify to ISO 17025, elements of this standard can be identified as compliant and contained in the existing QMS.

Implementing ISO/IEC 17025:2005: A Practical Guide can also be very helpful for an organization in the developmental stages of a QMS. The explanations and audit question examples are written in a universal and general structure that can be commonly applied to laboratories in most any industry. The basic requirements of a QMS are explained in a very process-focused format. The development work for each process is subdivided by area of focus and responsibility. Implementation teams will find the explanations very basic and highly applicable to all laboratory environments.

ASQ Press and Bob Mehta have joined to provide another practical guide that deconstructs the intimidating complexity of an ISO standard into a practical and hands-on model for successful implementation and ultimate ISO certification.

Dr. Milton Krivokuca, ASQ-QMD Chair 2012–2013, is the Quality Program Coordinator at California State University Dominguez Hills. He is a subject matter expert in Quality Management Systems (QMS). He is a contributing author to the CMQ/OE Handbook, 4th edition. He has presented numerous papers related to QMS at conferences throughout the United States, Canada, Middle East, and Asia. Dr. Krivokuca advises master’s degree students with their research work and instructs numerous ASQ Certification refresher courses. He has earned nine ASQ certifications and three additional professional certifications. Milt can be reached at milt619@cox.net.

IMDS DATA

We can create your data and submit within 72 hours!

We do the work and invoice you

References found on our website

Based in US

Call (734) 205-8874 or visit imdsdata.org

IMDS DATAMember of the American Society for Quality

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

1 1

Book ReviewBy Robert Spencer

Lean Six Sigma and Minitab: The Complete Toolbox Guide for all Lean Six Sigma Practitioners Quentin Brook Hampshire, UK: OPEX Resources Ltd., 2010

When we start out on a big project, it’s like beginning an extensive trip—we’ll get to our destination sooner and more comfortably if we have a good roadmap to follow. That is just what’s offered in this pocket guide. The entire Six Sigma and Lean process improvement strategy is laid out from start to finish through the DMAIC phases, showing the array of tools and techniques used along the way. A big bonus in this guide is the extensive presentation of examples showing how to analyze and interpret process improvement data using Minitab. This guide fills a unique need in demonstrating the integration of Six Sigma and Lean methodologies with the power of the Minitab statistical analysis software package.

The book can easily be used to design a Six Sigma Lean project. Most routine templates (e.g., project charter, FMEA table, Pugh diagram and so on) are provided via download from the publisher’s website. These templates have a common “look and feel,” making for a consistent and attractive presentation of your results. In addition, numerous Minitab example analyses are displayed. Pointers are offered to customize graph and data outputs to be more understandable by decision makers. The format of the presentation of Six Sigma and Lean tools and Minitab analysis setup and output interpretation should fit well with team members who have some training (green belts). The guide should also be an excellent training resource for more experienced belts who are coaching and mentoring team members. It could first be used as a training text and then kept at the ready as newly acquired skills are applied in a real-world process improvement project.

There are several outstanding free resources that come with the pocket guide. First, the author provides a customized menu that can be added to Minitab to ease the task of finding commonly used Six Sigma and Lean graphing and statistical analysis procedures. This drop-down menu is easily installed and allows selection of procedure groups for statistical analysis, statistical process control, graphical analysis, and hypothesis testing from a single consolidated menu.

Second, dozens of data files and Minitab script files are provided for readers who want to practice further with examples presented in the guide. These resources show the data setup and procedure instructions to obtain the analysis output, and more importantly, how the source data must be configured in the Minitab data file.

Finally, a Six Sigma Tool Finder app (for Android and iOS) provides a high-level summary of each tool and technique explained in the text. These summaries are accessed through an

interactive DMAIC roadmap, making this a valuable addition to allow selection of tools quicker and with greater certainty about appropriateness.

I had the good fortune of meeting the pocket guide author Quentin Brook at the ASQ World Conference on Quality Improvement in Indianapolis last May. I obtained the print version of the guide, which is 7 X 8¼ inches and about 1¼ inches thick. This is actually larger than “pocket size,” but the guide is easy to carry around and the spiral binding makes it a pleasure to use since pages can be laid flat for easier viewing. An iBook version is available for iPads and includes additional instructional videos.

At last count I have nearly two dozen references in my library on Six Sigma and Lean practices. Although I would not want to part with many of these resources, I could do rather nicely in most process improvement projects with just this pocket guide as a reference. The guide’s subtitle: The Complete Toolbox Guide for all Lean Six Sigma Practitioners accurately states the utility of this book to business process improvement leaders and the members of their Six Sigma and Lean teams.

To obtain a copy of this pocket guide visit www.opexresources.com. Be sure to download the customized Minitab menu for Six Sigma and Lean and the data files and templates to go along with the many examples shown in the guide. The guide is now in its 3rd edition, with over 90,000 copies having been sold.

For publisher and online orders: Web: www.opexresources.com Email: info@opexresources.com ISBN: 978-0-9546813-6-4

Robert Spencer is the editor of the Quality Management Forum.

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

1 2

Quality Management Journal PreviewAs a continuing feature of the QMF, we are showcasing the most recent articles in our sister publication, the Quality Management Journal (QMJ). The QMF focuses on the practical application of quality principles, and the QMJ focuses on the research aspect of quality. We hope that you will visit their website and begin the synthesis process of merging theory with application to advance the field of quality. http://www.asq.org/pub/qmj/index.html

The QMJ provides relevant knowledge about quality management practice that is grounded in rigorous research. They seek:

• Empirical articles that provide objective evidence concerning actual quality management practice and its effectiveness.

• Research case studies that consider either a single application or a small number of cases.

• Management theory articles that present significant new insight and demonstrated practice.

• Review articles that create links to the existing academic literature and aid in the development of an identifiable quality management academic literature.

Here is a summary of their most recent articles.

QMJ vol. 20, no. 2 IntroductionThank You

This is the first issue of the Quality Management Journal (QMJ) for which I have had the honor of serving as the editor. I want to thank all of the members of the Editorial Advisory and Editorial Review Boards who have generously contributed their time to making this journal a success. Without the generous donation of so much time by members of these boards, there could be no journal. I also want to start my tenure as editor of QMJ by thanking Dr. James R. Evans for his great help in preparing this issue and in making the transition between editors successful. Those of you who have done this work can appreciate the amount of work involved. I also want to thank the QMJ administrative staff, particularly the publisher, William Tony, and the manuscript coordinator, Valerie Ellifson, for patient guidance during the process.

Book Review Section

This issue of QMJ also has a new book review editor, Dr. Nicole Radziwell, and a new associate book review editor, Dr. Matthias Thürer. Both are very qualified for their positions. Dr. Radziwell is an active member of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) quality community. She is an

ASQ Fellow and past chair of the ASQ Software Division. She is also a certified Six Sigma Black Belt and a national examiner for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. She was recognized in Quality Progress in 2011 as one of the 40 New Voices of Quality and currently blogs as part of ASQ’s Influential Voices (http://qualityandinnovation.com). She is also an assistant professor in the Department of Integrated Science & Technology at James Madison University, where she enjoys teaching statistics. Dr. Thürer is an international scholar, having worked in Portugal and Brazil as well as Germany. Through his work on the use of workload control to introduce Lean operations into job shops (http://www.workloadcontrol.com/home) he developed a deep appreciation of the importance of quality because of its importance to Lean operations. These editors are constantly looking for books that could be of particular interest to QMJ’s readers. If you have ideas about books to review, or if you want to write a review of a particular book, please contact Dr. Nicole Radziwell at nicole.radziwill@gmail.com.

Striving to Fulfill the Quality Management Journal’s Mission

The QMJ actively contributes to the development of the quality profession throughout the world by striving to be the first choice of those who want to learn more about quality management and for those engaged in research efforts to further develop managers’ theoretical understanding of quality management. Since QMJ ’s first editor, William A. Golomski, QMJ has sought to be recognized as the home of thought leaders in the field of quality management. QMJ has long sought to “link the efforts of academic researchers and quality management practitioners … [and] provide a forum for communicating and discussing research findings.” (QMJ Aims and Scopes). To accomplish this, QMJ must strive to publish original research that will continue to increase the understanding of quality management systems in both service and manufacturing companies.

New QMJ Section

To ensure that our research addresses the most pressing problems in both the service and manufacturing industries, and to increase dialogue between practitioners and researchers, QMJ will begin to publish “Perspective” articles. The first of these articles is in this issue. The QMJ Perspective section is modeled on the Perspective section published in Science. These are not research articles; rather, they are the perspective of individuals who have a unique expertise or voice that needs to be shared with the practitioner and quality community.

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

1 3

It is hoped that these articles will identify research problems that need to be explored and fruitful areas for collaboration between practitioners and researchers. The perspective article should provide insight into current quality management research or provide an overview of the quality management field and insights about the research gaps and needs in the field. A perspective paper is not a research paper, although it is peer reviewed. It is a thought piece that to be valuable needs to be grounded in both experience and the research literature. The first Perspective article in this series provides a nurse’s view of quality management in a hospital. Sue Sietz, the author, provides insight from her more than 35 years of experience in various nursing positions as well as her work with various professional associations.

Focused Issues of QMJ

If you are interested in editing a special issue about an aspect of quality management or about quality management in a particular field, please submit your idea to me at flawren@clemson.edu. Some suggestions for future focused issues include: 1) the role of nurses in quality of health care delivery services; 2) the role of the middle manager in continuous improvement efforts; 3) how incentive reward systems affect quality management; 4) the effectiveness of ISO 9001 in providing a structure for continuous improvement; and 5) the use of Hoshin planning/deployment systems or target cascading to implement continuous improvement programs.

Lawrence Fredendall, Editor flawren@clemson.edu

QMJ vol. 20, no. 2 Executive BriefsPerspectives of a Clinical Nurse Specialist About Improving the Quality of Nursing ServicesSusan Seitz, University Medical Center, Greenville Hospital System

The author of this Perspective article, Susan Seitz, has more than 35 years of nursing experi ence and has been a leader in her hospital as well as her profession. While she acknowledges the great progress made in providing high-quality health care delivery services, she points out that as a profession, nursing has not fully implemented quality metrics that can be used to improve the quality of deliv ered services. She suggests that quality management researchers partner with nursing managers to investigate what process measures should be used within the various fields of nursing and to determine how these process measures affect system performance.

A Framework for Leading the Transformation to Performance Excellence, Part I: CEO Perspectives on Forces, Facilitators, and Strategic Leadership Systems John R. Latham, University of Northern Colorado

This article describes a framework for Leading the Transformation to Performance Excellence (LTPE) that is based on structured interviews with 14 CEOs who successfully led organi zational transformations and were recognized as Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award recipi ents. The LTPE consists of five categories of concepts: forces and facilitators of change, leadership approaches, leadership behaviors, individual leader characteristics, and organizational culture char acteristics. These concepts and their relationships are explained in detail. A valuable contribution of the article is that it then uses the LTPE to identify nine pro cesses used by the CEOs to lead the change in their company and provides a view of a strategic lead ership system that leaders can use to help transform their organi zation by creating a customized strategic leadership system.

An Integrated Framework for Service Quality: SQBOK PerspectiveRajesh Kumar Tyagi, HEC Montreal, Nikhil Varma, HEC Montreal, and Navneet Viydarthi, Concordia University

With the service sector mak ing up such a large portion of the total gross domestic prod uct in most OECD countries, it’s important to understand the determinants of service quality. One of the major challenges in managing service quality is the lack of a common definition of services and a general lack of a standard measurement system originating from the intangible nature of the services.

After a thorough study of the literature in the area of service quality and a perception of a gap for the service quality practitioner, the Service Quality Division of ASQ undertook a project to identify a common definition of services and a framework that could serve as a theoretical formulation. The stated objective of the project was to foster the knowledge and pro fessional development needs of the service quality community.

Researchers adopted brain storming, affinity diagram, Delphi techniques, and interview-based methods to identify and define four key concepts and seven knowledge areas. The research teams worked to come up with the current ver sion of the Service Quality Body of Knowledge (SQBOK). SQBOK provides a holistic view of ser vice quality and broadens the definition of services and service quality. It also provides a body of knowledge representing a unique perspective on the application of quality principles.

(Quality ManageMent Journal preview, continued on page 14)

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

1 4

Front-line Employee ver sus Customer Perceptions of Quality Attributes Anne Julien, Reims Management School, and Christina Tsoni, Champagne Business School

While managers and aca demics have examined customer perceptions of quality in many studies, front-line employees’ (FLEs) perceptions of quality do not appear to have been suffi-ciently studied, and FLEs have a crucial role in delivering quality. FLE assessments of quality attri butes may be quite different than those of customers. Therefore, the authors of this article carried out a comparative quantitative study to answer some questions about FLEs’ perceptions of service quality.

This study was conducted within a regional French banking firm. It examined the perceptions financial advisors (FAs) employed by the firm had about their cus tomer expectations. They used the SERVQUAL tool to measure the customers’ expectations and to identify any gaps between the measured customer expectations and the perceived expectations of the FA. They found that employee perceptions of the customer expec-tations differed from the actual customer expectations, but that the size and type of gaps depended on the customer segment. They suggested that the gaps may occur because the FA cannot actually evaluate their customer expecta tions without evaluating their own performance. So, a technique they suggested to reduce this gap was to involve the FA in setting the bank goals and target objectives for their own performance.

QMJ vol. 20, no. 3 IntroductionBook Reviews

The book review editor, Nicole Radziwill, and the associate book review editor, Matthias Thürer, have prepared three insightful reviews. These three reviews span a range of interests of QMJ’s readers. Thürer reviewed an older book about hoshin kanri because hoshin is an unappreciated tool that can integrate quality management at both the strategic and shop-floor level. The second book Thürer reviewed is about performance metrics, which he found to be a very informative book about how to better coordinate operations using the appropriate performance metrics. Radziwill also reviewed a book of strategic importance. This book builds on using Deming’s philosophy to explain how to build highly capable organizations that are based on trust and respect.

If you have ideas about books to review, or if you want to write a review of a particular book, please contact Nicole Radziwill at nicole.radziwill@gmail.com.

Perspectives Articles

There are two Perspective articles in this issue. The first, “Deming-Based Lean Six Sigma Management as an Answer to Escalating Hospital Costs,” by Howard Gitlow and Abraham Gitlow, builds on the authors’ decades of experience in quality management to offer suggestions about how to improve healthcare using insights from quality theory. The second, “Time-Relevant Metrics in an Era of Continuous Process Improvement: The Balanced Scorecard Revisited,” by Richard Schonberger, provides insights from decades of experience as a management consultant and author of multiple books about world-class manufacturing techniques about the role of performance metrics in achieving process improvement.

Research Articles

The second article in a two-part series about leadership and organizational transformation is provided by John Latham, who used grounded theory to establish a framework to lead the transformation of a company to performance excellence. Prakah Singh et al.’s article, “Deming Management Method: Subjecting Theory to Moderating and Contextual Effects,” is an empirical examination of the Deming management method in the public sector.

Lawrence Fredendall, Editor flawren@clemson.edu

QMJ vol. 20, no. 3 Executive BriefsDeming-Based Lean Six Sigma Management as an Answer to Escalating Hospital Costs Howard S. Gitlow, University of Miami, and Abraham L. Gitlow, New York University

The cost of medical care in the United States is increasing dramatically. One reason for this could be the “traditional management” paradigm, which views process variation as good or bad, uses management by objectives for decision making without considering the causes of process variation, and endorses a performance appraisal system to reward or “punish” employees for achieving, or failing to achieve, objectives. In this article, the authors explain the problems with these components of traditional management and offer a solution, which they call “professional management.” Professional management offers an alternative view of variation in a process. It creates the cultural transformation needed to control escalating healthcare costs. Professional management requires the top management of health care organizations to be committed to the Deming-Based Lean Six Sigma Management paradigm.

(Quality ManageMent Journal preview, continued from page 13)

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

1 5

Time-Relevant Metrics in an Era of Continuous Process Improvement: The Balanced Scorecard Revisited Richard J. Schonberger

This article addresses the importance of using performance metrics that support continuous process improvement (CPI) and its customer-centered benefits. A large number of methodologies make up CPI, and these have spawned their own large set of targeted performance measures. These are largely targeted to the eyes of the customer, including better quality and quicker, more flexible response. By replacing the inward-looking, control-focused conventional system with CPI, a more outward-directed approach, it emerges as a potential solution for improving the competitiveness and durability of an organization. At the middle and senior management levels, performance management metrics remain largely unchanged, and to some extent these indicators interfere with CPI best practices. The balanced scorecard mixes short, medium, and long lag-time metrics. The authors suggest intensively managing with the strong short-term CPI metrics to keep CPI alive and on track. The weaker medium- and long-lag metrics are better used for managerial oversight through multiperiod trend watching. Modifications such as these by upper management will help avoid errors of micro-management, while encouraging visits to CPI action zones, which will lead to a better appreciation for the value of a strong CPI effort.

A Framework for Leading the Transformati on to Performance Excellence Part II: CEO Perspectives on Leadership Behaviors, Individual Leader Characteristics, and Organizational Culture John R. Latham, University of Northern Colorado

This is the second in a series of two articles that describe the results of a qualitative, multiple case study that used grounded theory methods based on in-depth interviews with 14 CEOs who led successful organization transformations, resulting in recognition as Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award recipients. The article describes a framework for leading the transformation to performance excellence (LTPE) from the top. This framework includes 35 concepts organized into five categories. This article explores three of the five categories in depth: leader behaviors, individual leader characteristics, and organizational culture. It describes the elements of each individual component along with supporting data, explains relationships to other components, and identifies

linkages to theory. It also identifies and discusses several current leadership theories including transformational and transactional leadership, servant leadership, and spiritual leadership. In addition, the article identifies and discussses implications for theory and practice.

Deming Management Method: Subjecting Theory to Moderating and Contextual Effects Prakash J. Singh, University of Melbourne, Chua Ming Wee Dean, University of Melbourne, Australia, and Sum Chee-Chuong, National University of Singapore

Many organizations seek to systematically and sustainably improve the quality of their products or services, and practices such as quality management have been shown to help organizations achieve this outcome. W. Edwards Deming, a prominent personality of the quality management movement, wrote his “14 Points of Management,” the ideas of which became known as the Deming Management Method (DMM). These ideas were appealing to many practitioners in manufacturing organizations in the United States and other Western countries, who found it difficult to compete with companies from Japan and others. Despite the popularity of Deming’s ideas, evidence of their efficacy is lacking, and several important research questions remain relating to the impact of factors that operate at different levels—that is, the theory has been tested at the organizational level but not at the individual level—as well as the applicability of the theory in various industry sectors and countries. This article addresses the aforementioned research gaps and issues through an empirical study, where DMM was tested with data from 367 individual employees from five public-sector organizations in Singapore. The results provide a relatively positive appraisal of the DMM theory as it applies across organizations in new industry and country contexts. They also learned that some individual-level metrics have a moderating influence on how the theory is perceived and used in the workplace.

1 6

ASQ JOINT AUDIT DIVISION AND QUALITY MANAGEMENT DIVISION CONFERENCE“QUALITY REVOLUTION…EVOLUTION”

JR McGeeManaging Partner and CEOX-Stream Leadership Group, LLC

Denise RobitailleQuality Management Systems SpecialistRobitaille Associates

John KnappenbergerPresident and CEOANSI-ASQ National Accreditation Board

Paul PalmesPresident, Business Standards Architects, Inc. of Fargo, ND and Prescott, WI

Tim McKayExecutive Vice President, Growth and Regional Development, Dallas Area Rapid Transit

October 10–11, 2013 • Hilton El Conquistador Resort • Tucson, AZPresented by ASQ’s Audit Division partnering with the Quality Management Division and the Design and Construction Division

AuditDivisionThe Global Voice of QualityTM

Design & ConstructionDivisionThe Global Voice of QualityTM

Quality ManagementDivisionThe Global Voice of QualityTM

Many thanks to our Conference Sponsors:

Platinum: Design and Construction DivisionGold: Hilton El Conquistador ResortSilver: EtQ, Minitab, Sustaining Edge Solutions, Inc. Bronze: X-Stream

Training: Eight tutorials are being offered, including three associated with certification exams (CQA, CMQ/OE, and CQIA). There are courses for beginners and courses for more seasoned professionals. For a complete list of tutorials visit http://2013auditconference.com/Refreshers_Tutorials.php.

Networking: The conference attendees have varied work histories and experience. Some attendees are experienced professionals who might have job openings, and others are just beginning their journey into the quality profession. There will be several opportunities to network with others, including breakfast, lunch, and breaks at the conference; the Division Business Meeting; Thursday evening opening reception; and the Friday afternoon closing reception.

Books and book signings: Many of the presenters at the conference are authors. Various books will be available at the on-site bookstore, and some authors will do book signings.

Tracks and Sessions: There are four tracks with a variety of sessions. For descriptions of the sessions, visit http://2013auditconference.com/Program.html.

Certification exams: Six certification exams will be held on the Saturday after the conference. Go to http://2013auditconference.com/On-Site_Exams.html for the registration links. The application deadline is August 30, 2013.

Sponsors and exhibits: One of the highlights of the conference is the opportunity to talk to the sponsors in the exhibit area to find out more about their products or services.

To register, go to https://asq.org/conferences/audit/2013/registration.html.

AS

Q J

OIN

T A

UD

IT D

IVIS

ION

AN

D Q

UA

LITY

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

DIV

ISIO

N C

ON

FER

EN

CE

AS®

1 7

The Handbook for Quality Management: A Complete Guide to Operational Excellence Second Edition, 2013*By Russell T. Westcott

Thomas Pyzdek and Paul Keller make a worthy contribution to the quality management field and provide excellent study material for the CMQ/OE certification exam.

These authors present a progression that differs from the ASQ Handbook’s tracking with the CMQ/OE body of knowledge. This book is more integrated for direct work application than for exam prep and provides more of the “how to do” than many past and present texts on quality management practices.

There is a strong emphasis on Six Sigma and the Define-Measure-Analyze-Improve-Control (DMAIC) model. The concepts and usage of Quality Function Deployment, Theory of Constraints, process variation, analysis, management, and control are detailed in quite understandable language. There is excellent coverage of change initiation-project management, and measurement. Anecdotes of real-life situations and applications are strategically placed within the book.

The authors have cleverly and skillfully woven the quality principles, techniques, and practices into the fabric of managing quality. The flow of topics begins with Business-Integrated Quality Systems, and discusses Organizational Structures, The Quality Function, Approaches to Quality, and Customer-Focused Organizations. Integrated Planning follows with Strategic Planning, Understanding Customer Expectations and Needs, Benchmarking, and Organizational Assessment. Process Control delves into Quantifying Process Variation, Quality Audits, and Supply Chain Management. Continuous Improvement deals with Effective Change Management followed by the Define Stage, the Measure Stage,

the Analyze Stage, the Improve/Design Stage, and ending with the Control/Verify Stage. Management of Human Resources defines Motivation Theories and Principles, Management Styles, and concludes with Resource Requirements to Manage the Quality Function. Four appendices are: Control Chart Constants, Control Chart Equations, Area under the Standard Normal Curve, and Simulated Certification Exam Questions. References are listed. Quality terms and techniques are defined and explained in situ, therefore there is no glossary.

Wisdom and practical advice are sprinkled within, such as:

“We must also ask of each present activity, product, process, or market, ‘If we weren’t already doing this, would we start?’”

“Managers often spend inordinate time chasing higher productivity for their own departments, without much concern for whether the whole system benefits or not.”

“Customers who are satisfied with the way in which their complaints are handled are more likely to patronize a firm in the future than customers who had no complaints.”

“Acceptance sampling methods… have absolutely no place in a modern quality organization. They should be soundly rejected by the quality professional.” (A rationale is given.).

“Effective quality auditing can prevent problems by uncovering situations that, while still acceptable, are trending toward an eventual problem.”

“Formal rules are often responses to past problems, and they continue to exist long after the reason for their existence has passed.”

“Value is only relevant at a specific price and point in time. One common problem in specifying value is that organizations tend to concentrate on what they are able to deliver, rather than what the customers really want.”

“Inventories hide problems, such as unpredictable or low process yields, equipment failure, or uneven production levels.”

“…problems with quality costs is that they measure negatives, rather than the lack of positives. Quality is not only the absence of negatives (e.g., defects) it is the presence of desirable features.”

The authors have given explanations, definitions, charts, figures, tables and formulas to exemplify the principles and practices of quality management. This book will help instructors to guide course participants in assimilating the BoK topics as an integrated system, and to provide additional information for answering detailed questions.

IT’S A MUST READ.

Russ Westcott is an ASQ Fellow, CQA, and CMQ/OE. He is editor of the ASQ Certified Manager of Quality/Organizational Excellence Handbook, 4th ed. and a co-editor of the ASQ Quality Improvement Handbook, 2nd ed. Russ instructs the ASQ CMQ/OE refresher course nationwide. He writes for Quality Progress, Quality Management Forum, the Auditor, and other publications.

Reach Russ at russwest@snet.net or 263 Main Street, Suite 100, Old Saybrook, CT 06475.

* McGraw-Hill ISBN978-0-07-179924-9

QMF Book Summary

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

1 8

To see a QMD organization chart and complete roster of QMD officers, committee chairs, and volunteers, go to the QMD Organization pages on the QMD Web site at www.asq-qmd.org .

ChairMilt KrivokucaCell: (949) 892-7994E-Mail: milt619@cox.net

Chair ElectKenneth F. SadlerSadler ConsultingOffice Phone: (902) 835-7482Fax: (902) 835-7482E-Mail: sadler@ns.sympatico.ca

Past ChairJd Marhevko,JQLC, Inc.Principal ConsultantOffice/Cell: (419) 704-5603 E-Mail: jdmarkevko@frontier.com

SecretaryPeggy MilzL3 Communications—Crestview AerospaceOffice Phone: (850) 682-2746 ext. 568Fax: (903) 457-9883E-Mail: Peggy.Milz@l-3com.com

TreasurerSandra LowOffice Phone: (902) 827-3676E-Mail: sandralow@eastlink.ca

Vice-Chair, MembershipJanice A. TuckerQuality Manager—MetaldynePhone: (734) 604-7354E-Mail: JanTucker@Metaldyne.com

Vice-Chair, MarketingEllen C. QuinnQuality Programs ManagementNorthrop GrummanOffice Phone: (703) 907-4060Cell: (240) 606-2814E-Mail: Ellen.Quinn@ngc.com

Vice-Chair, Print InitiativesRobert SpencerCalifornia State University, Dominguez HillsOffice Phone: (314) 395-3383E-Mail: rspencer@csudh.edu

Vice-Chair, Face-to-Face InitiativesBill HackettValley Psychiatric Service, Inc.Cell: (508) 561-9336E-Mail: bhackett@valleypsychiatric.com

Vice-Chair, e-Blast InitiativesRonald L. MeierIllinois State UniversityOffice Phone: (309) 438-2905E-mail: rlmeier@ilstu.edu

Vice-Chair, OperationsJerry RiceOffice Phone: (573) 248-1707Cell: (217) 779-7605E-Mail: rice_jerry@sbcglobal.net

Vice-Chair, Technical CommitteesClaud RusseyFusion QHSEOffice Phone: (832) 282-0245E-Mail: claud@fusionqhse.com

QMD Officers

ADVISORY COMMIT TEE (WOW COMMIT TEE)

R o n B a n eBil l D e n n e y

A r t Tr e p a nie r

G r ac e D u f f yJ ac k M o r a n

R u s s We s t c o t t

TREASURER

S a n d r a L o w CHAIR-ELECT

K e n S a dle rPAST-CHAIR

J D M a r h e v ko

DEPUT Y TREASURER

O p e nCONFERENCE / ICQI CHAIR

H e a t h e r M c C ain D a v id L i t t le

ARR ANGEMENTS CHAIR

A n n e M o y e r

QMD AUDIT CHAIR

Dic k M a t t h e w s

AUDIT SUP T

D e a n B o t t o r f f

Program ChairMike EnsbyThane Russey- Gayle Norman

Speakers List ChairSteve Bogar- James Head

Training & WorkshopsDave Little

Conf Registration ChairGayle Norman

Booth Management ChairBill Hackett InterimEllen Quinn

Welcome Chair- Bill Hackett Interim

VICE-CHAIROPER ATIONS

Jerry Rice

Operations ManualJd Marhevko- Debbie Hausauer

CMQ/OE Exam Chair (Cert Board Committee)Karen Ambrosic-Tolf- Michael Hirt

CMQ/OE Exam Liaison (Workshops)Karen Ambrosic-Tolf- Michael Hirt- Miles Littlefield

By-LawsDavid Little

DEPUT Y VICE-CHAIR OPER ATIONS

Karen Ambrosic-TolfMichael Hirt

VICE-CHAIRTECHNICAL

COMMIT TEES

Claud Russey

TC Chair Organizational ExcellencePrashant Hoskote

TC Chair Risk ManagementRon Meier

TC Chair Public HealthGrace Duffy- Pierce Story

TC Chair Innovation & Value CreationOpen

TC Chair Finance & GovernanceDan Zrymiak

TC Chair Social ResponsibilityJack Moran

DEPUT Y VICE-CHAIR TECHNICAL

COMMIT TEES

Jack Moran

VICE-CHAIRFACE-TO-FACE

INITIATIVES

Heather McCain

DEPUT Y VICE-CHAIR FACE-TO-FACE

INITIATIVES

Bill Hackett

Marketing Communications CoordinatorEllen Quinn Interim- Open

Partnership LiaisonDoug Wood

VOC ChairDennis Lapp

VICE-CHAIRMARKETING

Ellen Quinn

Awards ChairDan Zrymiak

Member Data AnalystOpen

Volunteer ChairCarol Beauchesne

Examining ChairJohn SharpDavid Little

Education/IVP ChairVijai Venkata

VICE-CHAIRMEMBERSHIP

Jan Tucker

Forum EditorRobert Spencer- Elizabeth Cudney

Editorial Review ChairDenis Leonard

DEPUT Y VICE-CHAIR PRINT INITIATIVES

Troy Burrows

VICE-CHAIRPRINT INITIATIVES

Robert Spencer

3rd Party Web HostSubscribed Service

Discussion Board ModeratorGeoffery Withnell

Web Reviewere-Blast Content ChairThane Russey

DEPUT Y VICE-CHAIR E-BL AST

Diane Dixon

VICE-CHAIRE-BL AST

Ron Meier

Social Sites

VICE-CHAIRE-BASED INITIATIVES

Thane Russey

QMD CHAIR

M il t K r i v o k u c a

SECRETARY

P e g g y M il z

DEPUT Y SECRETARY

O p e n

Mexico Executive DirectorOpen

Brazil Executive DirectorOpen

China/East Asia Executive DirectorOpen

India Executive DirectorVineet Sharma

Egypt & Middle East Executive DirectorShady El-Safty Baher

Hong Kong Regional Executive DirectorSarah Mak

DEPUT Y VICE-CHAIR GLOBAL

Denis Devos

VICE-CHAIRGLOBAL

Bill Denney

VICE-CHAIRBUSINESS

DEVELOPMENT

Michael Mladjenovic

T H E Q U A L I T Y M A N A G E M E N T F O R U M

1 9

Coach's CornerBy J. R. McGee

I recently received a question from a friend in Alaska, Randy Norville: Why are some people so afraid of failure? Some of our most famous inventors were immense “failures.” Could overall success have more to do with our attitude towards failure than how often we succeed?

Randy, I’ve given this topic a lot of thought myself. I’ve found that truly successful people almost never discuss or consider failure in the same language as the majority of people. They don’t see things in terms of “failure” but in terms of learning! Each trial that doesn’t work simply provides them with new information about how to better achieve success with the next experiment or the next time they use that process. They focus only on achieving their ultimate goal. Another thing really successful people have in common is that they are never satisfied with their results!

Our approach to the outcomes of our endeavors has an inordinate impact on how we continue to struggle to achieve true excellence. Most people seem to focus on all the ways something won’t work. As soon as they run into trouble, it confirms their beliefs, and they simply stop trying. For example, if people see an outcome that is less than desirable as something to avoid at all costs, they will have a strong tendency to “play it safe” and never achieve their full potential. Even worse, the organization will suffer one of the 8 Deadly Forms of Waste…Non-Applied Talent. However, if people see an outcome through the eyes of “learning from the results” so that they can do something different next time, that is a success! Your premise that attitude is critical is precisely correct in my opinion. I tell my clients that if you believe you can…you’re right! If you believe you can’t…you’re right!

There is yet another aspect to truly successful people that highly correlates to this issue of attitude, and that is how a person defines “good enough.” We’ve all faced situations where we’re

exhausted, out of time, or over burdened by all of our commitments. In these circumstances, it is so easy to proclaim that something we’ve done is “OK” and move on. Every one of us has been in that situation, and each of us has made that call. Occasionally, it is a function of priority. But I’m talking about something much deeper for the quality profession. Are we “practicing what we preach” to our workforce? Are we settling on “OK” quality for the quality inspections themselves when we have an opportunity to demonstrate to the organization what truly world-class quality can be?

One of the topics that I get into at almost every conference or convention I attend is how the quality profession is not respected enough; how we are not given proper resources or adequate budgets. I believe this topic is directly related to how we are perceived in the workforce and the degree of value “they” think we bring to the table. How often do we allow something to slide because it was “good enough” when we could have stood up for real excellence? People are watching everything we do, and our actions set the tone for what quality means for the rest of the organization!

Recently, I was working with a leadership development program at a well-respected university. It consists of juniors and seniors in an experiential leadership challenge week that is designed to push them to their limits. We work them 20-hours a day for seven straight days (while carefully monitoring them for safety). We present them with a constant series of increasingly difficult challenges that they cannot solve alone. At every step, we relentlessly challenge them to do even more than they thought they could do, achieve greater results than they ever thought possible. This whole concept of what constitutes “good enough” is taken to the max. The students discover that what they actually can achieve is so much greater than they thought they could have done—and so far beyond what they

would have normally accomplished, and so radically different from what they would have gladly accepted under more normal circumstances—that it changes their perspective forever about what it means to do their very best. We’ve also seen that even after going through this experience and achieving unimaginable personal and professional growth, they will “slip back” into their previous mindset if they are not continuously challenged and coached for at least a year.

Do we do this at our jobs? Are we willing to sign our names to the final product or service that goes to our customers? How often do we settle for “OK” when we could have done so much more if we had just changed our attitudes about success and failure? We are often more afraid of something not working than we are of expending the effort to do something exceptional. It is my personal belief that you cannot fail until you quit trying. As long as you learn something from the experience, something you can change to affect the outcome, something that you can “tweak” or try, you have not failed…you have advanced the ball for your organization’s operational excellence. And THAT is what true quality is all about!

This column is dedicated to the memory of my friend and business partner, Ms. Sandy Miller. She spent her life in the pursuit of excellence and never accepted failure of any kind as long as I knew her. She will be deeply missed but never forgotten.

If you have a question or an issue you would like to see addressed in this column, contact me at askthecoach@x-slg.com.

J. R. McGee Managing Partner and CEO 1248 Queen Street, Pottstown Pa 19464 610-212-6728 A Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business www.xstreamleadershipgroup.com

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/j-r-mcgee/5/470/5b1/

2 0

Quality Management

Division

American Society for Quality, Inc.Customer Service Center600 N. Plankinton Ave.Milwaukee, WI 53201-3005

Every quarter, the Forum can convey your advertising message to over 20,000 Quality Management Division members. These members include many of ASQ’s

quality executives, managers, supervisors, and team and project managers. Most are decision makers or influencers for products and services such as:

√ Consulting √ Training Publications √ ISO Registration√ Conferences √ Business Shows √ Software . . . and more

For information on advertising in the Forum, contactRobert Spencer, Editor, at rspencer@csudh .edu .

Advertise in The Quality Management Forum

If you provide products or

services to the quality

profession, The Quality

Management Forum

will help you reach your target

market .

Quality Management Division Vice-Chair, Print Initiatives

Robert Spencer

Quality Management Forum EditorRobert Spencer

Chair, Editorial Review BoardDenis Leonard, Business Excellence Consulting

Editorial Review BoardHank Campbell, Professor Emeritus, Illinois State UniversityMark R. Chandler, Federal Highway Administration

Eleanor Chilson, Chilson Quality ServicesDeepak Dave, Bobcat—Ingersoll Rand Company

William Denney, Quality Texas FoundationMac McGuire, McGuire & Associates Consulting

Pradip V. Mehta, Mehta Consulting LLCNestor (Nick) Ovalle, CEO & Principle Consultant of PI Consult

Oz Rahman, Rayovac/Varta BatteryMatthew J. Roe, Dow Chemical

Mustafa Shraim, SQPS LtdGabriel Smith, John Deere

Chad Vincent, Baxter Health CorporationRobert J Vokurka, Texas A&M University—Corpus Christi

Jeanette Wilde, Los Alamos National LaboratoryConsulting EditorDave Roberts, PhD

The Quality Management Forum is a peer-reviewed publication of the Quality Management Division of the American Society for Quality. Published quarterly, it is QMD’s primary channel for communicating quality management information and Division news to Quality Management Division members. The Quality Management Division of ASQ does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in The Quality Management Forum. Articles, letters and advertisements are chosen for their general interest to Division members, but conclusions are those of the individual writers.

Address all communications regarding The Quality Management Forum, including article submissions, to:

Robert Spencer, Adjunct ProfessorQuality Assurance ProgramCollege of Extended & International Education California State University, Dominguez Hills1000 East Victoria StreetQuality Assurance Office, M/S 2-120, EE-1300 Carson, CA 90747-0005Office Phone: (314) 395-3383E-Mail: rspencer@csudh.edu

Address all communications regarding the Quality Management Division of ASQ to:

Milt KrivokucaProgram Coordinator to Quality Assurance ProgramCalifornia State University, Dominiguze HillsPhone: (949) 892-7994E-Mail: Milt619@cox.net

Address all communications regarding QMD membership including change of address to:

American Society for QualityCustomer Service CenterP.O. Box 3005Milwaukee, WI 53201-30051 (800) 248-1946 or (414) 272-8575

For more information on how to submit articles or advertise in the Quality Management Forum see the Quality Management Division website at www.asq-qm.org. Articles must be received ten weeks prior to the publication date to be considered for that issue.

Contact the ASQ Customer Service Center at 1 (800) 248-1946 or (414) 272-8575 to replace issues lost or damaged in the mail.

T h e Q u a l i t y M a n a g e m e n t