Commercial viability vs. steadfast followers...

["Steve Pilgrim" <spilgrim@itworx.net>]

I've been catching up on some recent posts to the list. I've read with great
interest the most recent comparisons between Six Sigma methodologies
and the Deming philosophy. In particular, Steve Prevette's four primary
differences spelled out on 10-15-03 were interesting to me. Frank Voehl's
discussion of SOPK and Action Learning was also an eye opener.
 
Through all the "fads" of business improvement techniques, I find I'm still
wrestling with two key questions. First, why are so few businesses or
business leaders willing to pursue serious improvement initiatives?
 
Second, and more importantly, what are the most marketable credentials
in the "improvement field" today? Should we be guiding young industrial
engineering graduates to Deming, Six Sigma, Lean, ISO or something
else? For those people interested in having long periods of full employment
in the field of quality and improvement, what provides commercial viability
and sustainability? Is it the "black belt?" Is it 'x' number of projects
"under
the belt?"
 
Some of these questions relate to the new graduate. Some relate to the
direction we foresee for quality and how experienced executives can find
and qualify for the positions in quality and continual improvement. In other
words, what is the proper (commercially viable) course of study for someone
wanting to retrain in the field of quality? You can study with Wheeler for
$1500 in several days. You can be a black belt for $11,000 more or less.
 
Thanks. I'll hang up and listen.
 
Steve Pilgrim