Less (and More)

When you look through this month's issue and the 2000 QP Salary Survey that it showcases, you will probably notice that there are many fewer pages devoted to the compensation data than we have published in the past.

But before you put finger to keyboard to zing me an e-mail of complaint, please read this column so that you will understand how this year's salary report is actually far more encompassing than any previous year's version.

It's true that fewer pages of the print version of the magazine are given over to salary data. But that's only because we have selected for publication those results that are of widest use to readers. We haven't discarded the rest of the salary data that we collected. We just moved it to our Web site.

We did this for several reasons. The first one is that we didn't want the salary data--as valuable as it is--to squeeze out all of the room allocated to columns and feature articles. This problem has become more acute over the years because the salary survey has grown as ASQ members have suggested new data points that would be worth collecting.

This year QP wanted to take a big step forward by including data from Canada, which has the largest concentration of ASQ members outside the United States. But even without this expansion, we needed more room to publish the 2000 results because we made several other modifications to the survey to make it more useful to members.

For example, this year we have included data on Six Sigma salaries. Although there has been some anecdotal evidence offered about what Black Belt training can do for one's compensation, we had been unable to locate hard proof. Please turn to p. 50 to see what we found out.

There were several old questions that readers asked us to modify to yield better data. For example, in the past we've asked about rates that self-employed consultants charge. But we didn't clarify whether respondents were charging by the hour only or whether they also included incidental expenses and materials.

Another example relates to certification. Where we used to lump all engineers together, we now distinguish whether they are quality engineers, reliability engineers or software engineers.

 Karen Bemowski, a former associate editor of QP who continues to help us out by slicing and dicing the salary data, explains these and other changes in her introduction to the survey, which appears on p. 32

26073PG6 MAGUIRE, M. tiff copy
  Miles Maguire

Average Rating


Out of 0 Ratings
Rate this article

Add Comments

View comments
Comments FAQ

Featured advertisers