articles - American Society for Quality

Vol. 25 No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2011

The Standard 

Vol 25, No. 2, June 2011 

Managing Editor and Publisher 

Jay L. Bucher 

6700 Royal View Dr. 

De Forest, WI 53532-2775 

Voice: 608-846-6968 

Email: yokota-69@charter.net 

Advertising 

Submit your draft copy to Jay Bucher, with a 

request for a quotation. Indicate size desired. 

Since The Standard is published ‘in-house’ 

the requester must submit a photo or graphic 

of their logo, if applicable. The following 

rates apply: 

Business card size ............................ $100 

1/8 page ........................................... $150 

1/4 page ............................................ $200 

1/3 page ............................................ $250 

½ page ............................................. $300 

Full page .......................................... $550 

Advertisements will be accepted on a ‘per 

issue’ basis only; no long-term contracts will 

be available at present. Advertising must be 

clearly distinguished as an ad. Ads must be 

related to measurement quality, quality of 

measurement, or a related quality field. Ads 

must not imply endorsement by the Measurement 

Quality Division or ASQ. 

Letters to the Editor 

The Standard welcomes letters from members 

and subscribers. Letters should clearly 

state whether the author is expressing opinion 

or presenting facts with supporting information. 

Commendation, encouragement, 

constructive critique, suggestions, and alternative 

approaches are accepted. If the content 

is more than 200 words, we may delete 

portions to hold that limit. We reserve the 

right to edit letters and papers. 

Information for Authors 

The Standard publishes papers on the quality 

of measurements and the measurement of 

quality at all levels ranging from relatively 

simple tutorial material to state-of-the-art. 

Papers published in The Standard are not 

referred in the usual sense, except to ascertain 

that facts are correctly stated and to assure 

that opinion and fact are clearly distinguished 

one from another. The Editor reserves 

the right to edit any paper. Please single 

space after sentences and use Times New 

Roman, 12 pt font. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

MQD Quarterly Meeting Minutes .................................................. 3 

Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Simulator Calibration .................... 6 

Help Fund ISO TC 176 ................................................................... 8 

The Learning Curve ........................................................................ 9 

MQD at WCQI 2011 ..................................................................... 14 

How One Metrology Organization Was Created .......................... 20 

The Birth of the Measurement Science Conference ..................... 29 

The History of the California Measurement Science Conference 31 

MQD Officers and Committee Chairs .......................................... 73 

MQD Membership Article ............................................................ 74 

MQD Membership Data ............................................................... 77 

MQD Survey Report ..................................................................... 86 

FROM THE DESK OF THE EDITOR/PUBLISHER 

On the cover is a photo of our booth at 

this year’s WCQI. Thank you to all who stopped 

by to ask questions, make suggestions, and 

pickup what we hope was a very nice gift from 

MQD. We have a full issue this quarter with an in 

depth history of the Measurement Science Conference, 

courtesy of Phil Painchaud, along with 

his usual column. We also have a lot of information 

gleaned from our survey, for which we thank all those that took it, and 

Elias Monreal for putting everything together for your viewing pleasure. 

Both Elias and Dilip Shah have submitted reports on the activities during 

WCQI, and those are much appreciated. 

As I am writing this, the USA is having some to the worst weather 

in many decades. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those families that 

have been affected in anyway. 

Please don’t forget that the 2011 edition of NCSLI’s Annual Workshop 

& Symposium is coming in August. We hope if you attend you stop 

by our booth and say hello and pickup one of our nice prizes. See you 

there. 

The Standard is published quarterly by the Measurement Quality Division of 

ASQ; deadlines are February 15, May 15, August 15 and November 15. Text information 

intended for publication can be sent via electronic mail as an attachment in 

MS Word format (Times New Roman, 11 pt). Use single spacing between sentences. 

Graphics/illustrations must be sent as a separate attachment, in jpg format. 

Photographs of MQD activities are always welcome. Publication of articles, product 

releases, advertisements or technical information does not imply endorsement 

by MQD or ASQ. While The Standard makes every effort to ensure the accuracy 

of articles, the publication disclaims responsibility for statements of fact or opinion 

made by the authors or other contributors. Material from The Standard may not be 

reproduced without permission of ASQ. Copyrights in the United States and all 

other countries are reserved. Website information: MQD’s homepage can be found 

at http://www.asq.org/measure. © 2011 ASQ, MQD. All rights reserved.

MQD Page 3 

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF QUALITY – 

MEASUREMENT QUALITY DIVISION (ASQ-MQD) 

MEETING MINUTES 

May 16, 2011 

Call to order: The quarterly ASQ-MQD meeting was called to order at approximately 5:30pm 

(EST), 4:30pm (CST) by Jay Bucher. The motion was seconded by Dilip Shah. The meeting 

requirements for a quorum are met. 

Roll Call: The meeting was held by conference call with several attendees at ASQ WCQI on 

same phone line. The following persons were in attendance: Dilip Shah (Chair-Elect) & 

Heather Wade (MQD Secretary), Jay Bucher (Chair), Chris Grachanen (Treasurer), Jessie 

Schultz & Jobby Johnson (ASQ), Greg Gay, and George DeMott. At 5:45pm, Sunday Lijofi 

joins WCQI call-in group. 

Agenda Issues 

1. NCSLI Conference Attendance 

Chris Grachanen is trying to attend. Heather Wade is presenting a paper and also serving 

on a panel discussion. Jay Bucher is presenting a paper and serving as a session host. 

Dilip Shah is teaching tutorials. ASQ-MQD will sponsor all four above attendees as 

they will be serving booth duty. 

2. The Standard 

Jay has received submissions for The Standard from Chris Grachanen, Phil Painchaud, 

and Elias Monreal. 

3. ASQ Fellows 

Dave Brown has been elected to ASQ Fellow. Dilip to submit Dave Brown’s photo for 

The Standard. Dilip Shah will submit his own application for ASQ Fellow next year. 

Greg Gay has volunteered to help Dilip with this application. 

New Business 

Dilip Shah, Chair-Elect – WCQI (ASQ’s World Conference on Quality & Improvement) 

Currently attending this conference: George DeMott 

Laser pointers very popular at ASQ-MQD booth. 

Discussion on Quality Progress magazine “Measure-For-Measure” columns 

 

 

MQD History 

 

160 to 200 Metrology Career DVDs distributed from booth. 

Approximately 2200 in attendance at WCQI. More were pre-registered for 

2011 than in total attendance at 2010. 

MQD came out of the Inspection Division. Dilip proposes to consider option 

of possibly merging MQD & Inspection Divisions, if it would keep both active 

& productive. An exploratory committee would need to be established to 

consider this merger. Question: How many members in both divisions? Note 

(Continued on page 4) 

Vol. 25, No. 2 The Newsletter of the Measurement Quality Division, American Society for Quality June 2011

MQD Page 4 

(Continued from page 3) 

that both divisions are currently strong. 

Invites to Present 

Cedar Rapids, Iowa, USA – request to present in March 2012. Dilip replied 

that MQD would be receptive to sending Dilip &/or Jay. Dilip gave Measurement 

Science Conference dates so no overlap with Cedar Rapids. 

ASQ-Milwaukee (Wisconsin, USA) - Jay asked to present on Calibration 

Myths at February 20, 2012 meeting in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 

New Jersey-Princeton ASQ Section – will reply about desired presentation. 

If they charge their members for attendance to this presentation, then they 

will be asked to pay our presenter’s expenses. Otherwise, ASQ-MQD may 

sponsor presenter. 

Dilip reminds that MQD adjusts budgeting for presentations to new fiscal 

year timing. 

Chris Grachanen, Treasurer 

Coming due: ASQ-MQD’s contribution to Simmons Memorial Scholarship. 

Not charged yet? 2 nd order of ASQ-MQD custom laser pointers. Jay confirms 

that there were quality problems with order. We have received the corrected 

order and that the charge has just not been processed yet by vendor. We’ll 

still get the Free Shipping. 

Metrology Handbook updates inquiry: 

ISO/IEC 17025 reconfirmed until year 2015. 

ANSI/NSCL Z540.3 currently up for review. Will find out status by 

NCSLI conference. 

Suggests to kick off Metrology Handbook revision at NCSLI conference. 

Emil Hazarain has volunteered to participate in the update. He was also 

contacted to do Romanian translation of Metrology Handbook. 

Metrology Careers DVD & website – Phase 2 is now completed. Chris will 

send link to Jay for inclusion in next issue of The Standard. 

Heather Wade, Secretary 

NSF International (Heather Wade’s employer) hosted Take Your Child To 

Work Day at end of April. 97 children in attendance. ~20 Metrology DVDs 

distributed. Jay Bucher to send more DVDs to Heather. 

Dilip Shah 

Ensure that we record the distribution of Metrology Careers DVD on the 

form for Combined Federal Campaign (CFC). This form is on NCSLI Learning 

& Development website. Elizabeth Gentry monitors & annually reports 

this for CFC. 

Max J. Unis Award – Winner selected for 2011. To be announced at 2011 

NCSLI. 

MQD’s ASQ Total Quality Award trophy and pins collected. 

Jessie Schultz, ASQ 

MQD Officers and committee positions received and entered at ASQ well 

ahead of May 20, 2011 deadline. 



MQD Page 5 


MQD Board expresses their united gratitude to Jessie for her fine work on 

behalf of MQD. 

Jobby Johnson, ASQ DAC Deputy (Division Affairs Coordinator) 

ASQ National Director Voting – in DAC meeting update 

Greg Gay, Past Chair - Inspection Division 

Biggest benefit is to continue adding value to memberships. 

George DeMott 

Rejoining calibration & metrology community 

Sunday Lijofi 

At WCQI and will be at NCSLI 

Jay Bucher, Chair 

NCSLI section meeting this Friday, May 20, 2011 

Amended MQD Treasurer’s Report – as of April 29, 2011 

Commercial Checking Account Balance: $89,965.20 

Money Market Savings Account Balance: $79,972.47 

Expresses thanks to Dilip for representing MQD at WCQI 

Notes that Elias Monreal is to send the most recent survey numbers. 

To be added to MQD quarterly conference call e-mail reminder: Greg 

Gay, George DeMott. 

Adjournment: 6:14 pm (EST) Jay makes motion to adjourn meeting. Dilip seconds the motion. 

Meeting is adjourned. 

Meeting Minutes Submitted by: Heather Wade, Secretary May 18, 2011 

Meeting Minutes Approved by: Jay L. Bucher, Chair May 21, 2011 

MQD TREASURER’S REPORT 

May 2011 

As per 31 March 2011 Bank Statement 

MQD continues to have a strong balance sheet (Statement of Financial Position) with over 

$167,700.00 combined checking and saving account balances. 

Commercial Checking Account Ending Leger Balance as of 31 Mar 2011: $96,003.84 

Commercial Checking Account Outstanding Checks as of 31 Mar 2011: $8,171.64 

Money Market Saving Account Ending Balance as of 31 Mar 2011: $79,956.61 

Membership Revenue for nine months ending 31 Mar 2011: $16,164.00 

Investment Income for nine months ending 31 Mar 2011: $149.00 

Royalties Income for the period from Jan to Dec 2010: $2723.00 

Total revenues for all sources for nine months ending 31 Mar 2011: $28,503.00 

Budgeted MQD Expenses for nine months ending 31 Mar 2011: $20,429.00 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Christopher L. Grachanen 

ASQ MQD Treasurer 


MQD Page 6 

Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) Simulator Calibration 

By Christopher L. Grachanen 

One of the phenomena manufacturers of products with 

embedded electronics typically test for is the product’s susceptibility 

to exhibit an operational abnormality after being subjected 

to an Electrostatic Discharge (ESD) event. We are all familiar 

with the small spark created when walking across a carpet in 

stocking feet and touching a surface such as an unsuspecting 

sibling but did you know that that small spark is comprised of 

an incredible amount of energy discharged in an incredibly 

short period of time (this type of ESD phenomena is caused by 

triboelectric effect, ESD phenomena may also be created by electrostatic induction). The ESD 

spark event characteristically occurs when electric field strengths, in a range of approximately 4 

–30 kV/cm between surfaces, are separated by a small gap. This condition is conducive for the 

creation of an ionized conductive channel though the air, facilitating the flow of free electrons 

between surfaces, a process known as dielectric breakdown. ESD spark events can reach currents 

of 120A or greater with risetimes less than 1nS. That’s quite a lot of free electrons flowing 

in less than a blink of an eye. It is this large, rapid exchange of free electrons that poses a hazard 

to electronic circuitry in the form of material degradation as well as electrical shorts and 

opens occurring within electrical components and their associated interconnections. It must be 

noted that not all ESD events are visible or give an audible sound. Some ESD events are produced 

at far lower energy levels than those associated with an ESD spark but nevertheless pose 

a hazard to electronic circuitry (some electronic devices may be damaged by discharges as low 

as 10 V). It also must be noted that ESD events can pose a fire and/or explosive hazard depending 

on the type and quantity of material in close proximity to the ESD occurrence. Given these 

potential hazards it is no wonder that manufacturers want to test their product for ESD susceptibility 

in order to avoid costly problems in the field. In addition many regulatory agency groups 

require that products be tested for ESD susceptibility before they can be sold to the general public. 

Essential to ESD product testing are ESD simulators and their associated accessories which 

produce known ESD waveform characteristics. 

ESD simulators are designed to produce ESD events that are industry accepted as being 

passable reproductions of the ESD phenomena. Some of the published guidelines / specifications 

which address ESD waveforms are as follows: 

Solid State Technology Association, formerly known as the Joint Electron Devices Engineering 

Council (JEDEC 22-A114-B) 

ESD Association (ESD STM5.1) 

European Union standards for Information Technology Equipment (IEC-61000-4-2) 

U.S. Department of Defense (MIL-STD -883 Method 3015) 

These publications provide guidance for product testing methodologies, criteria for 

evaluating product survivability and tolerances for ESD waveform characteristics. Some of the 



MQD Page 7 


primary ESD waveform characteristics for which tolerances are given are: 

First Peak Current Level 

Risetime (First Peak) 

Current Level at 30ns 

Current Level at 60ns 

ESD waveform characteristic tolerances are given for both air type discharge and contact 

type discharges (each discharge type requires a special tip for the simulator from which the 

ESD waveform discharges). Calibration of ESD simulators requires capturing the simulated 

ESD waveform and determining if waveform characteristics are within tolerance. The simulated 

ESD waveform is typically collected via a special current shunt type target which is connected 

to a high voltage attenuator, the output of which is connected to a high frequency oscilloscope 

using appropriate cables. The current shunt target is, as a rule, mounted in the center of 1 meter 

square metallic ground plane which is connected to the ground of the ESD simulator. The current 

shunt target and high voltage attenuator reduces the ESD waveform levels so they can be 

displayed on the oscilloscope. All components of this calibration ensemble must have sufficient 

frequency response in order to avoid adulteration of the ESD waveform (at least 4GHz for IEC 

61000-4-2 Ed. 2.0). Special consideration must be given to target approach technique for air 

discharges in order to correctly produce the ESD waveform. Additional calibration considerations 

are ambient humidity level, oscilloscope triggering level, connector torque, etc. 

In order to establish confidence that ESD simulators faithfully reproduce ESD waveforms 

congruent with industry accepted guidelines / specifications they should be calibrated at 

regular intervals. Regulatory agency groups which evaluate manufacturer ESD susceptibility 

submissions require that ESD simulators be calibrated and that ESD simulators are within their 

calibration interval at the time the measurements are taken. 

Wikipedia, “Electrostatic Discharge”, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrostatic_discharge 

Greg Senko, “Methods for Verifying ESD Simulator Compliance”, http://www.ce-mag.com/ 

ARG/Senko.html 

Douglas C. Smith, High Frequency Measurements Web Page, Technical Tidbit - December 

2010, “Comparing IEC 61000-4-2 Compliant ESD Simulators”, http://www.emcesd.com/ 

tt2010/tt120210.htm 


MQD Page 8 

Help fund an international standards meeting and demonstrate 

your commitment as a quality organization 

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Technical Committee (TC) 176 is 

comprised of members who develop international standards on quality management and assurance, including 

the ISO 9000 series. Members of the U.S. Technical Advisory Group (TAG) to ISO/TC 176 develop 

the U.S. positions on quality standards. 

Each year a different member country hosts the plenary meeting of ISO/TC 176 for ISO 

9001:2008 revisions. Although the United States plays a significant role on the committee, it has not 

hosted this international meeting in 10 years. TAG 176 formed the U.S. International Standards Connection 

Fund to help raise at least $100,000 to host this meeting. 

While most countries’ standards development organizations (SDOs) receive financial support 

from national governments, U.S. SDOs do not receive funding from the government. TAG 176 is administered 

by two nonprofit organizations, the American National Standards Institute and the American Society 

for Quality , and partially supported by member dues to cover TAG operating costs. Funds to host 

this meeting will come almost entirely from individual donations and corporate sponsorships. 

A U.S. meeting would emphasize country’s position as a pacesetter and allow for increased influence 

in ISO 9001 development by having a larger delegation. It will reduce travel costs for our TAG 

members, who are volunteers, and will enable more of them to attend. 

There are tax-deductible sponsorship opportunities from $2,500 to $50,000 to highlight your 

organization’s commitment to quality and the development of international standards. Opportunities 

range from banners recognizing sponsorship, to placement of company logos on meeting bags. However, 

donations of any size are welcome and will be recognized online and in TAG literature. 

You may contribute online at http://asq.bbnow.org/donate.php or by check payable to “U.S. International 

Standards Connection” and at your earliest convenience to: 

ASQ/Standards 

600 N. Plankinton Avenue 

Milwaukee, WI 53201–3005 

Consider this: if every U.S. company that is registered to ISO 9001:2008 donates $10, we will 

reach our goal. 

A tax-deductible donation would highlight your organization’s position in the global economy 

and demonstrate to your employees, clients, and competitors that your organization values quality. Your 

support of an international audience of quality experts also increases your organization’s visibility. 

International standards developed by ISO/TC 176, including the ISO 9000 series, bring consistency, 

reliability, and quality to the global market. They contribute to making products and services 

more efficient, safer, and cleaner. The standards make global trade easier and fairer. Widespread adoption 

of international standards also means suppliers can base development of their products and services 

on reference documents that have broad market relevance. 

Even if your organization doesn’t use these standards, many small and medium-sized enterprises 

in your supply chain do to ensure their continued ability to serve your organization. ISO 9001-registered 

companies traditionally demonstrate higher levels of quality, reliability, and responsiveness to customer 

needs. 

For more information about how you can support the meeting and sponsorship opportunities, 

contact Jennifer Admussen at standards@asq.org or call 800-248-1946, ext. 7736. Visit ASQ at http:// 

asq.org/. 


MQD Page 9 

THE LEARNING CURVE 

By Phil Painchaud 

This is the sixty-sixth contiguous column in this journal originally 

charted to be a platform for the readers and this author to expound pros and 

cons on the general subject of Metrology Education. It was ostensibly 

charted by our original Editor-in-Chief, De Wayne Sharp as a platform for the 

discussion on that general subject. It was particularly as a platform for the 

readers of this column to express their views on that subject. We now are into 

our twentieth year of attempting to entice our readers to mount this platform 

and to expound their thoughts on the subject of METROLOGY EDUCA- 

TION. The response has ranged from grossly unimpressive to abrogation. 

This apathy or irresolution by our readers has required this author to develop great deal of latitude 

in choosing alternate theses for some columns and for the continuation of his sometimes 

bombastic writing style. This time we have some information, possibly relative to Metrology. 

So, following our long established custom, this Column will as usual be in the form of an open 

letter to our boss the Editor-in-Chief. 

Dear Boss: 

I was about to send this to you in comfortable time for the original deadline of 5/15/11 

when my cranky computer decided to pull one of its conniption fit and obliterated everything 

except the title and the first paragraph. Now don’t start telling me that I should have backed up 

for I had several times during the process—some of the backups were on external hard drives. 

But that cranky machine managed to delete them all. This has happened altogether too often 

during the last year. Nearly a year ago, I lost my main data base of names, addresses, phone/fax 

numbers, e-mail addresses; a total of about 430, plus all of my holidays, birthdays, and appointments 

for several years including three back–ups all on separate drives. During the ensuing 

year I have several times lost various portions of my financial data (Quicken). 

As you may have guessed by now, "enough is enough". I was going to have a computer 

built to my specifications, not to the whims of a marketing specialist at some sales happy manufacturer. 

So I dug out an old full tower case that was still in excellent condition, one that I had 

previously upgraded the power supply, added several fans, and replaced all of the air blocking 

flat cables with small diameter round cables and took it down to a local one man shop, and we 

talked. I got rid of my three venerable SCSI drives and replace them with two 2TB SATA hard 

drives; and my venerable 3 GB memory and replaced it with 16 GB of Kingston memory; we 

added a three core Intel processor running at 3.3 GHz. All of this running on a 64 bit Windows 

7 platform—if I can ever get all of my software and data loaded into it I will be in good shape. 

Enough about me, in a previous edition of this column, I mentioned that a friend had 

sent to me via e-mail an article on Metrology Education that I could not find it in the mountain 

of paper heaped in my office. She had not given me a clue as to the author or the publication 

from whence she had extracted it. Well, it is no longer missing, I have located the original article, 

and the author is none other than our Division Treasurer, Chris Grachanen, and it was published 

in Test & Measurement World, March 26, 2008. I was quite impressed with his opening 

paragraph. 



MQD Page 10 


“—With baby boomers starting to retire in 2008 at age 62, the US is facing a shortfall of 

technical professionals. The metrology field is no exception. With so many technical professions 

trying to recruit candidates from an ever dwindling supply of people, what can industry 

do to help assure there is an adequate supply of metrology professionals? Young people are 

unaware of metrology careers and the education and training opportunities available. Without 

new metrology professionals, industry and government may find services and product development 

and manufacturing delayed, degraded, or halted. A lack of metrology professionals 

to ensure the integrity and traceability of measurements and the viability of decisions derived 

from them may have a profound effect on commerce.—“ 

What have I been preaching (or "soap-boxing" if you prefer) in this column for the past 

two decades—or during the previous three decades elsewhere? What Chris was expressing in 

his monograph is the same theme as I have been expounding for so long—we need to stress 

the EDUCATION of the Metrology Professionals and lessen the emphasise for the 

TRAINING of the paraprofessional technicians and calibrators. Without the Professional 

Metrologists who will train the para and sub-professionals? Who will be qualified to develop 

the procedures for these subordinate technicians to follow? During my many years as a consultant 

much of my time has been spent in analyzing and repairing 'sick' Metrology organizations. 

A large portion of these I have found to be in the condition that I found them due to the placement 

of personnel uneducated in a broad span of basic Metrology precepts (measurement theory, 

chemistry, physics, and mathematics) in charge. 

Those of us involved in the practice of our profession realize first hand the difficulty of 

attracting young people towards education in Metrology, or even training for lesser careers in 

our field. Kim Fowler, the President of the IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Society (I 

have mentioned him previously in this column) in the April 2011 issue of his Society's journal, 

lists a few of the probable causes: 

"—New technologies, such as the internet, gaming, and the smart grid, can be more exciting 

than measurement science to the latest generation of students, academics, and practitioners. 

—The science of measurement has been thoroughly investigated over the past two hundred 

years, which might breed complacency and potentially contempt. 

—No series of failures or catastrophes have occurred or can be attributed to issues within 

measurement science.—" 

I must acknowledge that there is and has been some activity by various organizations to 

attempt to enhance efforts toward Metrology Education by the collection of funding for scholarships. 

"To what avail?", I ask. There is, to my knowledge, at this time, no institution in this 

country, offering a full academic stand alone degreed program in Metrology. (The only person 

that I personally know of who holds a true Metrology Degree received it in Romania.) So why 

award Metrology scholarships when there is no institutions to go to for study in the subject? I 

wrote a 'White Paper' on that subject some time back. From the feedback that I didn't receive, I 

can only assume that nobody read it, so to thoroughly bore you I shall repeat it here: 



MQD Page 11 


"—WHY DO WE INSIST ON REINVENTING THE WHEEL? 

ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY PROVEN THAT IT WON’T WORK? 

A “White Paper” by Phil Painchaud 

Now what am I referring to? I am referring to the constant attempts by various 

groups, including our own MQD (and the NCSLI among others) to collect funds to award to 

neophytes to study Metrology. I most surely am not against Metrology education, my own 

track record for the past half century proves that fact. I have been writing support for that 

effort for the past eighteen years in this journal alone, and by other media for thirty years 

before this publication was first created. 

Why I am at this time taking what might appear to be such a negative attitude? Well, 

for several reasons: First: there are no institutions academically teaching Metrology here in 

the USA at this moment. And a viable market for students possessing a degree in Measurement 

Science appears not to exist currently. Let us first look at the history of true Academic 

Metrology Education in this country during the past half century or so. 

George Washington University in Washington, DC, offered an unparalleled Masters 

level course. While it was designed primarily for the benefit of NBS (pre-NIST) employees, 

anyone qualified could attend. The program saturated its limited market and died a natural 

death. 

In the early 1960’s the Los Angeles Trade Technical College (a Community College) 

tried a vocational technical calibration program with a two year degree. It died—the graduates 

could find no market for their training. (I suspect that the lab managers of the day did 

not want to hire technicians who knew more than they did. Maybe that situation still exists 

today.) Again, no market. 

As I have pointed out in several of my earlier columns, educational institutions of any 

level are analogous to a factory—they are in the business of processing raw material into a 

product. In this case educated or trained graduates are the product. And like the products of 

any factory, there must be a current market for those products. The products must be of a 

type, level, and quality to satisfy the needs of that market. Somebody (or bodies) must need 

that specific product in sufficient quantity to justify its production. Although we may like to 

believe that educational institutions are on a more ethereal plane, they really are no different 

than any other factory—they need to be able to produce a saleable product in sufficient 

quantity in order to survive. If the product proves not saleable in sufficient quantity, they 

must halt production. We see this occurring daily about us. There is no point in training 

workers to produce that product if the product has no market or is a diminishing market. 

In 1969 under the auspices of the California State Government, we created a four 

year degree level program at the prestigious California Polytechnic State University—San 

Luis Obispo. After five years it too died—again no students. Why? No market. 

During this same period, with considerable assistance from the NSMA (the National 

Scale Men’s Association, now known as the International Society for Weighing and Measurement 

[ISWM]), Yuba College in Northern California established a two year degreed scale 

technician course. This was a very superior and very practical Measurement Science related 

curriculum enhanced with a teaching laboratory well stocked with Metrology artifacts and 

devices from the PMEL Lab of the nearby deactivated Beal Air Force Base. It flourished for 



MQD Page 12 


several years producing a very superior product well-grounded in fundamental Metrology as 

well as in scale technology. But how many scale technicians can the rural counties of Northern 

California absorb? Another good effort down the tubes. 

In 1980 Professor Jim Teza of the University of Pittsburg conceived the idea of training 

Problem Solvers using Metrology as the vehicle. He sold Butler County Community College 

on the idea and established a two year academic Metrology program on that campus. 

He used a “total emersion” approach exposing his students to all of technologies and support 

courses at the same time (a technique sometimes used in liberal arts education, but unheard 

of up until then in technology education). For the first year or two it worked remarkably well 

and his product was in great demand in local industry, by NIST, and many of his graduates 

went on to four year institutions. But his success was unappreciated by the rigid traditional 

academics above him in the hierarchy. He was relieved at contract renewal time. 

Dr. Don Drum was brought in to try to salvage the program. This he did by converting 

it to a more conventional academic protocol. He was well underway in the restoration of 

an academically sound measurement science program when he was struck with a devastating 

series of strokes that forced him to resign and retire. This was what the academic reactionaries 

needed to shut down Teza’s magnificent legacy with the resulting destruction of the developing 

of a healthy market for the product of the program. 

In 1992 we became involved in the initial efforts to create a four year degreed Measurement 

Science Curriculum at the California State University—Dominguez Hills (CSUDH). 

This time as an adjunct to their already very successful Masters in Quality Program, despite 

the fact that it was riding on an established successful program, it took several more years to 

sell the concept throughout the rigid mindsets of the hierarchy. This inertia was prompted in 

part by findings by the market research function of the Office of the Chancellor of the California 

State University System who found what we already knew—there is no existing lucrative 

market for Metrology graduates”. But Dr. Gene Watson prevailed and the project got 

underway. Then Dr. Watson died quite unexpectedly and the program nearly died with him. 

There doesn’t seem to be anybody left at CSUDH who can find a market for the product, so 

current interest in the program is at a low level. 

So with all of that history available, why are the MQD, the NCSLI, and others still 

trying to collect money to award to students to study Metrology when there is no place for 

them to go to get that type of an education and no market for their skills if they should do it? 

— Why spend money that will just be dissipated? The Precision Measurements Association 

(PMA) during its nearly fifty year life span dispensed several tens of thousands of dollars as 

scholarships. Much of it to Los Angeles Trade Technical College students. Personally, I 

probably contributed at least five thousand dollars to that fund. I believe that it probably 

might be impossible to find any trace of it today except the five thousand dollars that was 

contributed as “seed money” to jump start the Measurement Science Conference whose 

prime purpose originally was Metrology Education. 

With the lack of viable market scholarship donations can only dissipate. Why not 

make educational contributions in forms that will not dissipate? One example: In 1996 I 

made a substantial contribution of corporate stock to the program at Butler. These were privately 

held securities not traded on the open market. I had collected them over a period of 

ten years, a few shares at a time, at low prices per share. Since they were not traded on the 



MQD Page 13 


Exchanges the only gauge of their value was their book value (the value the tax auditors 

place on it annually). The book value in this case was 375% of what I had paid for them. 

This enviable profit for me was not only not taxable but became a charitable tax credit for me 

amortizable over several years. The Butler Foundation Board very wisely did not attempt to 

sell the securities but rather held them and caused them to be used them as matching funds 

for other contributors who wanted their contributions matched. With skillful management 

and repeated matching’s, they were in a few years able to multiply that endowment into a ten 

million dollar Science Building—a home for the Metrology program as well as the other 

technical programs. 

If we continue to have the fixation that we must collect money to further Metrology 

Education, let us find more substantial ways to disperse those funds. Brick and mortar, artifact 

standards, measurement implementa, and books are far more substantial than dubious 

scholarships. 

It seems to me to be far more logical for us at this time to postpone scholarship efforts 

and to concentrate on ways of developing a market for Metrology graduates. The demands of 

a viable market reaching downward will do far more towards developing programs that ever 

can be done by attempting to push up from below. With a market clamoring for product, the 

educational institutions are bound to respond with programs. To fill the programs they in 

turn will be clamoring for students. Then at that time the scholarships may be needed and 

put to good use. 

How do you create markets? Don’t ask me—I am a Metrologist not a magician! We 

need to find the “Magician” who truly does know how and put him to work.—" 

Well Boss I think that wraps it up for this issue. If anyone wants to argue with me, and I 

wish that someone might, I can still be reached at the same old stomping grounds: 

Phil Painchaud Phone 1-714-529-6604 

1110 West Dorothy Drive FAX 1-714-529-1109 

Brea. CA 92821-2017 Cell 1-714-928-6084 

URL: www philpainchaud.com 

E-mail: painchaud4@cs.com 

olepappy@JUNO.com 


MQD Page 14 

Measurement Quality Division at ASQ 2011 

World Conference on Quality and Improvement 

by Dilip Shah 

The Measurement Division was busy this year at the ASQ's annual conference. I had the 

honor of representing the division in many activities. I always come away refreshed from the 

conference. It is provides many opportunities to network with like minded professionals. I always 

think that this year's conferences cannot be topped. But, I had said that last year too. Congratulations 

to the conference committee on a great conference program! 

My activities for the 2011 WCQI started rather early. I submitted the MQD session Abstract 

back in August 2010. I was then selected as the technical proposal reviewer and reviewed 

6 papers for possible inclusion into the conference program. In October 2010, I found that my 

paper was accepted into the session program. I was also asked to volunteer for moderating three 

sessions which I did. Needless to say, with moderating 3 sessions, presenting one session 

(Session T20 - Quality Tools for Tomorrow's Metrology Toolbox) and doing booth duty, I was 

busy. The end of each day was physically tiring but also very fulfilling mentally. 

The opening keynote speaker on Monday, May 16, 2011 was Retired USCG Admiral 

Thad Allen. What impressed me right off was that Admiral Thad Allen had no PowerPoint 

presentation. He spoke from the heart and it was very refreshing to see that we have leaders like 

him. His talk was uplifting and informative. I learnt about the term "Black Swan" other than the 

movie of the same name. His experience in managing national disasters and how he used quality 

tools was very well received by the audience. 



MQD Page 15 

Thank you to many of you who stopped by our booth. I hope you were able to get our 

MQD laser/flashlight combo with a magnetic base. We had not done a giveaway at the booth in 

many years. Apparently, this giveaway was very popular and we had a lot of traffic at the 

booth. Thank you, Jay Bucher for the idea! I was pleased to interact with all of visitors who 

stopped by at the booth. Many had questions about calibration/metrology issues. Most of the 

answers to the questions could have been found in Measure for Measure column in the ASQ's 

Quality Progress magazine. I was able to direct them to this source for reference. Many of 

them did not know that the MQD is responsible for providing the content for this column. 


MQD Page 16 

On Saturday, May 14, 2011, I participated in "Ideas to Action Group", which is a joint 

division and section activity cultivating new ideas and best practices for ASQ. Following the 

IATG, there was member leader training followed by the QMP award ceremony. The MQD received 

the J.S. McDermond Total Quality Award for the 2009-2010 year Quality Management 

Program. Only 13 division achieved that level of excellence. Congratulations to all the MQD 

volunteers in making this great achievement! I was also able to set up the booth in between all 

these activities. 


MQD Page 17 

On Sunday, May 15, the new ASQ fellows are inducted. Among them was David 

Brown (MQD member) who is one of the 8 co-authors of "The Metrology Handbook". It was a 


MQD Page 18 


proud moment since I had vouched for his fellow application. 

Elias Monreal, David Brown and Dilip Shah 

David Brown's fellow announcement in conference program 



MQD Page 19 


The Metrology Handbook was on prominent display at the ASQ Center booth. It stills 

sells very well after 7 years. 

The next year's ASQ WCQI conference will be held in Anaheim, California on May 21- 

23, 2012. Your division is already making plans to participate actively in the conference program 

by exhibiting, presenting a session and other activities. 


MQD Page 20 

HOW ONE METROLOGY ORGANIZATION WAS CREATED 

By Phil Painchaud 

The other day while cleaning out some stuff—I can’t say that I was 

cleaning out my files as I ran out of file space years ago and “stuff” is in piles 

all over the floor of my office—I found an old copy of CAL LAB magazine, 

January/February/March 2002 to be precise. A title on the cover caught my 

attention 

—Increasing the Corporate Value of Your Cal Lab —. I opened to Page 27 

and found the author to be one of our Division Officers. Well Done! He didn’t 

give any hint as to when he did what he wrote about, but it was obviously 

to me at least, it must have been while he was at that computer company in 

Texas. I believe, however, that I predated him by several years. I built such an organization at 

the Anaheim Division of an aerospace corporation in Anaheim, CA, in 1957. Unfortunately, 

my organizational scheme didn’t get much publicity until 1987—twenty-two years after I left 

the organization! Never the less, for those intervening eight years it grew and was perfected, 

and the company prospered because of it. 

How and why it all came about is a story long, convoluted, and tenuous at times. I had 

been working for that Aerospace organization since 1948, having started as a Research Analyst 

engineer in the development of the automatic celestial guidance system of an Intercontinental 

Missile for the Air Force. Over the years, I had worked my way up to Staff Assistant to the 

Chief of the R&D group, in other words the left hand of the head guy in charge of all fundamental 

and applied research. Meanwhile the company somehow got a contract from the US 

Army Ordnance Corps to build optical/mechanical range finders for tanks—a far cry from the 

aviation related business the company had always been in since its inception in 1938. To carry 

out this new mission, they built a completely new facility, thirty miles east in the orange groves 

of Anaheim. They staffed it with new hire “Opticers” and “Mechanicers”. The management 

was almost entirely old airframe assembly retreads. There was no electronics; in fact, the only 

technical person in the facility that understood electrons at all was the power engineer in the 

Plant Engineering Department and his specialty was lighting! 

All went well for the first year or so and all they had to do was to build the same device 

that five other competitive companies were building. Then that changed, the Army needed new 

devices and many of the solicitations contained references to electricity in one form or another 

that no one there could understand—they needed an “Electronicer” on the staff. I was sent over 

(rather willingly I might add as I was getting tired of the political mess that was developing at 

the home facility) to become (as I put it at the time) the “person to give dammed fool answers to 

dammed fool questions”. However, somehow, they tolerated me and I didn’t get fired and we 

lived happily for the next three years or so. 

Then about 1956 Corporate Management decided that the Anaheim Facility should diversify 

and get heavily into the development of new products involving several up to date technologies. 

This was later modified mandating a concentration on Automatic Test & Checkout 

Equipment but still maintaining activity in other areas of technology. Therefore, the Engineering 

Department was expanded several fold and a series of Engineering Laboratories were built 

encompassing electronics, precision mechanics, chemical, instrumentation, and explosives, with 



MQD Page 21 


me as Lead Engineer over all of the labs and lab personnel. The Manufacturing side of the facility 

started their diversification by “taking in laundry,” e.g. assembling electronic subassemblies 

of the guidance system for the Special Weapons Division back at the home facility. 

Then two things happened just about the same time. The Air Force came by to inspect 

the Manufacturing effort and asked about the calibration program for the instrumentation being 

used to produce the product for them. What Program? What Instruments? These old time ‘Air 

Framers’ had no idea what recall or a calibration program was all about and furthermore they 

didn’t even have an inventory of what instruments they were using in manufacturing! My Instrumentation 

Lab and all of its goodies were in another building way on the back of the lot. 

While they were running around trying to find an answer another trauma hit. It was time for the 

annual requests for capital asset budget. Every organization, my Engineering Labs included, 

was required to submit requests for all of the Capital equipment including instrumentation and 

test equipment that we felt we might need for the following fiscal year—and justify it based 

upon the business projections given to us by Management. When the composite request list hit 

the desk of the Division General Manager he went through the roof! The sum total of the Capital 

Asset requests exceeded the anticipated gross business the following year! 

That Manager, a man named Tom Q (we called him the “Great White Father” because of 

the magnificent crop of white hair he carried) asked around and even came to the back building 

to talk to me. He wanted to understand why all of the department heads had gone so seemingly 

wild with their annual requests. I explained to him as best as I could that all of the fancy machine 

tools he had in the other building couldn’t build and test the type of electronic products 

that his office was projecting to be built during the next year. I further explained that here in 

Engineering we were being called upon to develop devices far removed from the opto/ 

mechanical devices that we had worked on in the past. He was no fool, he understood. Then he 

asked me and others, since there were so many duplications of devices on the requisition list, 

why could not the various departments and projects share the same devices? Almost universally 

he was told that this had never been successfully done before and when a project or department 

had spent their budget for equipment they expected that equipment to be “theirs and 

theirs alone”. — 

HOW WRONG WE WERE! — 

So next he called in all twelve Divisional Directors (department heads) and told them 

that since they had not come up with a solution, he was by edict, directing that henceforth all 

test and measuring equipment at this facility was to be pooled. There was to be no individual, 

project, or departmental ‘ownership’ of “any device which measures, records, generates, or 

transforms a physical quantity and is usable as a test or inspection criteria or media”. And 

this was to be irrespective of who actually owned the device as we had equipment owned by the 

company, the Air Force and the Army (and later the Navy) all run in together. All of these devices 

were to be in a “Common Pool”. When this edict filtered down to me through the Director 

of Engineering (my bosses’ boss), I “blew my cork”. “I wasn’t having any of those dammed 

Maintenance people screwing around with MY instruments!” (He had included Plant Maintenance 

as well in his Directive) 



MQD Page 22 


He then called a series of high-level meetings on how to implement this policy. These 

meetings were at high enough level that they didn’t even bother to exclude me. Although they 

didn’t want the “Common Pool”, it was to exist and thus it became a political plumb to be 

plucked; each department head wanted it for himself. The General Manager settled the deadlock 

and chose the Director of Quality Control (who had made it clear he didn’t want it. He 

was an old airframe type who firmly believed that 

Quality Control was synonymous with after the fact inspection—inspection of rivets, etc.) The 

next day the General Manager called another meeting and asked them which individual did 

they want to head this new organization he was creating under Quality for the possession and 

maintenance of this Common Pool? I was given to understand directly from the Director of Engineering 

who was there, that it was unanimous; all twelve Directors (including the Quality Director) 

named me! 

So at 10 AM on Friday, June 28, 1957, I was called into the office of the Director of Engineering 

and was brought up to date. The new organization was to come into being Monday 

morning July 1, 1957; at the specific request of the General Manager I was to head it, however 

if I did chose to transfer to Quality as this would require, I would never be allowed to return to 

Engineering. I was not being ordered to transfer, however, if I chose not to go he felt that he 

would never be allowed to promote me in the future, i.e., I would be frozen in position. I would 

be allowed to take four technicians of my choosing with me as well as my department clerk, all 

of whom would be permitted to return to Engineering after one year if they so chose. MORE- 

OVER, I had until only until noon that same day to decide! II wasn’t much of choice, stay 

and freeze in position or move into the unknown and possibly be able to convince a new and 

previously hostile boss that I might be of some good. For a facility to work in, I was able to 

retain, at least for a start, the Engineering Instrumentation Lab; and for a staff, I could take four 

electronic technicians and my new secretary. 

On Monday, July 1, at 0800 hrs, the six of us met at my desk in a corner of the Instrumentation 

Lab (the first office for the new Metrology Organization) and for about the first hour 

we just stared at each other and asking each other, “What do we do now”? First, I explained to 

them that I had never before managed a Calibration Lab, but as an Engineer of considerable tenure, 

I had dealt with many and while I could not recall much of a positive nature about any of 

them, I most surely knew an awful lot of negative details. Therefore, we were going to be 

guided by quite a miscellany of what not to do. In other words, I was taking a negative approach 

to the establishment of the new Metrology Branch. However, it worked! 

I had an advantage in that I knew my people, or at least most of them. Two of the technicians 

had been with me since the start of the Engineering Laboratory’s facility. One had had 

many years experience in radio and TV repair and was a very practical, down-to-earth troubleshooter. 

The other had been the senior tech in the service shop of a local instrumentation manufacturer’s 

sales representative and was well-versed in commercial instrumentation, both those 

sold by his employer and the competition. The other two, while more recent hires were recent 

discharges from the PMEL Lab at the Marine Corps Helicopter Station nearby. One had been 

the sergeant in charge, and the other one of his flunkies. The other member of my team was the 

lady who was ostensibly my secretary. She had been forced upon me only a week before because 

no one else in the facility wanted her. She had been under pressure transferred from the 

home facility because no one there could stand her overbearing militant feminist attitude (she 



MQD Page 23 


went through at least seven husbands to my knowledge). 

I next took a clipboard with a fresh lined tablet attached, a flashlight, and a handful of 

pencils, and gave them to the former sergeant. I instructed him to go throughout the entire facility, 

all five buildings and inventory every device that even appeared to have measurement 

capability. He was to look in every cabinet, every draw of every desk (including the executive 

row), every bench, and every tool crib. For every item he even suspected had some sort of 

measurement capability involved in its operation, he was write down the Property Number, the 

manufacturer, the model number, the serial number, if necessary a description of the device, 

and its location. Meanwhile the Manufacturing Department sent me a list of 121 items they 

claimed were all the measuring devices in the plant except for those we had in Engineering. At 

the end of two weeks my ex-sergeant had found another 434. 

I assigned the former service shop tech and the other Marine to start calibrating and repairing 

those instruments we had on hand, i.e., the Engineering Lab stockpile. At that point we 

still had no standards or calibration procedures. “Just do the best you can,” were my instructions, 

“However, write everything down. Write down every reading at every point on a calibration, 

both ‘as found’ and ‘as left’. Write down every detail of the ‘as found’ physical condition 

of an instrument and every detail of what you did in the repairing of it including all of the parts 

needed.” 

I have forgotten to mention that I was also given another ‘temporary’ assignment, that of 

Electronic Receiving Inspection. Until the Air Force Inspectors came upon the scene, there had 

been no test inspection of incoming electronic material, just a visual damage and identification. 

So when we arrived that Monday morning we found about 1500 items, all in individual brown 

paper sacks with the Receiving Documentation stapled to each sack piled up in a corner of the 

Instrumentation Lab. (The pile was literally from the floor to the ceiling!) I assigned my ex-TV 

tech to do what he could with that mess, as I knew he would use common sense and could work 

without too much supervision. He did. 

As for the lady newly assigned to me, she turned out to be a gem. Previously nobody in 

the entire company had bothered to try finding her principal usefulness. I did accidentally, she 

proved to be a genius in the area of administrative systems. I had given her the assignment of 

locating all of the standard forms we might need for the creation of a new department and for 

the assigned responsibilities; and to find the necessary existing procedures associated and where 

none existed, make some notes on what might be required. By that afternoon she had located 

all necessary existing forms or had roughed out any others that might be needed. She had found 

or had rough drafted all necessary administrative procedures. The next day when the Corporate 

Administrative Procedures Department people came over with nicely printed formal procedures 

telling us how we were suppose to carry out our assignment, she showed them what she had 

drafted. Those pompous stuffed shirt individuals were stopped in their tracks, even they could 

recognize that her drafts were superior to what they had brought. They adopted hers on the spot 

and immediately formalized them and had them signed off by top management. 

I then went over to the front building to encounter my new boss. As I have mentioned 

before, we had never been exactly cordial or friendly. The meeting was cool and reserved, although 

he did mention that he had concurred with the other Directors about my selection. For 

the next month or so we stood toe-to-toe while holding each other at arms length. 



MQD Page 24 


(Finally the Chief Engineer for the Automatic Test Equipment projects went over 

and had a “Dutch Uncle” talk with him and convinced him that he was now responsible 

for a function that no way resembled the old “rivet knocking” and “look but do not 

touch” type functions to which he was accustomed. He was going to have to realize that 

this new responsibility was going to have to include new factors as physical handling, repair, 

calibration, property custody, and evaluation of all sorts of measuring devices. It 

would necessitate a much higher level of scientific and technical know-how than had ever 

been seen previously in any Quality Control function around the Air Frame Industry. He 

convinced him and I am eternally grateful. Things ran much more smoothly after that.) 

My Boss then told me that the “Great White Father” had just created a “Measurement, 

Test, and Inspection Equipment Review Board and that I was to be the Quality Control Representative. 

The first meeting was to be tomorrow morning in the Division Manager’s office 

suite—be there! 

The next morning I reported as directed and found myself in the company of several 

other individuals all from different operational departments, all of whom were ranking staff 

members, but none were department heads. We were all knowledgeable of and on a casual basis 

with each other. The Division Manager, after welcoming us, explained why we were there, 

why he had created the Common Pool, and what he expected of us, as the Measurement, Test, 

and Inspection Equipment Review Board, in relation to it. He laid down the following directives: 

1. This Board was to always be composed of a technically knowledgeable Representative 

from Engineering, Manufacturing, Production Engineering (Tooling), Plant Engineering 

(Facilities), and Quality Control. It was always to be chaired by the Production Engineering 

Representative (he explained that he felt that all instrumentation was really a form of tooling to 

accomplish the job at hand.) The new Metrology operation in Quality was to be the technical 

advisor. (This meant that I was to wear two hats, one as the Quality Rep and the other as chief 

technical advisor, and that they might at times be forced to take opposite sides. However, even 

more important to me, here was the justified need for the establishment of a Metrology 

Engineering and Analysis Section within my new organization!) 

He pointed out one of the most important attributes of this Board; when it was to meet 

as a Board, we as Board members would be responsible to his office and his office alone. No 

individual on that Board was ever to be held accountable by his parent organization for any 

Board decision no matter how unfavorable that decision might be to that organization. He was 

entrusting the Board to make all decisions in the best interests of the Company and the Division. 

2. While the day-to-day management of this new Common Pool was the responsibility 

of my new Metrology organization, overview and policy was vested solely in this Board. Metrology 

was to take its operational directions from the Board and not from any other function in 

the Division. 

3. All requests for new test and measuring equipment, irrespective of fiscal level (capital 

asset, expense, government bailment, etc) was to be approved by this Board before any procurement 

action was to be taken. When received, each such item was to be moved directly from the 



MQD Page 25 


Receiving Dock to Metrology for any necessary identification and acceptance testing. 

4. Every requestor of a new procurement, individual or organization, must first justify to 

the Board the need for and the correctness of the measurement requiring a new device. The 

Board through the Metrology Engineering and Analysis could then require an investigation of 

the necessity and correctness of the measurement. 

(That is when I learned to ask “WHY? Why are you making this measurement in the 

first place? An awful lot of measurement requirements went away and just disappeared 

when they could not answer that question.) 

The requestor was permitted to suggest a commercial device that he felt might fill his 

needs, but the final decision was up to the Board based on advice from the Technical Advisor. 

This advise was to include not only suitability of the device to properly perform the designated 

task, was also include such factors as standardization of the instrument inventory, maintainability 

and spare parts logistics, fragility, and degree of training necessary for the safe and useful 

operation of the device. 

(Over the next eight years the Board probably turned down fifty per cent of the 

requests based on disproving the need for the measurement or showing that an incorrect 

measurement was being specified; and possibly as many as seventy-five per cent of the requests 

for specific devices based upon an incorrect device specification or other devices 

already in inventory suitable to do the job) Here we had solid proof of what is often 

claimed; young engineers are frequently influenced to request new and flashy gadgetry 

hardware by “suede shoed sales men buying them six martini lunches”. Needless to say 

we became “unloved” by many of the less reputable sales people.) 

5, Once a Requestor had established a justified need for a new measurement capability 

requiring a new device and the Board had selected the proper device to fill that need, there was 

no backing out. The Requestor would be required to find enough funds to purchase it. If a new 

requirement was proven to exist it must be fulfilled by whomever created the need, (The Division 

Manager explained that he felt that this would encourage the Department heads to keep a 

closer rein on their underlings and discourage them from needlessly creating new and unnecessarily 

exotic needs.) 

There was one additional factor connected with the Requestor’s responsibility; should a 

newly approved device be beyond the capability of my Metrology organization to maintain and 

calibrate, the original Requestor was responsible to provide sufficient funds to procure whatever 

equipment and/or standards that Metrology required to do the job. 

(Here I have another story about how serious he was concerning this new policy. 

Engineering had a small development project. It consisted of two young engineers [both 

of whom had worked for me when I was head of the Engineering Labs] developing an A 

to D Voltage Converter (DVM) with a range of 1 volt to 1 kv for both AC and DC, with an 

accuracy of ± 0.01% DC and ± 0.05% AC. They were required by their assignment to attempt 

to hold the traditional 10:1 accuracy ratio. In 1957 technology!!!!! They had selected 

a commercially available device and requested procurement. Naturally Metrology 

got the assignment to analyze the problem. The requested device would do their job up to 

10 volts, but no further and on DC only. They had completely overlooked the need for a 



MQD Page 26 


precise and accurate AC source. There was nothing on the market in the 1957-58 timeframe 

that could satisfy their justified needs. The Board instructed us to find whatever 

could be found to fill the need. 

We were familiar with a DC source that the manufacturer claimed an accuracy of 

± 0.01% and had a range up to 1kv, but it did not have the resolution required. After 

study we decided that we could modify it by adding a ten turn Helipot to the lower end of 

the divider string. We also felt that the manufacturer had been conservatively cautious in 

his claims and that it might be possible for us to internally rate the device as ± 0.001% for 

24 hours if we could do an every other day calibration. However, this solution would require 

the project to purchase two DC devices instead of just one. 

The AC problem was similar. There was a very new AC source on the market that 

we had not as yet had a chance to investigate. The local Representative was only too 

happy to let someone evaluate his very expensive product. It was rated by the manufacturer 

as 0-1kv, in 0.01 volt steps, at an accuracy of 0.50% for thirty days. Could this be 

improved? 

A little study showed us that with the every other day calibration technique we had developed 

for the DC source and keeping it under continuous power except when being moved, 

we could hold ± 0.05% for 24 hours. That left us with a 1:1 ratio for the AC but it was the 

best that anybody could do at that time. After we gathered some history we were able to 

improve that ratio. 

But, here was the hitch, the entire engineering project was budgeted for about 

$10k for materials and labor; this new equipment was to cost them approximately $9k. 

But when I was asked if we could calibrate these devices, I told them that we had “jury 

rigged” the calibrations for the tests, but that these “jury rigs” would be unable to handle 

an every other day schedule. We had to have a rather substantial increase in our Reference 

Standards capability to meet that new requirement. This would come to about $50k 

and could not wait until next year’s capital funding request. The Board so ordered that 

Engineering purchase all of the necessary equipment. This was the first major test of the 

Board’s authority. Upon appeal by the Directory of Engineering, the Division Manager 

backed the Board. That was the last time that a Board decision was appealed, at least 

while I was there. The “Great White Father proven that he meant what he said and 

every time thereafter backed the Board. Total pooling under an independent Board 

proved efficient, effective, and cost savings to a degree never before imagined.) 

After that meeting with the Division Manager, I rushed back to my office and started 

drawing an organization chart for an organization much larger than the five people that I already 

had assigned to me. 

Naturally it takes time to grow in an orderly manner, so I devised the organization chart by 

function so that it could be filled out as we grew without having to revise the organizational 

structure. It would have required at least 25 individuals to fill each designated slot on my first 

chart—and I had only five people. Solution: Each of us must become multi-functional, and we 

did to the best of our abilities. At the end of the first year, I was able to prove that by rigidly 

following the Common Pool Directive and maintaining every device up to manufacturer’s original 

specifications or better, we had saved the Corporation 20-25% on capital outlay as compared 

to other Divisions of the Corporation and other organizations doing similar work. By 



MQD Page 27 


then we were up to about 30 people and had at least skeleton staffing in each of the organizational 

slots. Eventually before I left in 1965, we were up to 65 staff and were in addition not 

only serving all Corporate Divisional facilities in Southern California, but were also operating a 

commercial service providing calibration and repair to other local organizations for a fee. 

Although the Corporate Headquarters made pooling and the “Anaheim System” mandatory 

throughout all elements of our Division, they never imposed it upon the other divisions. 

They did however, create a Corporate Metrology Board to attempt to coordinate Metrology Policy 

throughout the Corporation and to provide for the interchange of standards certifications and 

appointed me the first chairman. 

For some reason I never could understand why they resisted publicizing the Common 

Pooling concept outside of the company. In 1963, for the ISA Annual Conference at Chicago, I 

was requested to write a paper to be entitled “Instrument Pools—Cake or Frosting?” for a place 

in a session that was to concern the management of standards laboratories. I drafted the paper 

in pencil, but management would not allow it to even be typed until it had gone all the way 

through the approval chain literally up through the Corporate Board of Directors. I was already 

in Chicago and on the morning I was to present it, I received a phone call to go ahead. I did 

using only my hand written rough draft. 

As I explained in the Forward to my lecture hand out, in 1987, quite unexpectedly I was 

requested to lecture to a large group of Western Pennsylvania high level executives on the necessity 

of properly organizing a calibration facility to ensure optimum quality. I drew upon my 

experiences during this experience and for that specific purpose Pooling was not stressed. I had 

been instructed that Organization was the key issue here, however on the other hand pooling 

was not overlooked in the oral part of the lecture. 

I needed to stress that I highly approve of the philosophy that was delineated in the article 

in CAL LAB, but I felt that I needed to give some history of a practical application of those 

principles that predated the efforts described. When it got up to strength and in full swing, my 

Metrology Development and Analysis Unit (we were not permitted to use the word 

“Engineering”): 

1. Developed and/or approved every calibration procedure used, keeping abreast of 

every change in Military or other Customer Quality requirements (it was our policy to work to 

our own internal requirement documents wherein we would note every detail requirement of 

each of our customer requirement documents and attempt to exceed the requirements of each 

detail.) 

2. Analyzed every calibration for trends and by doing so adjust the recall intervals. (We 

had installed running time meters on nearly every powered device and were searching for an 

algorithm that would allow us to control recall based upon running time rather than the calendar.) 

3. Provided Metrological consulting to the entire facility, and frequently to other facilities 

of the corporation. (After the above described incident, we had little trouble in convincing 

the majority of the design engineers to talk to us first before they specified any tests for their 

designs. Engineering Management frequently called upon us to be present and to defend the 



MQD Page 28 


measurement capability of their Automatic Test Equipment during DOD technical audits.) 

4. Evaluated new devices coming onto the market for possible application at our facility. 

(It was specifically prohibited for personnel in other Divisional organizations to have vendors 

bring devices into them for evaluation; all such offerings were to be to Metrology.) This allowed 

us to develop procedures and facilities to calibrate and maintain prior to purchase; and to 

deny further demonstration of the device and waste of time, if the device was found to be inferior. 

This drastically reduced the number of “six martini lunches much to the satisfaction of the 

Director of Engineering. 

5. Designed and oversaw the construction of specialized devices and fixtures to facilitate 

our calibration and standards maintenance efforts. (As you progress, you frequently find out 

that you need gadgets that are just not on the market. They need to fit your specific needs not 

just some generalized need. So we built our own. 


MQD Page 29 

THE BIRTH OF THE 

MEASURMENT SCIENCE CONFERENCE 

THE DATE: Friday, May 23, 1969 

THE PLACE: A Conference Room in the Administration Building on the Campus of the California 

Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. (CalPoly–SLO) 

THE OCCASION: A regular meeting of the California Professional Metrology Committee (CPMC), 

an agency of the California State Legislature. This unusual venue for this meeting had been specifically 

requested by the Administration of the University, 

THOSE PRESENT: (Including their positions at that time and known status as of today (January 

2007). 

MEMBERS OF THE CPMC PRESENT: 

Mr. Thurlow M. Morrow, Chairman of the CPMC; Chief of Metrology for the MacDonald-Douglas 

Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. (Mr. Morrow was appointed by the California Legislature to this 

Chairmanship.) Mr. Morrow died December 19, 2005. 

Mr. Phillip A, Painchaud, Vice-Chairman of CPMC; Director of Corporate Standards and personal 

Staff Assistant to the President of the E-H Research Laboratories Inc. of Oakland, CA. (Mr. Painchaud 

was elected (in absentia) by the CPMC membership to the Vice-Chairmanship.) Mr. Painchaud 

is still active and is author of this document. 

Mr. DeWayne B. Sharp, Chief of Metrology for IBM Corporation San Jose, CA facility and 

Chair of the IBM Corporate Metrology Task Force. Mr. Sharp died October 31, 2006. 

Mr. Robert Galley, Head of Physical Standards for the MacDonald-Douglas Corporate Metrology 

Laboratories, Santa Monica, CA. and renowned world authority on Fluid Flow Measurement. Mr. 

Galley died circa 1980. 

Mr. Robert McKennan, Corporate Director of Quality for the Hunt Foods Corporation, Fullerton, 

CA. Mr. McKennan retired to Washington State and died there circa 1995. 

Mr. Gerald Geiger, Vice-President of the California Farm Federation Bureau and owner/ 

operator of 640 acres of rice farm in the Sacramento Valley. We have heard nothing from him since 

circa 1970 and can only surmise that he has passed on. 

Navy Commander Gerald T. White, Deputy Base Commander, Alameda Naval Air Station 

and Chief Engineering Officer of the Naval Overhaul and Rework Depot also at that Station. Cmdr. 

White was last seen alive in Oakland, CA, circa 1990 and was then suffering advance stages of glandular 

cancer with a poor prognosis. 

Mr. James E. Ross, President and CEO. Berkleonics Inc., of Monrovia, CA (later of San Luis 

Obispo). Circa 1998 Mr. Ross sold all of his holdings in and around SLO and retired dividing his time 

between Pismo Beach, CA, and a fishing cabin in Idaho. He has not been heard from since. 

Mr. Lawrence S. Kreyer, Chief of Design of Nuclear Test Instrumentation (later Director of 

Quality Assurance) EG&G. Inc. Santa Barbara, CA. Mr. Kreyer, upon retirement from EG&G moved to 

New Mexico. He was recently seen at the funeral of DeWayne Sharp and stated that he is currently living 

with family members in Santa Maria, CA, 

Mr. Raymond Williams, Legislative Assistant to State Assemblyman Mike Roos, Sr. (D- 



MQD Page 30 


Beverly Hills) and designated appointee as Director of the California World Trade Center to be based in 

Long Beach. Mr. Williams dropped out of sight shortly after this meeting, presumably because of personal 

problems and has not been heard from since. 

Dr. Harold O. Wilson, Vice-President, Administration– CalPoly-SLO and personal Education 

Advisor to Governor Ronald Reagan. Dr. Wilson retired from Cal-Poly, remained in San Luis Obispo 

and apparently died there circa 1995. 

Mr. Steve Kosich, Quality Director, ACF Industries, Inc., Costa Mesa, CA. Mr. Kosich later 

became an independent Quality Consultant and died circa 1998. 

MEMBERS OF THE UNIVERSITY PRESENT: 

Dr, Robert Kennedy, President of the University. While Mr. Morrow as Chair of the CPMC presided 

during the earlier part of the meeting, when Dr. Kennedy agreed to the proposition of a Conference on 

Campus and called for an Advisory Committee, Mr. Morrow relinquished the Chair to him. Dr. Kennedy, 

at the close of the meeting bestowed the Chair of the Advisory Committee to Dr. Morgan and, except 

for delivering a short welcoming address at the opening of each Conference, never again directly 

participated in any Conference matters. We have no knowledge of him beyond that. 

Dr. Don Morgan, Head of the Department of Industrial Engineering, College of Engineering, California 

Polytechnic State University–San Luis Obispo. By direction of the President of the University, Dr. Morgan 

was in total charge of the Conference for those years before it was moved off campus, except for 

that period when Dr. Morgan was on detached service to the University of Singapore. Professor Paul 

Sheffler acted as interim Director Pro-Tem during that period. In 1991, upon contacting the University 

concerning Dr. Morgan, we were informed that he died, date not specified. 

Mr. Fred Wolfe, Campus Special Activities Coordinator. Mr. Wolfe was called into the meeting by Dr. 

Kennedy and became a vital key figure in all of the Conferences held up through 1979. He apparently 

left the University some time after that and the University Personnel Office claimed they had no records 

of his whereabouts, 

NOTE: Dr. Kennedy had several other lower level University Staff members present as observers and 

to be available as information sources if needed. As none of these people participated in any way, no 

records were kept of their presence. 

NON-UNIVERSITY, NON-CPMC PERSON PRESENT: 

Mr. Earl Kalar, Director of Weights & Measures, San Luis Obispo County. Mr. Kalar later became 

Federal Environmental Commissioner for the Central Coast District of California. Mr. Kalar was specifically 

invited to the meeting by Dr. Kennedy and proved to be a valuable asset for all Conferences 

held on the SLO campus. He died circa 1998 according to information received from the SLO County 

W&M Office. 

PHIL PAINCHAUD 

January 16, 2007 


MQD Page 31 

THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE 

CALIFORNIA MEASUREMENT 

SCIENCE CONFERENCE 

(As viewed from the perspective 

of my personal participation) 

According To: 


SECOND EDITION 


MQD Page 32 

FORWARD: (To the First Edition) 

During June 1991, I received a letter from Mr. Chet J. Crane, Historian of the Measurement 

Science Conference, asking me if I would consider compiling for him such historical facts 

as I could recall, concerning the Conference as might be applicable to its earlier years. Mr. 

Crane went on to explain that he had been charged by the current Board of Directors to compile 

a history of the MSC. Such a history could be used as a tutorial to alleviate the need for an everchanging 

Board composition from having to relearn old tricks again— the hard way. With a 

history to draw upon, they could learn from the mistakes and triumphs of the past and not have 

to be continuously reinventing the wheel. 

It was logical he should have called upon me, as I was one of the most very active involvees 

during MSC's earliest days. I am probably the only surviving member of the original 

founding group, still in metrology today. Even then, this compilation was no picayune task. It 

was more of a herculean nature. It has caused me to expend, literally hundreds of hours and 

dollars researching details, only to find that few concrete substantiation’s of fact still exist. But, 

on the other hand, it has been a labor of love. 

Since it has been impossible to locate much documentary or other concrete evidence of 

those earliest years, I have, for the most part, been forced to rely upon my own memory. Not 

being gifted with infallibility, I have called for reinforcement (from time to time), from those 

few remaining others, who were with me during those earliest years. I have not tried to cover, 

in detail each of the Conferences from the outset to date. I have limited this compilation 

to just those in which I had substantial involvement, and have clear or verifiable memories. 

This compilation is not intended to be a general circulation document for popular reading. 

Rather, it is intended to be an archival file reference, to be used by the serious researcher, 

doing a scholarly research on early Measurement Science Conferences and their roots in predecessor 

organizations. It should be read in that context. If any reader challenges that presented, 

as opposed to his own undocumented and/or unsubstantial and otherwise fanciful recollections, 

he must remember that such claims will necessarily come down to his claims vs. my memory, 

backed by several other individuals who were active participants at the time in question. There 

are no winners or losers in such cases. Everybody loses. 

Since this document is intended to be a research reference, it would be ridiculous to attempt 

to restrict dissemination of its contents. It may be quoted freely, but only with proper 

credits and citations, and with timely notices to the author and to the Historian, that it is being 

quoted. 

My many sincere thanks to those innumerable individuals who have assisted me in the 

verification of data, counsel—with encouragement, and in the editing. 

Phil Painchaud 

Brea, California 

October 20.1991 


MQD Page 33 

FORWARD: (To the Second Edition) 

It has been eight years since Chet Crane asked me to do “a history of the early years of 

the Measurement Science Conference”. He obviously used some of it in compiling his overall 

history, which was distributed at an earlier Conference. I thought the subject was dead, until 

DeWayne Sharp called me several weeks ago, and asked me for a copy. He couldn’t find his 

copy. It seems that he was writing an editorial for one of the societal journals he is involved 

with, and wanted to quote parts of my document. He was, at the time, working on a theme of 

how, sometimes we get involved in seemingly small efforts, and, in time these can grow and 

become anything but small — as has the Measurement Science Conference. 

All was well and good, until DeWayne offered to send copies of this History to any of 

his readers who were interested. While I was more than satisfied with the accuracy of the research 

I had done on that First Edition, I was far less pleased with the Format; the Spelling; the 

Diction; the Grammar; the Syntax; and in general, the Readability. I showed the original document 

to my wife; who is my literary editor and proofreader (and also DeWayne’s, as well for 

much of what he writes). She took one hard look; told me to tell him that it was not to be released, 

not even “over her dead body”, until she had proofed it, and I had corrected and reformatted 

it. My wife is a real martinet on matters of literary correctness. 

So I called DeWayne, and told him to cool it for a while, and Arlene Roberts Painchaud 

Painchaud (yes, that is her real name, we call her ARP² for short) went to work editing. In the 

forty odd pages of the original document, she found approximately a thousand discrepancies in 

Spelling; in Grammar; in Diction; in Syntax; and as well, in Intelligibility, in general! Now 

came the problem of incorporating the many changes that would correct those discrepancies 

without distorting any of the facts as presented in the earlier edition. In this Second Edition, I 

believe that I have been able to accomplish that task, be totally faithful to facts of the First Edition; 

and at the same time, do it in a more presentable format. 

Reformatting was no small task. The original document was done on a DOS machine in 

WordStar Version 5.5 — long outmoded. Our present machine, a Pentium II, running Windows 

98 as a platform for Microsoft Word 98, is totally incompatible with these older applications. 

We finally found a third party commercial conversion program, which allegedly could 

read WordStar 5.5 and translate it to MS-Word 98; — well, almost. It seems that many of the 

WordStar formatting commands were left behind during the conversions, but became hidden 

and were still active. For those who know computer operations, no further explanations of my 

problems are necessary; for the rest (the computer illiterates), the matter is too painful to reiterate. 

Let us just say that after some three months of spare time (?) work, we have recreated the 

document —sans WordStar; and with all of the facts intact. 

I feel I must point out, especially to first time readers of this History, that, after the First 

Edition, I was both praised and vilified by many people; and even accused of narcissism by others. 

Some did not read it carefully enough to get the message; this was intended to be a record 

based upon my personal involvement in the development of the MSC. It was not intended to be 

a detailed acknowledgement of everyone who ever attended a session, or think that they participated. 

All of the people who were really involved in the very earliest days and whom I was 

able to contact (e.g., Morrow, Sharp, Edgerton, McKennan, etc.) all gave me great credit for 

historical accuracy as they recalled the events. Several others, many of whom didn’t show up 

until the Tenth Conference or later, castigated me for not giving them credit for originating the 



MQD Page 34 


concept of the MSC! To this, all I can say is to paraphrase P.T.Barnum: “— you can’t please 

all of the people all of the time.” 

Since I gave the histories of some of the principal characters involved in the early MSC 

in Chapter Three, I felt possibly those histories should be updated and several more added: 

Thurlow Morrow; left metrology; became a very successful insurance broker in 

Hemet; sold that business; went into pear growing in Lake County; and finally retired 

to Southwest Arizona where now he teaches part time in the local Community 

Colleges. 

Robert Galley; when he completed his tour of duty with UNIDO in Bulgaria; was hired 

by Bechtel as their flow authority on the design of the Four Corners Power Project. 

He later retired to the Antioch (Sacramento Delta) area, where he died several years 

ago. 

Robert McKennan; after the collapse of the Open Road Recreation Vehicle Company, 

retired to Washington state, and still lives there with his wife. I usually receive a 

Christmas card from them, and have seen them once during a visit here to Southern 

California. 

Gerald Geiger; returned to his 640 acre rice farm in Richvale, CA; and I haven’t heard 

from him since. 

Russell Journigan; hasn’t been heard from since he left California to assume the role of 

Federal Education Commissioner for Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. 

Jack Webb; after reopening the Type II Naval Standards at the Whidbey Island Naval 

Air Station, and making it in to an enviable showplace, was transferred to the naval 

facility on Guam to upgrade that facility. I visited him at Whidbey, just before he 

left for Guam and I have talked to him on the telephone several times afterward. I 

presume he is retired by now, as Guam was scheduled to be his last assignment before 

retirement. 

Navy Commander Gerald T. White; after his retirement from the Navy, and his subsequent 

employment by MIST-O-GEN, was stricken with a severe case of cancer of 

the lymph glands and was subjected to drastic surgery. I last saw him, in Oakland, 

about 1990 — his prognosis was poor. 

.DeWayne B. Sharp; eventually retired from IBM — established a home based business, 

THE SHAPE OF THINGS, doing computer graphics, and remains active in societal 

affairs. He and his wife have left their long time home in San Jose and have 

moved to, of all places, San Luis Obispo! We remain in very close contact. 

James E. Ross; sold all of his holdings in San Luis Obispo, and in retirement divides 

his time between a beach home in Pismo Beach and a fishing retreat in Idaho. 

Lawrence S. Kreyer; after serving for many years as head of Quality for EG&G-Santa 

Barbara, retired to New Mexico, where he lives with his wife. 

Raymond Williams; dropped completely out of sight several months prior to the First 

Conference, presumably because of personal problems. 

Dr. Harold O. Wilson; retired from the California State University and College System 

and stayed in San Luis Obispo. 



MQD Page 35 


Dr. Robert Kennedy; I have no information concerning him. 

Dr. Don Morgan; I tried to contact him in 1991, while I was writing the First Edition 

and was told that he had died; no further details. 

Earl Kalar; retired from the San Luis Obispo County Bureau of Weights and Measures; 

became the Federal Environmental Commissioner for the Central Coast District of 

California. He later retired to his home in Atascadero, where he died “about two 

years ago”, according to my informant. 

Fred Wolfe; I had several contacts with him after we were involved together in the 

1978 Conference; when I tried to reach him again later, mail was returned. A call to 

the University Personnel Office produced nothing; “Whereabouts unknown”. 

Albert K. Edgerton; converted his business, Western Instrument Company, from custom 

instrument design and construction, to the engineering, design, and construction 

of underwater networks. He moved the business to Ventura County, and remained 

Board Chairman, while his son took over day-to-day operations. He is retired and 

living with his wife, Connie, in a retirement community near Calabasas. I have 

talked to him on the telephone; he is in reasonable health for his age. 

Paul Sheffler; I have heard nothing from, or about him, since the conclusion of the 

1979 Conference. 

Bob Couture; remained active in MSC affairs for many years after his Directorship of 

the 1976 Conference. During this period, he was in charge of the Electrical Standards 

for the Autonetics Division of Rockwell-International in Anaheim. He retired 

from there; moved from his long time home in Bellflower, and I have since lost 

track of his whereabouts. The last time I recall seeing him was at the Twenty-fifth 

Conference in 1996, when we were photographed together. 

Dave Buck; remained with the MSC for a few years, but dropped it when he retired 

from Lockheed. He died, rather suddenly about 1993, if I recall correctly. I did attend 

his funeral at Forest Lawn-Hollywood Hills. 

Andy Woodington; his history is covered in depth in this History and is too painful to 

reiterate here. 

Paul Messinger; after the 1977 Conference, he left Metrology for awhile, and became 

very successfully involved in large-scale distribution of Amway products. He then 

went into the Import/Export of Oriental Products business. In 1984, Southern California 

Edison hired him to establish their monumental metrology facility in Westminster. 

We had considerable contact during that period. He later went into the distribution 

of computers. He is now retired, reputedly in very poor health, and living 

in Orange County. 

Bill Fry; a really good friend, retired from the GIDEP Program in Norco, after over 

thirty years of Government service to, in his own words, “go home and clean out my 

garage” (his garage was a notorious disorganized warehouse of Miscellany). He 

died very suddenly a few weeks later — his garage still not “cleaned out”. The vast 

throng of people who attended his funeral and interment, with full military honors at 

the National Cemetery in Riverside, was an eloquent testimonial to his place in the 

hearts of many of us. 



MQD Page 36 


Dean Brungard; we are forever in his debt for the magnificent manner in which he 

managed the Exhibits function during ever so many Conferences. He developed a 

severe heart condition, had invasive surgery, retired from Teledyne, and is now living 

“somewhere north of Sacramento”, according to my informant. 

Professor Bob Irvine; I have no current information on him. He showed up at a few of 

the Conferences after the 1978 one at Pomona, but I have nothing current on him. 

Dr. Eve Connor; I have heard nothing, to my dismay, from her since our joint efforts 

during the 1981 Conference. 

That is all I know currently of the twenty-six people I highlighted in the main text of this 

History. 

In Chapter 13, I stated,”That was a hard act to beat”, referring to my receiving the award of 

the PRECISION MEASUREMENTS ASSOCIATION CHARTER LIFE FELLOWSHIP”. 

Well, in 1996, during the Twenty-fifth Conference, it was “beat”. During the luncheon session 

on the first day of the Conference, I was awarded, by the Measurement Science Conference 

Board of Directors: 

THE ANDREW J. WOODINGTON AWARD FOR 

PROFESSIONALISM IN METROLOGY! 

thus making me a member of that select group of Woodington Laureates. That cannot be 

“beat”, not in Metrology at least; and I thank all who made it possible. 



January 12, 1999 

CHAPTER ONE 

WHY IT ALL STARTED 

OR BEFORE THE BEGINNING 

After careful contemplation, I feel that no meaningful history of the California Measurement 

Science Conference (the original name of the present MSC) can be written without thoroughly 

examining and understanding the forerunner organizations which brought the MSC into 

being in 1969. MSC’s earliest roots lie in the California Professional Metrology Committee 

(CPMC), so it is there we must begin, because the CPMC’s early history definitely instigated 

and shaped the early MSC; despite the fact that it predated the conception of the MSC by at 

least seven years. 

During 1962, in Los Angeles, there was uncovered a notorious and much publicized 

swindle. This has sometimes been referred to as the “Yellow Cab Taxi Meter Scandal”. An 

investigation showed that, upon direct orders from their management, technicians in the Yellow 

Cab Company shop in Los Angeles were deliberately adjusting the taximeters 25-50% fast, thus 

grossly overcharging the customers. Legal action proved futile under the then existing laws. 



MQD Page 37 


Taxi meters were not, at that time, specifically spelled out in those statutes defining which devices 

came under the control of the then existing State and County Bureaus of Weights and 

Measures. The Yellow Cab Technicians had no protection from management reaction if they 

refused to comply; as did workers in the regulated trades and professions. 

Example: If a hospital administrator should order a nurse employee of that hospital to 

administer an illegal drug to a patient, the nurse could, not only refuse with impunity, 

but could (and should) through professional registration channels, instigate action 

against that administrator. 

No such protection then existed for any level of practitioner in any of the measurement 

sciences — even if the device(s) involved was itself subject to regulatory controls. Thus, a 

paradox existed. If a technician refused management orders to adjust a gasoline pump or a 

butcher scale, to give a false reading, he was subject to management disciplinary action, and the 

law would support the action. If he followed those orders, and so adjusted the device, he was 

subject to criminal action by the jurisdiction. 

This bit of investigative reporting came to the attention of certain legislators in Sacramento, 

causing them to authorize a study as to the potential impact on the economy of the State 

of California. This study showed, that for the year in question (1962), within California alone, 

over Fifty Billion Dollars ($50,000,000,000 in 1962 dollars) worth of goods and services, based 

on some unit of measure, were sold to the ultimate customer. (This figure excluded all sales 

that were not by a unit of measure; or were wholesaled to an intermediate distributor; or were 

exported out of the state; or were sold to a Federal Government entity) — That kind of money 

will attract the attention of any politician. 

State Assemblyman Mike Roos, Sr. [D-Beverly Hills] (not the present incumbent of the 

same name) was so attracted, and decided to do something about it. Since he would need help 

within the Legislature, it made sense for him to recruit aid from a member of the opposite party 

within the Senate. Since that body would also have to approve any resulting legislation, such bi 

-party sponsorship could take this project out of the realm of partisan politics, as it should be. 

Therefore, he wisely recruited the influential State Senator Nelson Dilworth [R-Hemet] as cosponsor. 

Together they determined there was not at that time, adequate technical counseling of 

the right kind available to them from the existing special-interest lobby community in Sacramento. 

So, they decided to invoke a little known, and hence seldom used, provision of the Legislative 

Code. This was to form and to sponsor a Legislative Advisory (or Lobbying) Committee 

to advise them on those actions necessary to develop legislation, designed to regulate 

(license if you will) all persons in California, who were in any way identified with measuring 

devices or processes. 

Since they (Roos and Dilworth) were creating and sponsoring this advisory group, that 

same Code permitted them to write the charter under which it would be formed; how it would 

be staffed; how it would operate; as well as define its mission. A few of those details as I can 

recall them were: 

A secret or clandestine operation was specifically prohibited by law, but, to these Legislators 

(the Sponsors), normal publicity was not desirable. Therefore, the Committee was man- 



MQD Page 38 


dated to operate with as low a profile as possible, in keeping with the mission objectives. The 

Committee meetings must not be secret, but they were not to be publicized. Minutes were to be 

taken and frequent reports were to be written; but, these documents were not to be publicly released, 

or even retained by the Committee itself. All copies of such documents were to be directed 

to the Sponsors only; none to anyone else. 

All communications between the Committee and the Legislators would be through the 

Chairman. The Sponsors were to be contacted only by the Chairman — never by the other individual 

committee members. 

Candidates for Committee membership could be proposed by either the Sponsors or by 

the Committee itself. However, all Committee members, without exception, were to be unpaid 

volunteers, who would also absorb their own expenses. 

The Sponsors were to have the sole and final authority to approve the membership of 

any candidate. Individuals whose nominations originated with the Sponsors would be subject 

to examination by a select sub-committee of the whole Committee. The results of that examination 

would require the unanimous assent of the whole Committee, prior to final approval by 

the Legislators. 

Candidates nominated for membership by the Committee itself would be subject to approval 

by the Sponsors before they could participate in any Committee meetings or activities. 

The Committee could select its own operating officers from among its membership, except 

for the Chairman. That individual, would, at all times, be appointed unilaterally by the 

Legislators from any candidates they so pleased. 

The Committee was to select its own name, subject to approval of the Sponsors. The 

name eventually chosen and approved was: 

“THE CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL METROLOGY COMMITTEE”, or, for short, the 

initials “CPMC”. 

The total Committee membership was to be kept moderately low. It was, by design, to 

represent an even cross section of the major industrial, economic, and educational interests of 

the state. It was, at the same time, to be designed to represent proportionally, the geographic 

demographics of California. 

Although this was an internal California affair, unofficial liaison was to be maintained 

with Federal Government interests. (This was to be accomplished by finding individual federal 

employees, who possessed the proper backgrounds in depth; were strategically located in the 

federal structure; and who were willing to serve as individual California citizens under the conditions 

enumerated.) 

Meeting locations were to be continuously rotated around the state. The locations were 

to include at least the following areas: Sacramento; San Francisco Bay Area; Los Angeles; and 

Fresno. Other areas could be added by the Committee, subject to prior approval by the Sponsors. 

(Note: Southern California Inland [Pomona, Riverside, San Bernardino area]; San Diego; 

and Rocklin [Sierra Mountain Area] were added eventually). 

The Committee’s chartered mission was very specific: 

A: To investigate the requirements for, and the necessary mechanisms to implement legislation, 



MQD Page 39 


designed toward the regulation of all persons engaged in the specification, design, calibration/ 

certification, construction, testing, maintenance, inspection, installation, and instruction, of all 

measurement devices within California; which could have any impact whatsoever on the economy 

of the State, or on the safety or welfare of any person within the state. 

B: To draft the necessary implementing legislative documents for consideration by the Legislature, 

and signature by the Governor. In other words, “draft the laws which would require the 

‘Licensing’ and ”Certification of Competence’ of all persons engaged in any level of metrology 

or any allied field; and to develop the mechanisms and protocols for those qualification procedures”. 

In mid-1963, Mr. Thurlow Morrow, then metrology head of the Douglas Aircraft Company-Culver 

City facility, was selected by the Sponsoring Legislators to be Chairman and to 

take on the task of organizing and staffing the Committee. 

In the fall of 1963, I (Phil Painchaud), as the then President of the Precision Measurement 

Association (PMA), was formally contacted by a representative of Assemblyman Roos’s 

office and was asked to participate as a full member. I, at that time, refused categorically. I 

was concerned as to any possible conflicts of interest, and the possible repercussions on the 

PMA. This was early in the fall of 1963 and I had just assumed that office, effective September 

first. PMA itself was still a young organization and we were still unsure where that “fine line 

we were to walk” was located. 

After considerable recurrent pressure, extending over several months, from both Mr. 

Roos’s office, as well as from Mr. Morrow personally, I finally agreed late that year, (acting as 

an individual Californian, in no way connected with the PMA) to become a non-member, technical 

consultant to the Committee, [It should be noted here, prior to this time I had not been 

personally acquainted with Mr. Morrow.] 

That status remained until late November 1965. At that time, I was, ‘in absentia’, 

appointed to the Committee, and elected Vice-Chairman. By then, my term of office in the 

PMA had expired and possible conflicts of interest were gone. I was also in a new position of 

employment; Corporate QA Director for the E-H Research Laboratories, Inc. of Oakland, CA. 

This afforded me the resources to travel to, and to participate in, the frequent Committee meetings. 

The President of E-H, Dr. John C. Hubbs, strongly supported this appointment and urged 

me, not only to accept it, but also to actively participate. 

During the period I was Consultant to the Committee, I met with them several times, 

and became greatly impressed with the very high caliber of individuals whom Mr. Morrow and 

the Legislators had enticed to volunteer for Committee membership. 

As I recall the embryonic Committee at that time included people such as: 

1. Thurlow Morrow; whom I have already mentioned. He was then head of metrology 

for Douglas Aircraft Company, Culver City facility. He was soon after this transferred to the 

Santa Monica facility, where for a while he became head of the Corporate Metrology organization. 

When family problems required him to relocate to Riverside County, he first became metrology 

head of the Bourns Company in Riverside, and later, Chief Engineer of Schwein Engineering 

in Pomona. 



MQD Page 40 


2. Robert Galley; who at that time was head of the Physical Standards Section of the 

Douglas Corporate Metrology Laboratories in Santa Monica. Later he was to become the 

UNITED NATIONS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZATION’S (UNIDO) agent 

for the creation of national measurement standards laboratories in developing countries. Bob 

was, up until his death a couple of years ago, one of the foremost world authorities in the area 

of liquid flow measurement. 

3. Robert McKennan; Corporate Director of Quality Assurance for Hunt-Wesson 

Foods, in Fullerton. This was prior to the Norton Simon takeover, so his corporate responsibilities 

included not only the food processing functions of Hunt-Wesson’s core business, but also 

such subsidiary companies as: Fuller Paint; McCall’s Publishing; Crucible Steel; several 

(tinplate) steel mills; and several glass container companies. 

4. Gerald Geiger; Senior Vice-President of the California Farm Bureau Federation and 

a very large scale rice farmer in his own right. He personally owned and operated 640 acres of 

rice paddies near Richvale, CA. 

5. Russell Journigan; who at that time, was the Deputy Superintendent of Instruction 

for Vocational Training in the office of the California State Department of Education (Alan 

Cranston, now US Senator, was then the Superintendent of Instruction and was Journigan’s immediate 

superior). Russ later became the Dean of Rocklin College, in the town of that name, 

located in the Sierra foothills area. Later yet, he became the Federal Education Commissioner 

for Oregon, Washington, and Alaska. 

One of my early assignments as a consultant was to help locate additional volunteers to 

fill other designated vacancies on the Committee. The Federal Liaison Representative slot had 

been a problem for them; I first secured for them: 

6. Jack Webb; then Deputy Head of the very large Metrology Organization at the Alameda 

Naval Air Station. He was, shortly after his appointment to the Committee, transferred by 

the Navy to Whidbey Island, WA, to reopen the Type II Naval Standards Laboratory while the 

Naval Air Station there was being reactivated. 

To replace Mr. Webb, I was fortunate to be able to secure: 

7. Navy Commander Gerald T. White; Alameda Naval Air Station Deputy 

Base Commander and Chief Engineering Officer of the Naval Aviation Overhaul and Repair 

Depot, also located at Alameda. Cmdr. White later was to become the first Executive Officer of 

the Naval Air Rework Command, when it was initially activated in 1970. 

The Sponsors next sent word they felt that both the computer industry and small electronics 

manufacturing should also be represented. I was able to respond by recruiting: 

8. DeWayne B. Sharp; then head of Metrology for IBM-San Jose and Chairman of the 

IBM Corporate Metrology Task Force. And: 

9. James E. Ross; President and CEO of Berkleonics, Inc, located at that time in Monrovia, 

CA. Berkleonics was a holding company over a small conglomerate of instrument, electronics 

sub-assembly, and systems components manufacturers. 

Mr. Ross became the last Chairman of the CPMC in 1970 before its dormancy. Mr. 

Sharp later became the MSC Director in 1978 — the year it was held at Kellogg-West on the 

Cal-Poly campus. 

Later yet, the Committee was informed they should have additional representation from 

“hi-tech” industry, and from the mid-state coastal area as well. Here I was able to assist the 



MQD Page 41 


Committee and combine these two requirements in a single individual by locating for them: 

10. Lawrence S. Kreyer; at that time in charge of nuclear instrumentation development 

at EG&G’s Santa Barbara operation. In this way we were able to somewhat comply with the 

mandate to keep the Committee relatively compact. 

After his CPMC and MSC tenures, Mr. Kreyer was to become renowned as the original 

creator of a long line of computerized calibration hardware. He was Deputy Director of the 

MSC in 1978 under DeWayne Sharp; he also later became MSC Director in 1979, at the last 

Measurement Science Conference to be held at SLO — his alma mater. 

The Sponsors themselves sent to the Committee several individuals, two of who proved 

to be gems of the highest caliber, and who had profound influence on the eventual establishment 

of the MSC: 

11. Raymond Williams; Legislative Assistant to Mr. Roos, and the designated Director 

-to-be of the then newly-authorized California World Trade Center, planned to be located in 

Los Angeles. Mr. Williams was a graduate aerospace engineer who had been involved in product 

testing at Hughes Aircraft prior to his assignment in Sacramento. He understood, not only 

the measurement problems involved, but also the legislative maze of California as well. 

When Russ Journigan, by then Dean of Rocklin College, was transferred out of state 

because of his Federal appointment, the Sponsors sent to the Committee: 

12. Dr. Harold O. Wilson: Administrative Vice-President of the California Polytechnic 

State University-San Luis Obispo (SLO). He was also Governor Ronald Reagan’s personal 

Advisor on Education. Dr. Wilson had originally been Dean of Agriculture at SLO. He had 

been transferred to head both the Voorhees Unit at San Dimas and the Kellogg Unit in Pomona. 

His assignment was to combine them, and to convert them into what is now the California State 

Polytechnic University-Pomona; and, as well to act as Founding President of that institution. 

With that mission accomplished, he had requested and was granted a return to SLO, as V-P of 

Administration. 

I adamantly maintain these two individuals, Raymond Williams and Harold Wilson, 

were actually the most fundamental of any of us in developing the incentives for the eventual 

creation of the MSC; because of the following: 

Williams was able, not only to take the output of the Committee’s deliberations and put 

it into proper legislative language and form; but he was also able to get preliminary, yet valid 

official opinions, from the Legislative Counsel, He, also, was able to get several highly qualified, 

but unofficial opinions, from several justices of the various levels of the State courts. 

Those opinions were almost unanimous in stating that an essential ingredient was missing 

from the legislation, as it was being drafted by the Committee. 

— Those opinions held that no trade or profession can be legally regulated in California, unless that trade 

or profession is taught at commensurate level, in a publicly funded institution. Here was the legal requirement 

needed to get a metrology education curriculum going in some publicly funded institution in California. 

Wilson was very cognizant of the methods necessary to institute new curricula into the 

state educational system. With his personal connections to the Governor, he was able to become 

the driving force in getting the necessary approvals for the establishment of a metrology 



MQD Page 42 


curriculum from the Trustees of the State College and University System. Of course, it goes 

without saying that he was, also, instrumental in getting that primary effort in baccalaureate metrology 

located at San Luis Obispo. 

Before I move on. I would like to make two very important notes. The first is: 

The California Professional Metrology Committee was (with the exception of a single 

individual), the most dedicated, cooperative, self-sacrificing, and competent group of individuals 

I have ever, in my entire professional career, had the pleasure to work with — this, despite 

the fact they honored their commitment to their Sponsors; and kept their nearly a decade of 

dedicated work and personal sacrifice at a very low key; while they themselves remained virtually 

anonymous. 

A second item I would like to emphasize here is that, despite considerable confused, inaccurate, 

but voluble thinking by too many people (who were never really involved and hence 

are quite unknowledgeable of the true facts) there never was any direct relationship between the 

“CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL METROLOGY COMMITTEE” and another organization 

officially known as the “METROLOGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE CALIFORNIA 

STATE CABINET SECRETARY FOR AGRICULTURE AND SERVICES”, sometimes referred 

to as “MAC”. (That unwieldy long title and the abbreviation “MAC”, were both euphemisms, 

used by agreement, because of legal technicalities, for what should have more properly 

been called the “GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION ON CALIFORNIA STATE METROL- 

OGY”.) 

That particular conclave was, in actuality, a true gubernatorial Commission, directly appointed 

by then Governor Ronald Reagan, to advise him, through the then Cabinet Secretary for 

Agriculture and Services, the Honorable Mr. Earl Coke. Their mission was limited to matters 

concerning the restructuring of the California State Bureau of Weights and Measures into becoming 

what is now the California State Division of Measurement Standards. 

That body was created during January 1968. I was appointed as the Chairman by Governor 

Reagan; Mr. Morrow was appointed Vice-Chairman. With its mission accomplished, during 

January 1969, it was formally dissolved by the Governor. As the Chairman, I received from 

him, the dissolution letter, personally thanking all members for their efforts. 

The public confusion in identity probably arises, due to the fact several (but not all) 

members of the California Professional Metrology Committee also served on “MAC”, as 

“Public Members”, although they were always in the minority. Most of the members were 

State Officials, or staff members of the Agriculture and Services Agency, or from the then 

California State Bureau of Weights and Measures. 

I will re-emphasize here again, that “MAC” was in no way involved in the founding 

of the MSC; in fact it was out of existence several months prior to the initial concept of the 

MSC. 

CHAPTER THREE 

THE FIRST CAL-POLY MEASUREMENT SCIENCE CONFERENCE 

HOW IT CAME TO BE 



MQD Page 43 


During the next several months, policy for MSC (or more correctly the "CAL-POLY 

MEASUREMENT SCIENCE CONFERENCE" as it was then known) evolved rather rapidly, 

and without too much argument I should say, except for one individual, who was persistent in 

trying to make it over into a purely Quality Control affair and taking the management of it over 

for himself, for a fee, and a cut of the gross receipts. Despite much noise and attempts to apply 

outside political pressure, he had virtually no support from either the Committee or from the 

University Administration. 

The original thought — to make it a forum for the re-presentation of good metrology 

oriented papers previously presented elsewhere — was unanimously and enthusiastically 

adopted. However, when Dr. Morgan and I started the actual programming efforts, we found 

ourselves in an enigmatic situation. Many of the invited authors of these proven papers did not 

want to re-present them — they wanted to read new unproven works! 

So, we did the best we could and where the author was already a proven authority, in 

his own right, we acquiesced and invited him to present whatever he wished. We were not 

short of papers, so our primary concern was mainly one of organizing them in a manner so as 

to attract attention and attendance. 

This effort took two routes: 

The first was to carefully group like subject matters together and to label the resulting 

sessions provocatively. For example, we decided after looking at many other conference programs, 

that many of the session titles had been `beaten to death', although most of the session 

subject matters were still quite germane. In an effort to overcome what we believed might become 

a serious impediment, we undertook, what, at that time, were considered to be radical 

moves. For example, we renamed the session on DC Measurements as "Electrical Measurements 

in the Steady State", and AC Measurements as "The Metrology of Electro-Periodicity", 

and so on — anything of a presentational nature to entice (even to incite), as long as it remained 

truthful and accurate. 

The other programming idea we evolved was in response to comments Committee 

members expressed, concerning their own experiences at other conferences, i.e., people arriving 

late and/or leaving early. Our solution, which incidentally, lasted for many years, was to select 

what we believed would be our two most interesting and/or controversial sessions and to schedule 

them as the first and last presented — the first and potentially most interesting (or controversial 

or incitive, as the case might be) session to be presented prior to the Keynote Speaker 

Session. We reasoned that people would then tend to hurry to get there for the opening, and 

would stay in the same room to attend the Keynote Session (which we had observed many people 

tended to avoid). Our other highly desirable or very controversial session, we scheduled for 

last on the final day of the Conference. We hoped then our audience would remain for the last 

arguments — after that last paper of that last session.. 

Another program policy that was adopted was the matter of evening sessions. The theory 

was, there wasn't too much to do around SLO of an evening, so we could gain time for 

some very interesting sessions if we took advantage of those evenings. As time progressed this 

policy caused much controversy, especially from the `boozers', their would-be hosts; as well as 

other would-be guests of hospitality suites. But, we went ahead anyway, and we always managed 

to have a exceptionally good turnout each year for a two to two and a half hour session, 



MQD Page 44 


much to the consternation of the protesters. This policy lasted for as long as the conference remained 

at Cal-Poly SLO. 

Another policy matter that attracted considerable consternation at the time was concerned 

with what was to become the time frame of the Conference itself. Looking at the other 

near-related conferences of that period: NCSL was traditionally in June; WESCON was usually 

in August; and ISA was generally in early September. 

We needed a non-interference time bracket; that is, one which would not conflict with 

any of the traditional conference time windows already established by any of the existing measurement 

oriented professional societies or trade associations. On the other hand, that time window 

must be one that would be attractive to a new class of attendee — i.e., people who would 

be drawn by an interest in measurement science alone — and those individuals who would be 

attending without the need for the added incentive of personal loyalty to their respective professional 

or trade organizations, or of subsidy by their employers 

This in itself was a considerable problem, but it was compounded by the already established 

schedules of the University, both academic, athletic, and social; as well as those of other 

already committed on-campus conferences. Fred Wolfe came up with a few potentials which 

had promise of being repeatable in future years. 

After considerable study, discussion, and cogitation, we finally settled on the first 

weekend after the Thanksgiving weekend. This time window seemed to show considerable 

promise: academically, it was after quarterly exams; athletically; it was between the football 

and basketball seasons; and socially, it was before the rush of Christmas activities. Normally, 

the SLO weather at that time was still pleasant, and most outdoor activities (e.g. golf, fishing, 

boating, etc.) were still available. On the home front for the attendee, it would be a period 

where generally, family Thanksgiving activities would have subsided, and Christmas shopping 

and other preparatory activities would not as yet be in high gear. 

In addition to those advantages, this late fall date had potentially considerable advantage 

to those of us concerned with conference programming. It would be late enough after the other 

conferences to permit adequate review and selection of their outstanding papers; and it would 

allow enough time to contact the authors and to arrange for re-presentation. And still it would 

not be so late after the original presentation to allow the material to become stale. 

This option appeared to be ideal, and was enthusiastically adopted for future years by 

the Advisory Committee, despite a warning from Wolfe that date would not be available that 

first year — 1970. The compromise adopted for that year only, was the first weekend in November, 

— the sixth and the seventh of the month. 

An interesting point to be noted was unanimity among the planners for a nontraditional 

weekend meeting rather than an early or mid-week convocation. This plan offered 

many advantages, including the potential that many would-be attendees who might not, during 

periods of austerity, be supported by their employers in their efforts to better themselves, could 

attend more easily on their own. This way they would be better able, by themselves, to afford 

one day off work (Friday) and one on their own (Saturday), rather than to take two days off 

work. In addition, a weekend meeting might encourage attendees to bring spouses and families 

and enjoy a short holiday in the SLO area (and to become also ‘sold’ on it). 



MQD Page 45 


A serious problem we faced at that time was a temporary shortage of on-campus facilities. 

The University was in the midst of an extensive building program; but many of the required 

amenities would not be available in time for the First Conference, and some not even by 

the second year. 

At first all of the sessions would have to held within the main auditorium complex. All 

food service and luncheon speaker/sessions could be made available at the school cafeteria; although 

partial table service could be arranged for that first year. Shortly beyond 1970, we 

should be in the clear in respect to facilities as the very large new `Poly-View' dining hall and 

the new Student Union building with its many amenities would become available (hopefully) 

in the 1971-72 time frame. 

The Administration was adamant, however, that all sessions and ancillary functions 

must be held on campus; thus ruling out the use of any facilities which 

Earl Kalar might have made available in SLO — except of course, for lodging. 

In that respect, we had an advantage; Wolfe's operation already had in place an excellent 

working arrangement with many of the major hotels and motels in the area. In those areas 

where Wolfe did not have a working arrangement, Earl Kalar was able to apply very effective 

pressure. Thus the attendees were afforded not only excellent discounts, but also coordinated 

transportation to and from the campus in cooperation with the University bus system. 

With an overall plan structure well stabilized, we could now estimate what the costs 

might be with a reasonable degree of accuracy. The obvious source of funding for any conference 

is the registration fee. We felt and the University agreed, that conferences in general were 

getting too expensive (they still are) and that we should try to find ways to keep any registration 

fees to an absolute minimum by reducing operating costs. 

Irrespective of how frugal we might be in our planning, ‘seed money’ would definitely 

be required. We were continuously warned by the Administration that no ‘seed money’ was 

available from their funds, at least for that first year. But everyone agreed that ‘seed money’ 

was going to be needed to fund the numerous things that would be required and not available 

from within the University, e.g., postage, telephone, printing, minimum guarantees to the food 

service operations to cover the temporary help they would require. etc., etc,. 

Several of us had rather close ties to a number of metrology oriented professional societies 

and trade associations We discussed, in depth, the possibility of soliciting grants and/or 

loans from them to be repaid from a programmed surplus from a registration fee. The Administration 

was dubious, but told us to go ahead. But, we were to keep in mind, however, that any 

surplus funds beyond what was required to repay any loans (which they were not permitted by 

law to guarantee) must remain with the University in a special trust fund to be used as ‘seed 

money’ in future years. 

Both DeWayne Sharp and I were past-Presidents of the PMA, and I was the current Section 

Director from the San Francisco Bay Area Section. DeWayne was the Past-Director of the 

Metrology Division of the Instrument Society of America (ISA) and I was the current Deputy 

Director. We were both Member Delegates to the National Conference of Standards Laboratories 

(NCSL). One member of our Committee claimed close ties to the American Society for 

Quality Control (ASQC). DeWayne was also Past-President and a Past-Director of the Precision 

Measurements Society (PMS) (of the San Francisco Bay Area). The Administration volunteered 

to put pressure on several other organizations, including the Institute of Electrical and 



MQD Page 46 


Electronics Engineers (IEEE), all of whom had student sections on campus. 

The result of this fund solicitation was quite mixed, but thanks to the largess of one organization, 

we wound up with more than enough money to seed the Conference and to cover 

our under-estimating of the costs: The PMS refused any support because “this was a Southern 

California affair” (Presumably because it was not restricted to the Bay Area and was being 

held south of San Jose.) 

ASQC became entangled in internal jurisdictional problems. The Conference was not to 

be held in any of their already then established sectional areas. The Bay Area Sections couldn't 

support it, as SLO was slated at sometime in the future to become part of the Southern California 

Region. The Southern California Sections couldn't support it as SLO was not as yet formally 

within their Region which at that time, was dominated by Phoenix, and — this was not an 

Arizona affair! 

Those professional organizations with student sections at Cal-Poly (IEEE et al) all refused 

support, because this was not an exclusively student affair. 

The ISA also had jurisdictional problems, because the venue at SLO did not fall into the 

geographical assignments of any of their existing sections, but they did to their credit, volunteer 

the use of their mailing lists. 

Two organizations did come through however: The NCSL made a $500 loan (later increased 

to $1000), but with strings attached. It was a loan to be repaid; they must share in any 

surplus; and they must be listed as co-sponsors, with special registration consideration for their 

members. (Those ‘strings’ all became moot however, for two reasons: 

First, there was no surplus to share, and Second, the NCSL is a Trade Association (i.e. 

an organization of member companies, not of individual professionals); and no member companies 

showed up and registered as such. Employees of the member companies were attending as 

individuals, not as formally accredited corporate representatives, and hence were not entitled to 

any special considerations. 

The PMA made an outright $5000 grant, to be used as we saw fit, with no strings attached. 

They not only volunteered the use of their mailing lists (as did several other organizations), 

but they also volunteered to pick up all costs related to all mailings made to their 

own lists (no other organization did that); and they asked for no special favors for their members. 

A special note should be made here; the PMA participation brought us an additional 

benefit of unaccountable value; i.e., the personal involvement of: 

17. Mr. Albert K. Edgerton: their Business Manager. 

Mr. Edgerton, with his unquestioned respect throughout the measurement community; 

his experience in the management of the earlier PMA Conferences; and his general sagacity 

made the early planning meetings run far more smoothly than they might have, and thus he contributed 

immeasurably to the success of the First Conference. 

He actively participated in virtually all of the earlier meetings of the Advisory Committee, 

As a result of this voluntary personal participation (the PMA did not finance his MSC participation), 

MSC became eternally in his debt (possibly more so than to any other individual at 

that time) for the many contributions he made to that First Conference. 

The question of repayment or sharing of profits proved moot as this First Conference 

ran a finite, if minor deficit. The PMA grant both covered that deficit, and as well, provided the 



MQD Page 47 


necessary ‘seed money’ needed for the Second Conference. 

From there on, things went almost too smoothly. We cannot assign too much credit to 

Dr. Don Morgan, who proved to be every bit the organizer and mover that the Administration 

claimed he was; or, to Fred Wolfe and his superb organization. All the rest of the members of 

the Advisory Committee had to do was to ensure there were attendees and high quality papers. 

As I recall, even the weather cooperated and it was a beautiful Indian Summer. About 

375 people showed up (I counted that many myself, but I am not sure if all of them registered; 

however, that is about how many meals we paid for — when we had originally planned for 

about 150 fewer. 

I don't recall much about the sessions or the papers themselves except that they were in general 

well attended. A few details that I do recall however include: 

Dr. Harold Rose developed the first of what was to become an extensive and popular 

series of biomedical sessions. He was to be a very popular session developer intermittently for 

several years afterward. 

Larry Kreyer developed a single paper session on the fundamentals of automated 

measurements, and for it, he induced me to complete and polish a paper the late Sy Corn of E-H 

Research had drafted, and to then present it myself. Following Corn's original theme, we entitled 

the paper, “YOU DIDN'T MECHANIZE YOUR WASHBOARD, SO WHY BE STUPID AND 

TRY TO MECHANIZE YOUR OSCILLOSCOPE?" The title alone drew a large interested audience. 

Because of the lack of adequate facilities at that First Conference, that session was presented 

behind the curtain on the stage of the main auditorium with another session being presented 

at the same time in front of the curtain. Kreyer's session was hurting for space as it had 

an audience at least five times greater than the one in front of the curtain. If I remember correctly, 

that one was on Quality Control and almost nobody attended it. 

In the true philosophy of the Conference i.e., re-presentations, I also reread one 

(entitled "TIME DOMAIN IN THE REFERENCE STANDARDS LABORATORY") that I had 

originally prepared for the PMA-NCSL back-to-back conference held at NBS-Gaithersburg the 

previous June. 

We had, very early, decided on a post-conference publication rather than a preconference 

publication of the Conference Proceedings. It proved a very good thing we had decided 

on that policy (which incidentally continued up through 1981) for several very good reasons: 

First, because it appeased many authors who wanted to continue polishing their presentations 

right up to the minute of presentation. 

Second, it permitted us to take into account our financial situation after the Conference 

before committing to any printing costs. 

Unbeknownst to us at the time, it permitted Don Morgan, after the Conference was 

over, to make a command decision to publish only on microfiche. Thus he was able to keep the 

deficit from becoming greater than it would have been, had we had to have to add to that deficit, 

the costs of the printing and the distribution of the Proceedings in hard copy form. 

Don convinced a micrographics company that was interested in doing all of Cal-Poly's 

micrographics work, as a demonstration of their capabilities, to photo-micrograph the entire 

Conference Proceedings on 24X microfiche and furnishing us with enough copies for distribu- 



MQD Page 48 


tion, gratis! So we were left with only the comparatively minor mailing costs. This action 

brought many after-the-fact complaints as microfiche was not all that universal in 1970; most 

people did not have access to fiche readers. But, nevertheless, Don Morgan's decision to microfiche 

the Proceedings proved to be a financial savior. 

During the period leading up to, and immediately following this First Conference, the 

personal situations of many of us on the CPMC (and hence the principal non-University component 

of the Advisory Committee) changed rapidly, and for many of us, drastically: 

I had already severed as an employee with E-H Research Laboratories, and had become a consultant. 

Within 6 months of the Conference, I was on a long term assignment with the Alcon 

Laboratories in Fort Worth, Texas, as their Senior Scientist/Bio-Medical Metrology. 

Morrow had made a radical change in career and had left metrology; he had gone into 

insurance and had become the owner of a very successful commercial and industrial insurance 

agency in Hemet. 

Galley had accepted the before-mentioned UNIDO assignment and was dispatched to 

Bulgaria to create their national measurement standards laboratory organization. 

Bob McKennan was displaced at Hunt-Wesson by the Norton Simon takeover, and 

wound up as the General Manager of an Open Road recreational vehicle plant in Ohio. 

DeWayne Sharp was removed from both of his assignments as head of the IBM-San 

Jose metrology operation and as head of the Corporate metrology overseeing organization. He 

was transferred to Corporate Marketing, there to apply his renowned expertise in measurement 

science principles to potential marketing opportunities, on a literally world-wide basis. 

Cmdr. White retired from the Navy after thirty years, and became the general manager 

of MIST-O-GEN, a medical electronics company in Oakland. 

Jim Ross had acquired two more companies; was developing an industrial park in SLO; 

and was also in the process of moving the whole mèlange, along with his family, to SLO permanently. 

Larry Kreyer became totally immersed in the final development and pre-production of 

the Navy's first automated calibration system, the ACS-200; and was also deeply engrossed in 

the conceptual design of a prototype that was to become the MECCA system of today. 

However, despite this intense level of business activity, he did manage to remain 

involved enough in conference affairs to eventually become Conference Director-Elect under 

DeWayne Sharp in 1978, and Conference Director in 1979 for the last one held at Cal-Poly 

SLO, his alma mater. Today he heads the quality assurance organization for EG&G-Santa Barbara. 

Earl Kalar, having proven his worth to the local community, as well as through his MSC 

activities, in addition to his many other involvements; was promoted, before he retired, to become 

Agriculture Commissioner for San Luis Obispo County; and he was also at the same time 

appointed to the function of Federal Environmental Protection Director for the entire Central 

Coast Region. 

Mr. Edgerton, had become deeply involved in a change of technical direction for his 

company, the Western Instrument Co.; from Electrical Instrumentation to Marine Engineering 

— and an explosive growth. This also involved, as well, a physical removal of the Company 

from its traditional home in Burbank to a new and larger one in Ventura County. He never participated 

in MSC again, but he was the recipient of the ‘WOODINGTON AWARD’ presented 



MQD Page 49 


during the 1982 MSC in San Diego. 

So there were almost none of the original group left to form the Advisory Committee 

for the Second Conference, but fortunately the success of the First Conference brought volunteers 

“from out of the woodwork and from under the rocks”. Everybody wanted to be associated 

with a success. 

So, there in 55000 bytes or so, is in detail how the MSC came into being and its history 

up through the First Conference. Or if you prefer, MSC's genealogy or "roots". I believe that I 

am the only one around, still in Metrology today, who has been with it from those earliest roots 

in 1963. So be it, that fact won't buy us anything. Let's get on to subsequent and more recent 

history; or at least those events where I was personally involved. 

CHAPTER FOUR 

THE (ALMOST) SECOND CONFERENCE 

What was to become the Second Conference in 1971, had been planned for the previously-agreed-upon 

last weekend in November, but circumstances caused it never to come off as 

planned. Early planning got under way with a bang, but during the ensuing months, the key 

players, with experience, scattered as I have outlined above. 

I was in Fort Worth, Texas, and wasn't able to get back for the necessary frequent meetings 

of the Advisory Committee. Don Morgan called me quite often, (I think at least once a 

week), for counsel and advice. He apparently had little confidence in many of the early volunteers. 

Advice I could give freely, but my personal physical involvement was naturally considerably 

limited. 

Finally, one day in early September 1971, he called and told me that the advance registration 

was almost non-existent and that he was worried about attendance. I had not been too 

happy about the concept of advance registration in the first place, as I felt that our peers in the 

Metrology Community were not in the habit of paying much attention to any type of meeting or 

conference advance registrations. They just tended to show up anyway, without regard to formal 

preliminaries. I so told him and advised him to not worry; to go through with it; and that I 

was certain attendance would be forthcoming. 

He called back later in the month or early October and informed me that the "financial 

gurus" at the University had ordered him to cancel the 1971 Conference. To ease the blow, he 

planned to call the Advisory Committee, and would convince them to recommend to him that it 

was their idea this cancellation take should place. 

Don really knew how to handle volunteers! He, instead of stopping planning actions, 

accelerated them for another "SECOND CONFERENCE" to be held in November 1972. His 

inexperienced new volunteers never got the chance to experience a let-down due to the cancellation! 

And they had gained another year in which to do their planning and sharpen their skills. 



MQD Page 50 


CHAPTER FIVE 

THE (REAL) SECOND CONFERENCE 

Of course, I was still down in Texas as all of this was occurring, but Don kept in frequent 

contact. One day in March 1972, he called me and told me the University had accepted a 

Rockefeller Grant to establish a School of Industrial Engineering at the University of Singapore. 

He had been singled out as the one to go. 

This meant that not only the Cal-Poly Industrial Engineering Department, but also the 

Measurement Science Curriculum and the MSC as well, would lose his personal (and proven) 

leadership for at least four years. 

The University did not intend to hire a temporary replacement of equivalent stature to 

act in Don's absence. His acting replacement would have to be 

Paul Sheffler: Don’s very inexperienced assistant in the Industrial Engineering Department. 

There were extensive misgivings expressed by many with inside knowledge. Paul had 

not been teaching Industrial Engineering very long. His activities with the Conference under 

Don had been principally social. Despite his obvious willingness to cooperate, and very personable 

nature, he certainly was nowhere the "mover and shaker" Don had proven to be. 

Another problem that Don confided in me was that the recruiting for the Measurement 

Science Curriculum was not moving. That first year they had only one student (and he was a 

transfer). The copious quantities of students the new volunteer Committee members had predicted 

(and even in some cases promised to personally send) just had not materialized. In general 

things were looking grim. And I couldn't help much — from Texas. 

In early May 1972, Alcon decided not to further pursue the development of biomedical 

devices and new pharmaceuticals; and to concentrate on the marketing of previously developed 

pharmaceuticals. I, as Senior Scientist/Bio-Medical Metrology, along with six PhD's, and about 

125 lesser professional people in the Research Division all, very suddenly, found ourselves ‘at 

liberty’ I was free to return to California. I called Don and informed him of my return. He 

immediately called for a Committee meeting in early June. 

At this meeting he announced his departure for Singapore at the close of the academic 

year, and the appointment of Paul Sheffler. He also announced that another subordinate, Paul 

Hoffman would be put on a year-long teaching sabbatical, to travel around to as many as possible 

of the high schools in the state. He was ostensibly to make ‘sales’ presentations to the students 

and to their advisors, concerning the University in general and desirability of the campus, 

but actually he was to subtly push the Measurement Science Program and find recruits to fill the 

succeeding years’ classes. 

For several months my own situation was unsettled, making it difficult for me to spend 

much time effectively on MSC. Later, I finally landed with Metron with a proffered partnership. 

Time now became available for me to assist, but it was already September and too late to be of 

much practical extensive help — or so I thought. Paul contacted me and told me that he was 

worried they would not have at least one session that would be a "big draw"; i.e., one that 

would attract many attendees and cause them to become actively involved. In other words, a 

session built upon a current, but controversial and/or incitive topic. 



MQD Page 51 


There was no time to do a conventional formal paper session, with the usual Proceedings 

credits, so I proposed the only viable alternative I could think of at the time — a panel session 

on a currently incitive topic. It would have to be one that would require little preparation 

by the panelists, and would have individuals well known in the metrology community as those 

panelists. The combination of prominent personalities and an incitive topic together, should, I 

correctly reasoned, draw a good crowd. It did. 

Thus was born the all-time attendance-setter session entitled, "IS THE CLASSICAL 

STANDARDS LABORATORY OBSOLETE?". The session was to explore the question, "In light 

of the emerging technology of automated calibration, will the conventional reference standards 

laboratory to continue to exist as it is currently? Or, will it continue in some modified form? 

Or, will it pass out of existence entirely?" 

I was well aware, at that time: 

There were very few pieces of automatic calibration hardware in existence: 

That, for the most part, they were very expensive; and few were noted for their measurement 

reliability or for their MTBF. Thus, not very many calibration labs or their personnel had 

been actually favorably exposed to this technology. 

No standardized procedures, algorithms, or software existed. This would mean there 

should be much ignorance in the audience, which in turn could generate fears of displacement 

by many individuals. 

Personnel confronted with what they think might challenge their job security, can become 

very argumentative — just what we needed for an incitive to draw an attendance. 

As for panelists (I can't remember them all) a few phone calls to some friends brought 

out the authorities, the challengers, and even a few scoffers. 

Jerry Hayes agreed to be the moderator and try to keep some semblance of order. 

Andy Woodington (most people never realized he was one of my oldest and closest 

friends) and I schemed a bit and we conceived the idea that he would take the "con" approach 

and argue effectively that automated calibration was impractical. Then after he had a large 

enough following running with him, he would switch course to the "pro" side and start supporting 

it as the way of the future. Andy was very good at such tactics. 

DeWayne Sharp, who could not attend himself, sent his deputy and lab chief, Lou 

Tolbert, a very scholarly individual, who honestly felt that automated calibrations were impossible, 

and who was ready and quite able to learnedly argue the point from the technical standpoint. 

Larry Kreyer, the conceptualizer of most of the automated calibration hardware then in 

existence, agreed to participate as a payoff for my helping him out at the previous conference. 

The last panelist name that I can remember is that of Art Plourde, who did his usual first 

rate analytical job in analyzing costs and developing positive proof, for the postulation that economics 

alone would eventually force the extensive use of automated hardware in calibration. 

I asked Paul for, and received a total of three time slots, two back-to-back in the afternoon 

of the first day, and the entire evening of the same day. I took a lot of flack on this, as 

there was a loud outcry from the debunkers who claimed that no one wanted to sit through five 

hours plus of the same subject. How wrong they were! We packed them in during both afternoon 

sessions and had the largest attendance of all during the evening session (in fact I believe 

it was the largest attendance ever for an evening session). I don't remember what the attendance 



MQD Page 52 


figures were, but, the main auditorium at Cal Poly was nearly filled each time. I believe these 

sessions set the all-time record for technical session attendance. 

Interesting sidelight: During the second afternoon time slot, one session developer 

went to Paul and demanded that this session be stopped and the audience sent to his session, 

which was not so well attended. Paul ignored him. 

CHAPTER SIX 

THE FOUNDATION DEVELOPING PERIOD 

— 1973 THROUGH 1975 — 

I have no memories of this period that are as precise as those I do have of the previous 

years and of some of the latter years, but I can remember that: 

It was during these years the skills and the mechanisms for running a repeatedly smooth, 

effective, and most important of all, a respected conference were developed and honed. 

It was during this period that the first exhibits were introduced in an effort to moderately 

increase income, so as to hold the line on registration fees. 

It was during this period NBS participation increased dramatically to the point that the 

Director of NBS, Dr. Ernest Ambler personally attended and was the Keynoter at one Conference. 

It was during these years many of the Cal-Poly facilities were completed and became 

available to us to use to expand the Conference venue: e.g., The Student Union building became 

available and gave us exhibit space (So we did not have to use the stage behind the curtain in 

the Auditorium as previously.) and comfortable rooms for the smaller sessions. The Poly-View 

Dining Hall was completed, thus affording us the capability for full service sit-down banquet 

style meals and proper facilities for lunch and dinner speakers. Conference rooms in the Industrial 

Engineering Building also became available, thus allowing the Committee to get out of that 

“minuscule sweatbox” upstairs conference room the Administration Building. 

It was also during these years that many other customs were instituted; customs that 

have become a tradition, and have remained with the Conference even up until the present. For 

example: the door prize system, to keep the attendees around to the end; the wrap-up dinner for 

those involved in the actual work of the Conference; the statistical and demographic evaluation 

of the Conference and the attendees, etc. 

It was an idyllic period: we did the planning; Paul Sheffler and Fred Wolfe and their 

staffs did most of the “grunt” work; the Conference grew in size and prestige; fees stayed very 

low, but the Conference remained in the black (barely); and we all got the glory. 

But, even as all good things must end, this ended with Don Morgan's return from Singapore. 

I received a call from him a few days after he arrived back. He was quite upset. The 

original idea had been to promote the Conference as simply a “tool” to be used in the developing 

of a Measurement Science Curriculum at Cal-Poly. What he discovered was that the tool 

had been worked on and developed to a high order as an end in itself; but the Curriculum had 

been neglected and had languished, i.e., one student in five years! He was forced to recommend 

the cancellation of the Measurement Science Curriculum at Cal-Poly – San Luis Obispo. 



MQD Page 53 


He told me because of this, he would have no choice but to ‘pull the plug’ and cancel all succeeding 

Conferences. 

I reminded him that a sudden unannounced cancellation could do much damage to the 

University's then rapidly developing reputation in the international metrology community. 

“Couldn't something be done to continue the series on campus?”, I asked. He then told me that 

because of the necessary demise of the Measurement Science Curriculum, there would be no 

funds available for the University to further sponsor the Conference. But, he added, it might be 

possible for the University to simply host the Conference, if we as a group could find a way to 

sponsor, finance, and manage it, and to pay for all of the University services utilized. That was 

a very large order for us to assume on short notice! 

He agreed it was at least feasible to have at least the one already scheduled, to be held 

on campus as a transition while we learned the ropes in those specific areas which the University 

had previously handled exclusively. 

Of course I wasn't very happy about this turn of events, but I could certainly see his position. 

He had an Industrial Engineering Department to rebuild after four years of dalliance and 

ineptitudes. That task alone would leave him no time to manage, what had become an ineffective 

(from the standpoint of its original intent of building the curriculum) MSC and make it efficant 

again. I was somewhat consoled with the fact that The Conference could remain on campus 

at least for a while. I felt at that time that a conference of this sort should always be associated 

with a university. I still feel the same way today — even more strongly than I did then. 

I asked him how and when he was going to break the news. He had planned to announce 

it at the last Committee meeting prior to the 1975 Conference. I had little doubt that he would 

handle it in as masterful a manner as he had handled the Second Conference cancellation in 

1971. 

As you all know he did and did it well, The result was the birth of a non-University 

sponsored MSC to be first presented at SLO in1976 with Bob Couture as Director, and with me 

as Program Chairman. 

CHAPTER SEVEN 

THE FIRST INDEPENDENT MSC 

SAN LUIS OBISPO — 1976 

Part of Don Morgan’s scheme for cutting the Conference loose, but causing it to mature 

rapidly and become self sufficient, was to cause the Committee to establish for itself a policy 

of selecting each Director two years early in order that there would be sufficient training time. 

Naturally this would be impossible the first year; so he carefully saw to it that a popular, 

non-controversial, yet capable individual: 

Bob Couture: who had been very active on the Committee since almost the earliest 

days, was selected for that first year where little or no training time would be available. 

I, who had never been known to win any popularity contests, was selected as Director 

for the second year's independent Conference, in 1977. 

Principally because we (the Committee) were not ready to assume them as yet, several 

critical functions, including finance; registration; and “Proceedings” compilation and publica- 



MQD Page 54 


tion, were to remain with the University. The intent was that these activities would be phased 

over slowly and without much fanfare as we acquired competency in handling them. 

Since this was Bob's Conference, I will refrain from many detailed comments. He alone 

should have the honor of elaborating on his own fine accomplishments. 

As I mentioned before, my role in this 1976 Conference was “Programming”. I can recall 

nothing spectacular about the Conference programming that year. 

However, it was the first year we initially introduced substantial programming in the 

area of environmental and pollution measurements. 

Also it was the first year the California Public Utilities Commission participated. They 

furnished their Deputy Director for Vapor Regulation (Natural Gas) as our principal luncheon 

speaker. (His name, I do not recall). He presented an excellent tutorial, in considerable depth, 

on 

the activities of the Commission, with particular emphasis on the measurement aspects. 

Dr. Ernest Ambler, Director of the NBS, was originally scheduled as another luncheon 

speaker; but he was forced by schedule conflicts, to cancel early enough to be able to substitute 

Dr. Churchill Eisenhart, Director Emeritus of the Statistical Engineering Laboratory. 

Dr. Eisenhart, speaking almost totally extemporaneously from a few notes, talked for 

over an hour on the early history of measurements in this country. I have often wished he had 

committed his talk to paper. He had performed an outstanding task of historical research. The 

talk was both interesting and authoritative; and it should have been preserved. But, I wasn't in 

charge of the Proceedings at that Conference. 

CHAPTER EIGHT 

THE 1977 CONFERENCE —A MAJOR TURNING POINT 

IN DIRECTION OR, MY YEAR ON THE HOT SEAT 

This was to be the first Conference held off the San Luis Obispo campus. Political pressures, 

both internally within the Committee, and externally within the California State College 

and University System, had finally prevailed — much against my better judgment. Philosophically, 

I believed (and still do) the Conference should always have remained on a University 

campus and, nostalgically, I wanted it to remain at SLO. Irrespective of philosophy and of the 

politics involved, I was adamantly against leaving Cal-Poly until all of the umbilicals had been 

properly cut and neatly tied off. 

But, this was not to be, for a combination of many factors, mainly political, forced us to 

the California State University-Long Beach at a time during our organizational gestation, when 

we were least ready to survive unaided. To complicate the situation, despite protestations to the 

contrary, Cal State-LB was not ready for us either; nor, as it proved out, were they, as yet, ready 

for any conference of the size the MSC had become. They had neither the experience, the organization, 

nor the facilities to undertake the hosting of any major conference, of the magnitude 

that MSC had by then become. 

The available physical facilities were totally inadequate, in both size and quantity. They 

were far less that we had available in SLO, even at the outset, in the early days. I will admit that 

a few of those facilities available to us appeared to be somewhat nicer than what we had experi- 



MQD Page 55 


enced previously. Additionally, the CSU-LB Administration and staff had no previous demonstrable 

experience in managing conferences of anywhere near the size and complexity of what 

MSC had grown to be. 

This whole situation was considerably aggravated by the presence of a strong body of 

student activists, who seemed to be adamantly opposed to anything and everything; particularly 

the use of ‘their’ facilities by any ‘outsiders’ (even for compensation); to the introduction of 

anything of a ‘hi-tech’ (‘war mongering’ was their term) nature onto the campus; etc. These 

attitudes and actions appeared to not only be condoned, but even somewhat supported by the 

Faculty and the Administration. 

We of the Committee had become quite adept in the handling of the programming; 

the arrangements; the publicity; the guest speakers; the spouses activities; the exhibits; and 

similar functions — but we, as a committee, had no experience whatsoever in the Financial 

management; the Publications; and the Registration activities of MSC. Until now, these activities 

had always been handled by the appropriate organizations at Cal-Poly, without direct involvement 

by Committee members. 

All of these factors combined, resulted in what I still believe was, at the same time, not 

only the worst fiasco; but, as well, the all-time top-achiever conference in the MSC series up to 

that point. Certain functions were virtually in absolute chaos from the first day in the very beginning, 

all the way up through the completion of the post-conference activities. 

If it were not for a few, a very few, dedicated and competent individuals on our Committee 

who worked competently, untiringly, and in most cases without public notice or recognition, 

I feel that the 1977 Conference would have been an unparalleled disaster and would have 

finished the MSC forever. 

Fred Wolfe made several trips on his own down from SLO to try to assist with advice 

based upon his experience, but he was usually, summarily rebuffed by the CSU-LB staff. He 

did me and my staff great service by pointing out potential trouble spots that we may never 

have anticipated, until they had hit us at some inopportune moment. With his counsel, we were 

able to forestall a few of the many logistics problems that might otherwise have overwhelmed 

us. 

The small success that the 1977 Conference became, i.e., the greatest paid attendance 

(550+), and the biggest percentage profit maker ever, surely cannot, in any measure, be attributed 

to any of the CSU-LB personal involved. 

My first organizational move was to deliberately get almost every member of the Committee 

quite angry with me. At the very first meeting of the committee on the CSU-LB Campus, 

I announced in no uncertain terms: 

I believed that I was in the Directorship to get a job done and done properly, the odds 

not withstanding. 

I did not intend to become the subject of a popularity contest. As Director, I would personally 

be assuming total responsibility for the success or failure of every aspect the Conference. 

That the operation would be conducted with a rigid organizational discipline, irrespective 

of the fact that it was a volunteer group. 

Policy may be discussed before it was formulated, but once decided upon (by me) it, 

would be absolutely adhered to, with no personal deviations permitted. My decisions would be 



MQD Page 56 


final. 

This was to be no debating society. It was not a democracy, but rather it was to be an 

absolute autocracy, with me as the autocrat. And, I went on to say that I did not intend to preside 

over a body patterned after the US Senate. 

I insisted that everyone involved would be expected to individually assume full responsibility 

to me, as well as to the rest of the Committee, for both the quality and the timeliness of 

his performance in his area or function. And if anyone did not want to operate under those 

terms, they were free to leave at once, without prejudice. 

Nearly everyone loudly castigated me personally — many publicly — for assuming that 

stance — but no one left! 

In retrospect, I am now glad that I did it and that I didn't back down. As it proved out, 

that act on my part inspired a disorganized assembly of dilettanti to become a dedicated, integrated 

team with a single objective — to get me. My job, then, became one to turn that dedication 

around and into producing a successful conference, against what appeared to me and a few 

of my closest loyal confidants, to be almost insurmountable odds. 

My second move was to recruit: 

Dave Buck: who had been the Treasurer of the PMA for several years, and put him in 

total charge of finances. 

The University Administration didn't care much for this arrangement and fought it every 

inch of the way. They had the residual funds, which had been transferred down from SLO and 

intended to keep them along with any surpluses we might generate. And, they fully intended to 

minutely comptrol our expenditures of funds outside the University; but they did not want their 

own charges for their services to us to be audited, or even questioned! 

I had experienced many years of observing Dave Buck's handling of PMA funds and 

knew he was up to the challenge. I was proven quite correct in my gamble. 

Dave not only wrestled total control of the MSC funds away from the inept, but avaricious 

University System financial personnel, but also managed to produce a surplus of a magnitude 

unsurpassed for many years, over $18,000. This provided a nest egg for succeeding Conferences 

for many years to come. I don't intend to infer that this all came easily; it took Dave, 

with some very small help from me, until the following April to close the books on that Conference. 

I believe that I can safely say that, without Dave in that Comptroller slot, the 1977 Conference 

might well have been the end of MSC, as there would have been no ‘seed money’ upon 

which to build future conferences and to finance the lavish lifestyles that some new Boards 

have since adopted. 

My third move was to reach out to: 

Andy Woodington: an old and trusted friend, and to clandestinely and unofficially appoint 

him as my deputy. 

Andy and I had, at that point, been close friends for nearly 18 years. We had been 

`through the ‘wars' together in the ISA, when he was my Deputy Director of the Metrology Division. 

We knew how each other thought (we didn't always agree implicitly) and acted (but we 

always acted together in unison), and what was most vital of all, we had a mutual and unqualified 

respect and trust. Andy in his quiet, unassuming, and low key way, became my "hatchet 

man", my “shaker and mover”, and my right hand. 



MQD Page 57 


Another extremely competent individual who surfaced at this Conference was: 

Paul Messinger: who cannot possibly be given enough credit. 

Paul soon became my ‘odd job man’; whatever emergency problem arose and he was 

assigned to, he accomplished promptly, with finesse, and with finality, i.e., no loose ends. This 

Conference was to become just the start, and certainly did not become the end of our association. 

I have valued every minute of it to date and hope that it may continue well into the future. 

The two areas that remained totally with the University were not transferred to us at this 

time, “Registration” and “Publications”, were absolute disasters by my standards. 

One of the split responsibility areas, “Awards”, was almost as bad. The University staff 

had done nothing to prepare for the “Award” certificates. Finally, with about two days remaining, 

at my insistence, they had the College print shop print up some modified stock award certificates. 

I drove to Long Beach, picked them up, and took them back to Norco with me. 

There I enticed a fellow Dynalectron employee, Felix Herrara, who was an amateur calligrapher, 

into working all night lettering them — pro bono. (The University staff had intended 

to hand them out blank and let the recipients fill in whatever they pleased.) 

Unfortunately the University print shop not only had done a very poor and amateurish 

job of the printing, but they had also printed the documents on a type of paper that was incompatible 

with the calligraphers ink. Poor Felix caught the brunt of it and had to redo most of the 

copies several times. Fortunately for us, the print shop had considerably overrun our print order 

(and, of course charged us for the overrun!). 

The “Proceedings” were in an even more sordid mess. Absolutely no provisions had 

been made to collate, assemble, and bind the individual papers which had been furnished in 

quantity by the authors. The staff felt they could simply put piles of papers out on tables and let 

the attendees gather such copies as they pleased, — to assemble their own compendia. 

Fortunately for us: 

Bill Fry: another old reliable friend from the Government-Industry Data Exchange Program 

(GIDEP) Operations Center in Corona, showed up early the day prior to the Conference 

and discovered the mess. 

I had him quietly assemble a crew of volunteers from among the early arrivals, and to 

personally supervise the assembly and binding of the hundreds of copies required. He worked 

most of the night on that task and never got much credit for it. Maybe he ought to get the 

"Woodington Award" posthumously. Without his quiet competent dedication, we would 

never have had “Conference Proceedings” that year (or as it turned out, the year following). 

Another of the many problems I discovered on the day before the Conference was that 

no preparations had been made for the many exhibits that: 

Dean Brungard: had so ably solicited. The CSU-LB staff’s idea of preparation was to 

give Dean the key to the room and a, “You are on your own, Buddy”! 

Dean was one of the few people that I was absolutely sure of; I knew from his past performances 

he could and would perform admirably in his assigned area. And with just a little 

assistance from me, in recruiting some help for him, he did; — and he did outstandingly. 

Thank you again Dean. 

When the day of the Conference dawned, I was there very early to find that student activists 

had organized a quiet passive-resistance sit-in. They obviously had good legal counsel 

and other guidance from somewhere. Each area we had contracted to use was partially, but not 



MQD Page 58 


fully, occupied by students who, for the most part, were generally very quiet and mostly noncommittal. 

The few who would talk, blabbered something about not wanting ‘outsiders’ and 

‘warmongers’ using ‘their’ facilities." 

It was not readily apparent who the leaders were, so there was really no one in authority 

for me to discuss the situation with. When I attempted to question any of them on the matter, 

all that I could get was some gibberish about: “It is our facility, the University had no right to 

rent it out to you ‘military people’”! “We want both your rent money and you out of here right 

now”; etc, etc. But mostly they were very quiet and noncommittal. 

I soon concluded if we were to get a conference underway on schedule, I would have to 

call in my shock troops, my one man army, personal diplomatic corps, my "Deputy", Andrew J. 

Woodington. Andy could be all of these things at the same time. He could be reasonable, persuasive, 

logical, convincing, charming, and hardheaded all at the same time. And if these attributes 

didn't work, his sheer size could be intimidating to the unwary. 

We can thank Andy, almost singularly, that the Conference came off on schedule from 

the physical facilities standpoint. Quietly and almost totally unnoticed by most of the attendees, 

as well as by the rest of the Committee, he got rid of most of the student activists; saw to that 

enough tables and electric power arrived for Dean's exhibitors; overcame some delaying problems 

in the food service area; and where he could, at the last minute, he rescheduled sessions 

into rooms which were just a little more adequate than those for which they were previously 

scheduled. 

The “Registration” fiasco is one that I would rather forget but cannot —ever. I have 

sometimes wished that I had available another Andy Woodington to have handled that mess. It 

was probably the worst of the preventable disaster areas. I had a running argument with Professor 

Glenn Hayes, (who had taken on the Registration responsibility for the University) for several 

months prior to the Conference. He naively believed that everybody who returned a preregistration 

card would show up, and, that the card returners alone would constitute virtually the 

entire attendance! 

We, the old hands on the Committee, on the other hand had found out that the preregistration 

card returns, compiled as a function of return date, was indicative of total attendance, 

by some ratioic algorithm which I have since forgotten. This algorithm had served us 

well at SLO where had been continuously refined each year until it had achieved a reasonable 

degree of precision. We, and the SLO staff, had come to rely on it as an indicator of our needs 

for space for sessions; the size of dining facilities to reserve; number of meals to order; campus 

transportation (busses), etc. 

But Hayes, counseled by some still recalcitrant members of our own Committee, believed 

since he had about 325 returned pre-registrations, we would have 325 attendees (possibly 

as many as 350 at the very most, if a few off-the-street walk-ins should just happen to appear). 

Another thanks to Paul Messinger. As I was getting nowhere in convincing Hayes, I 

asked Paul to try. He was able to persuade Hayes — against the opposition of some of those 

who were more interested in scuttling me than in having a successful conference. Hayes finally 

agreed to the preparation of 400 registration packets (I was predicting 450+ paid attendees). 

Fortunately for us, the print shop's tendency for over-runs, again, worked in our favor. We 

wound up with 400 prepared Registration Packets; materials enough for another 100 complete 

but unassembled packets: and materials enough for about 35 partial sets; plus an unspecified 



MQD Page 59 


number of additional meal tickets. 

The University had insisted from the start that their personnel, alone, would do all of the 

registration and money collection. Fortunately, Dave Buck and Paul Messinger, together, had 

the presence of mind to look over the shoulders of the University personnel enough to get us a 

fair picture of what actually transpired. The full 535 registration packets were used and paid for, 

but in far too many cases no vital registration data was taken. Many more "registrations" were 

sold at random until the meal tickets ran out (again thanks for a Print Shop's over run). At that 

point the University personnel walked away — they felt that they ‘had nothing more to sell’. 

This meant that no valid count, way too few attendee names, and no vital statistics were gathered. 

Paul gathered such data as he could, but naturally it was much too little for any valid 

Conference analyses or evaluations. 

During the final audit we (Dave and I), based upon Paul's analysis, agreed to pay for 550 

meals for registrants, (exhibitors and our Committee people were no problem as they were handled 

by another system), although the claim by the food service people was much higher. So 

550 is the figure I have been using for paid attendance ever since. However, we do know that 

somewhere between 15% and 25% of the total attendance went off campus to eat, mainly because 

of the lack of space and the excruciatingly slow service. It is anybody's guess what the 

actual attendance was at that Conference. 

Above, I suggested Bill Fry's name for a posthumous presentation of the Woodington 

Award. Let's add to that recommendation (but certainly not posthumously) the names of Dave 

Buck and of Paul Messinger. They also earned it during that 1977 Conference. I can categorically 

credit those three individuals, along with Andy Woodington of course, with almost the 

sole attribution of the keeping of the MSC alive at that, a very critical point in its evolvement. 

Despite my rather sour descriptions above, the 1977 Conference wasn't all bad news. If 

the attendees could withstand the cramped space allotments; the outrageous actions of the student 

activists; the indifference of the CSU-LB staff; the lack of convenient parking; and the 

poor food service; they made out very well with the quality and variety of the programming. 

As I recall we had: 

A well attended Metrics panel and an accompanying hands-on workshop as well, both 

developed by DeWayne Sharp. 

The first of what was to become a long series of Microprocessor tutorials and workshops, 

this one lead by John Schuler of Pro-Log. 

An excellent Legal Metrology series presented by the California Division of Measurement 

Standards and developed by Joe Jones, Riverside County Director of Weights and Measures. 

Another one of Dr. Harold Rose's unparalleled biomedical metrology series. As I recall, 

there wasn't even standing room left for this one. 

A heavy concentration of automated calibration sessions including: 

Those by Loeb Julie on his company's developments and their applications; 

The Naval Metrology Engineering Center personnel on their MECCA system; 

 

 

Hewlett-Packard and Fluke on microprocessor applications in automatic calibration; 

And the US Army Calibration Center on their experiences in the automatic calibration 

area. 



MQD Page 60 


Through the efforts of DeWayne Sharp we had Bob Bemer of IBM (Corporate Headquarters) 

as Keynoter. Larry Kreyer obtained John Tsitouras of EG&G (Las Vegas) as one 

luncheon speaker. Our own Dave Mitchell gave the other luncheon address. 

I feel that my major personal contribution to the Conference was a "MESSAGE FROM 

THE DIRECTOR" which was presented at the opening session of the Conference and published 

in full in the Proceedings. Somehow or another during one of my many depths of despair 

trying to bring that whole ”Chinese Fire Drill” together, I must have had a rare stroke of genius. 

That one page statement has been plagiarized more times than I will ever know. 

It is too long to repeat here, but one paragraph, which has been the most `borrowed 

from', I feel is significant enough to withstand re-presentation: 

Increasing professional, social, and technical responsibilities are being placed daily upon 

the metrologists of this State due to forensic, environmental, safety, and consumer protection 

stimuli, as well as from increasing rigor from the more traditional regulatory 

sources. In the face of these multiplying pressures, it becomes imperative that we, the professional 

metrologists of California, retreat regularly into council to assess these pressures 

and to determine any necessary deviations in our professional and technical outlooks." 

If anybody is really interested in studying the problems of previous Measurement Science 

Conferences; their solutions; their significance in future conferences, and in general who 

the ‘good guys’ and the ‘bad guys’ have been, I would suggest a very careful and scholarly perusal 

of the nine page Final Report that I submitted to the Committee a month or so after that 

Seventh (1977) Conference. In it I tried to pull a few punches, and I made a number of recommendations 

for the future; some of which have been heeded, others ignored. I still feel that 

many of the ignored recommendations are valid — even today. 

CHAPTER NINE 

THE 1978 CONFERENCE — 

DeWAYNE SHARP’S IMPACT AND TRAUMA STRIKES 

The agreement was, when we left SLO, we would hold one conference at CSU-LB; another 

at Cal-Poly Pomona (Kellogg-West Facility); then, on the third year, we would return 

home to SLO. At that time, we would reassess our position on venues; thus it was preordained 

the Eighth Conference was to be held at Pomona. 

This was to be DeWayne's year, as Bob Couture had selected him two years prior, per 

“established custom”. I, myself was looking forward to relaxing as Past-Director (“Elder Statesman” 

if you prefer). But, that was not to be. DeWayne's new IBM responsibilities had made 

him a part of the “international jet set”, and about half of the time, it was impossible for him to 

be present in Pomona for Committee meetings. 

Our operating rules at that time specified that the Past-Director would automatically 

substitute for the Director in his absence. So I was stuck, but fortunately DeWayne stayed in 

close telephone contact, so I was generally able to introduce his policies, instead of being forced 



MQD Page 61 


to invent my own. 

We, the regulars on the Committee that is, were particularly “gun shy” about facilities 

compatibility, as well as University staff attitudes and competence after our less-than-pleasant 

experiences at CSU-LB the previous year. In some respects, Cal-Poly Pomona, we thought was 

going to be a welcome respite. The Conference would be held at Kellogg-West, a special, dedicated 

conference center, adjacent to and connecting with the University campus, but not administratively 

part of that campus. We would have full academic support from the University, with 

overflow facilities support if needed and where practical; and were promised anything else they 

could furnish that we might require: 

Professor Bob Irvine: of the Cal-Poly/Pomona Electrical Engineering Department was 

appointed to be the official liaison between MSC, Kellogg-West, and the University. 

Kellogg-West is an unusual facility. It is the western branch of the Kellogg 

Foundation facility in Battle Creek, Michigan. It is designed for, and is dedicated 

solely to the providing of adequate, proper, and comfortable facilities for conferences; and it 

offers professional management well experienced in arranging such conferences. It has 

new, carefully designed buildings, laid out such as to accommodate many small conferences 

simultaneously, without interference. The meeting rooms for these conferences are of many different 

sizes. The facility has its own kitchens, food service, and dining rooms. Also included are 

complete hotel/motel facilities operated by the Center. These lodging accommodations are located 

but a short walking distance away from the main complex. The complex has a separate 

highway entrance that does not require the attendees to travel through the University campus; 

and there is adequate parking very close to the main buildings — best of all there is their permanent, 

dedicated, staff who are genuine professionals in conference management. The entire 

setup appeared to be idyllic. 

It was apparent to all of us of the Committee from the outset, the staff were more than 

simply cooperative — they were bona fide professionals who bent over backwards to try to 

help. But, while they were obviously quite experienced in the management of several simultaneous 

small conferences, a conference of our size soon proved to tax their professional and administrative 

capabilities, as well as the physical facilities available. We all, the Committee and 

the Staff, soon found out that “several small conferences do not a large conference make”; or, 

in mathematical terms, “the sum of many parts does not necessarily equal the whole”. 

We found out the hard way that the many cozy conference rooms designed for 6-30 people 

could in no way be combined to accommodate the 50 or more attendees we frequently had 

for many of our sessions. 

Kellogg-West's dining facilities had, without doubt the finest food I have ever experienced 

at any MSC venue anywhere, but their service capability was predicated upon: 

 

 

 

serving buffet style, a number of small simultaneous conference groups; 

scheduling these meals in a somewhat staggered, sequential order; and 

by using relatively small round tables. 

They were limited to seating about 150-200 at any one time, which made it very comfortable 

for several small groups, but impossible for MSC, with 3-400+ eaters for sit down 

lunches; and with formal luncheon speakers. 



MQD Page 62 


To top off our facilities dilemma, those individuals who had forced the move to Pomona 

had completely overlooked the necessity for adequate exhibit space for Dean Brungard’s wellorganized 

exhibits function. 

In the Exhibits area we had two options: 

(1) Use the few larger conference rooms which were all we had for the larger sessions 

(but which we had already reckoned were really too small for even that purpose); 

(2) To use the corridors and lounge as exhibit space, and lose all semblance of security 

control. 

We didn't really have much choice — we chose the latter option. The Center agreed to 

furnish security guards to patrol the exhibit areas during the hours our Exhibitors could not be 

present to watch over their own properties. 

The real topper came when we found out that, according to the regulations of the Foundation, 

no one group could reserve exclusive use of the facilities. We would be forced to share 

those assets with whichever eligible organizational groups wanted in at the same time. And, by 

then, we had come to realize that even the total of those available assets was far less than our 

minimum requirements. It became a challenging exercise in tight scheduling and logistics — 

almost, but never quite satisfactorily solvable. 

Unfortunately, although the Kellogg-West staff was most competent and sympathetic — 

their hands were tied. We must give that staff full credit, as they proved to be, despite their 

handicaps, quite professional; furthermore, they openly welcomed such assistance and counsel 

which was available from Fred Wolf. — They recognized another professional when they met 

one and they consulted with him frequently. 

In DeWayne’s absence, but with his full concurrence, I was forced to make many of the 

assignments. Drawing upon the experiences of the previous year at Long Beach, I saw to it that 

behind a facade of “Spouses Activities”, Andy Woodington was actually made “Pseudo Deputy 

-Director”; that Paul Messinger had complete control of the Registration responsibilities; and 

that Dave Buck was again in complete charge of Finance. Bill Fry was given the Liaison slot, 

but I cautioned him to stand by for a possible repeat emergency assignment in Publications. I 

would have given him the Publications responsibility directly, but the University wanted to do 

it themselves, as they had the facilities to handle the publication mechanics. So for the sake of 

diplomatic relations, I condescended; leaving Chet Crane in the semi-titular role of coordinating 

between the MSC Committee and the University publishing function. And, although the University 

people did a creditable job of the mechanics of the publishing, we had severe problems 

— through no fault of theirs. 

As it turned out, because of a publishing moratorium caused by a threatened law suit by 

one Exhibitor/Speaker; Bill was needed to straighten out the resulting shambles, after several 

weeks of enforced delays. That unwarranted action on the part of certain malcontents forced us 

into having to mail out the Conference Proceedings several weeks after the Conference. 

DeWayne Sharp was not only a fine metrologist, but he also had a keen mind for discerning 

potential organizational problems. Before our year of Conference preparation was very 

far underway, he announced that he felt if we, the Measurement Science Conference Committee, 

were to continue and to be self-perpetuating, as well gain undisputed control of our funds, 

we must incorporate as a legal entity. 



MQD Page 63 


None among the more sagacious members of the Committee disagreed with this philosophy 

in principle. Any disagreements we might have had were all in the mechanics of implementation; 

projected organization; relations with and the authorities of the sponsors; internal 

lines of authority; officer selection; and the like. 

Finally, after much non-conclusive discussion, but with several months to go before the 

Conference, DeWayne assigned the task of drafting a plan to Andy Woodington and me. He 

gave us instructions to have it in final draft form, ready for adoption at the last Committee 

meeting, scheduled for the night prior to the Conference. He wanted to announce the adoption 

of a permanent corporate structure to the attendees during the business meeting portion of the 

opening session. 

Andy and I met with DeWayne several times, both in person and by telephone, until we 

jointly had perfected a basic plan. This would have placed the policy control of the MSC in the 

hands of the sponsoring professional organizations and the interested universities, rather than in 

the hands of any few individuals; — but at the same time it would guarantee organizational independence 

from those Sponsoring Organizations. This plan: 

Would also ensure the continuity of proven effective members. Provided assurance that 

non-political personal development paths for new but inexperienced personnel would be created 

and utilized. And, of major importance, it guaranteed an independent financial status, with 

unassailable accountability of funds and physical assets. 

It was up to Andy and I to work out the details and to draft a workable implementation 

plan and organization chart. 

For several weeks we worked, alternately in my office at Metron in Upland, and in his at 

MEC (the US Navy Metrology Engineering Center at Pomona). Finally a couple of days before 

the Conference we finished it. Andy took it with him back to MEC to have the finish typing 

and artwork done there. He would have it ready for the Committee meeting on the eve of the 

Conference. 

As I stated before, this was DeWayne's Conference and should have the honor of expounding 

his own accomplishments. On the other hand, through no fault of his own, he was 

unable to be present for at least some the preliminaries. He was also absent for what turned out 

to the most significant and tragic event of the entire Conference; namely — Andy Woodington's 

murder. 

During the early afternoon prior to the Conference, while in my office at Metron, I received 

a telephone from Jerry Hayes (Jerry was the Director of MEC) informing me Andy had 

been shot to death in front of his home that morning on his way to work. To say that this news 

was traumatic would be an under-statement of the first magnitude. Andy was far more than just 

a casual business acquaintance; he was a close personal friend. We had first met in 1959 and 

had been frequently together since. With our wives, his Bobby and my Jo, we had often had 

dinner together as a foursome. As I mentioned earlier, we had been through the ‘ISA Wars’ 

together, each protecting the other’s rear, at the same time battling on through. 

I knew Andy and Bobby had been divorced and that technically, he had no next of kin. 

There wasn't much that I could do except silently mourn the loss of a true friend; confidant; and 

helper when in need, as he had been many times in the past. 

But, the immediate problem, right then, was the Measurement Science Conference; and 

I knew that was as Andy would have wanted it. I called Sharp with the news (I found him at 



MQD Page 64 


the Kennedy Airport in New York about to board a plane for San Jose.). He too was devastated, 

as Andy was also an old friend of his, He said he would be on the next plane down from 

San Jose. “Where could we meet.” I volunteered my Metron suite at the Kellogg-West ‘Motel’. 

I then called Hayes back and suggested that he be at the Committee meeting to explain 

what he knew to the full group. He agreed. I called all of the principal Committee members, 

and alerted them to be present. 

When DeWayne arrived, the meeting got underway with Jerry explaining what little he 

knew about Andy's death. Basically, it was still in the hands of the Pomona Police Department, 

and they were not, as yet, talking. Jerry was quite concerned about Andy's brief case, which 

had been impounded by the police and was supposed to contain some important MEC documents. 

I was equally certain that it also contained the MSC incorporation plan which we had 

been working on the previous day, and which was due for presentation that very evening. As 

far as I know today, neither set of documents were ever seen again. 

Without the organization chart and description, DeWayne was unable to present his incorporation 

plans for Committee approval. The meeting then concerned itself with two points: 

What do we do to cover Andy's current MSC functions? And, What could we, the 

MSC Committee do to honor Andy's memory? 

The first point was both, not difficult and yet, at the same time, impossible to solve. 

Andy’s titular function of Spouses Activities was easy to replace; he had left it so well organized 

that almost anybody could be assigned to handle it. I don’t remember who was. 

His unofficial function of everybody's "Right Arm" was impossible to replace. We 

would just have to muddle through somehow.— We did, somehow. 

The solution to the second item proved to be one of sheer genius brought on through 

deep grief. That solution was the creation of the: 

"ANDREW J. WOODINGTON AWARD FOR 

PROFESSIONALISM IN METROLOGY". 

I cannot really remember precisely whose idea it was, but I believe it was undoubtedly 

DeWayne Sharp who came up with the basic concept. I would like to think that from there on, 

it was a group involvement that just sort of flowed out jointly; and spontaneously, which filled 

in the details of DeWayne's concept. 

There was little doubt in any of our minds from the outset that this AWARD could only 

be for professionalism, for that was what Andy was; a true Professional. He was certainly no 

scientist; he was no scholar; he had invented nothing; he had written no books; he was not an 

educator. He was, however a Professional, and a true friend as well. Everyone who really 

knew him, respected him for his very intangible attributes. — Professionalism is a very intangible 

attribute. 

As we rambled on, our joint collective testimony to Andy's professional heritage was 

recorded and compiled by someone, Jerry Hayes, I think. It was finished, polished, and endorsed 

by everyone present before that convocation adjourned. That testimonial is the same 

one that is read today, annually, at each presentation of the WOODINGTON AWARD during 

a General Session of each MSC. 



MQD Page 65 


We agreed: 

 

 

 

 

 

That the WOODINGTON AWARD should be bestowed each year thereafter, to an 

individual who had at some previous time, distinguished himself within the metrology 

community as a true professional; just as Woodington had exemplified himself 

as a true professional throughout his career. 

That this honor was not to be bestowed simply for technical excellence, or for administrative 

or political prowess, or for scholarly achievement; although these attributes 

might be considered in differentiating between candidates considered to be of 

similar professional statures: — in any event it was definitely not to be a popularity 

award. 

That the AWARD should include a monetary grant in an amount to be determined 

by the full Committee; 

That the presentation should include a public citation from the MSC organization; 

a written documentary testimonial individualized to the recipient, extolling 

those attributes prompting the award; with that citation published in a 

subsequent issue of the “CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS”; and 

That also it should include a permanent plaque or trophy of some sort, which 

the recipient might display. 

DeWayne announced the tragedy and our reaction to it at the opening meeting the next 

morning. If he is remembered for nothing else he has accomplished during his entire public career, 

DeWayne Sharp must be remembered as the sagacious Conference Director, who announced 

the passing of a beloved confrere, and guided the creation of, and the announcement of 

the creation of the AWARD designed to honor that confrere's memory. 

As we had all agreed that, since it was impossible to react intelligently on such short notice, 

the first determination of a recipient of the WOODINGTON AWARD would be by a 

Select Sub-Committee of the whole Committee during the coming year, and the presentation 

would be during the Ninth Conference the following year at SLO. DeWayne so announced 

that decision as well, and solicited public nominations of candidates. 

As if that trauma were not enough for any Director, DeWayne's sagacity was to be 

tested, again, by a matter that should have gone unnoticed and been 

written-off as an exercise in bad taste. But unfortunately, such was not to be. 

An Exhibitor/Speaker, who had already had his own forum in which he had not too subtly 

promoted the alleged merits of his product during what was supposed to be an unbiased 

technical presentation, loudly berated from the floor, an employee of a competitor, who was 

also another Exhibitor/Speaker, while that individual was attempting to deliver his paper based 

upon his employer's competitive product. 



MQD Page 66 


I was not present at that particular session when the outburst occurred, but it apparently 

developed into some sort of free-for-all, requiring DeWayne's 

presence to restore order. He apparently at the time, did, but; later, the first individual, Mr. 

Loeb Julie, unhappy at being quelled, attempted to file charges against the other individual, Mr. 

Frank Capell; his employer, the John Fluke Manufacturing Company; the MSC Committee; the 

California State Polytechnic University-Pomona; Kellogg-West; and just about anyone else in 

sight: for slander; liable; defamation of character; loss of business; and almost anything else 

that his lawyers could think of. 

Counter charges were threatened, placing MSC, Cal-Poly, and the Committee right in 

the middle of what could have become a long and costly legal battle. 

For several weeks after the Conference, DeWayne negotiated and arbitrated between the 

principals, with the sagacity of a Supreme Court Chief Justice and the wisdom of a Solomon. 

He finally framed an agreement which, among other things, included a requirement that each 

party would rewrite his respective paper in a manner mutually satisfactory to all concerned. 

These rewritten papers were to be reviewed and passed, before publishing, by a special MSC 

Review Board agreeable to all parties. These approved rewritten papers would be the only versions 

published in the “1978 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS”. 

The “Proceedings” had already been printed, bound, and ready for distribution at the 

close of the Conference. Because of that pending legal problem, DeWayne had ordered that 

they not be distributed during the time of the Conference, as was originally planned. Professor 

Bob Irvine was then stuck with the storage of a small mountain of what was up until then, the 

most voluminous MSC “Proceedings” ever. 

After DeWayne had forged the agreement between the principals, it became Bob's 

problem to see to the disassembly of each copy; to remove and to destroy the offensive material; 

insert the new material; rebind; and mail a copy to each attendee. But, with a heavy academic 

load, and with no student help available, Bob just was not up to the total task. The best 

he could do was to provide a secure storage and work area. 

Fortunately for all, Bill Fry came through again, and furnished not only physical support, 

but his unique knowledge gained in straightening out the “Proceedings” problems during 

the previous year at Long Beach. Working alone, for nearly three months, Bill, each evening, 

traveled from his home in Arlington, to Pomona. There, he personally disassembled every copy 

of the already completed Proceedings; removed and destroyed the offensive material; replaced 

the removed material with copies of the approved versions; and then reassembled and rebound 

each copy — about 1500 copies in all! 

Because of the stature that he demonstrated throughout this Eighth Measurement Science 

Conference and particularly his handling of the two traumatic 

events that occurred during his tenure, I believe that DeWayne B. Sharp should be 

noted in the annals of the MSC as one of, if not the very most outstanding Measurement Science 

Conference Director ever! He too, in my opinion, should be considered as a candidate 

for the WOODINGTON AWARD. 

As I stated before, this was DeWayne's Conference. He should speak for it. I do however 

feel that a few points can be made without usurping any of the inputs that he himself may 

put forward: 



MQD Page 67 


Larry Kreyer was Program Director and managed to bring forward a number of outstanding authors 

and speakers. 

For Keynoter, Larry managed to have the very outstanding speaker John Grayson, then 

President of Uni-Vox Corporation, who made an opening address entitled “WHAT IT MEANS 

TO BE A PROFESSIONAL”. It was profound address, delivered in a stirring manner. I wish 

that those in charge of Publications had had the foresight to get a copy and included it in the 

Proceedings, thus preserving it. 

It was the last public appearance, at least here on the West Coast, of my very good 

friend Russell Brownnell, before his untimely death. Russ was a world authority in electrical 

power measurements. 

And as I stated above, if I remember that Kellogg-West favorably for nothing else, I 

shall remember it for the quality of the food and the outstandingly cooperative professional 

competence and attitude displayed by that Kellogg-West management staff. 

Their competence and cooperation did much to alleviate the effects of what could have 

been many grievous logistics problems, at a time while we attempting to overcome even more 

serious, tragic, and traumatic problems. 

CHAPTER TEN 

THE 1979 CONFERENCE — 

HOMECOMING AT SAN LUIS OBISPO 

In 1977, I had followed the established procedure and appointed Larry Kreyer to be Director 

of the 1979 Conference. I knew of course, the Conference was slated to be in SLO. 

Larry was a Cal-Poly alumnus. I had been hoping that this connection might influence the 

Conference to remain at SLO, or possibly at least cause it to return there more frequently. But, 

as I often am, I was again wrong. This was to be the last year for the MSC to be held at its 

birthplace, and the last time ever to be held on a university campus. 

I, in turn was appointed by Larry as the first Historian of MSC, but he failed, despite 

repeated requests of mine, to give me any specific instructions as to what the job was to consist 

of, or of the responsibilities he expected me to assume. So, by default, it became the year of 

rest and the "elder statesmanship" that I had hoped for, but had not achieved during the year 

previous. 

There were two unusual items that year I remember as being noteworthy: The first presentation 

of the WOODINGTON AWARD to Laurel Auxier, of Beckman Instruments, and an 

outstanding Luncheon Presentation by Jerry Hayes in which he made, what I believe, was the 

first public demonstration of a prototype of the US Navy's MECCA automatic calibration system. 

The very system which Larry Kreyer had conceived and described in several voluminous 

reports several years earlier. 



MQD Page 68 


CHAPTER ELEVEN 

THE TENTH CONFERENCE — 1981 

THE FIRST YEAR IN A COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT 

The Tenth Measurement Science Conference would normally have been held in the late 

November time frame of 1980, but circumstances, again, intervened in Conference chronology. 

When the decision was made to move off university campuses and into commercial hotel space, 

the first choice was the GRAND HOTEL in Anaheim, near Disneyland. 

For some reason, which I do not recall, the negotiations broke down rather late in the 

planning schedule and another venue needed to be located fast. As it turned out, the nearby 

INN-AT-THE-PARK was available, provided the Conference could be moved to a date later 

than its traditional November date. January 30-31,1981 was selected, thus breaking a tradition 

which had existed since the outset of the MSC. 

Frank Koide was the Conference Director for this Tenth Conference. Personally, I was 

not much involved in the political management of that years' Conference, which was good from 

my standpoint as I was out of town most of the year on a long term consulting contract with 

NASA. However, I was very busy as Program Director; an assignment I could readily handle 

from remote locations. I had to make the programming at this Conference as memorable as I 

could, because I planned this to be my last year of intense MSC involvement. 

As I have reiterated several times above, I was, and still am quite opposed to the crass 

commercialism and hype into which the MSC had evolved. I am still for a more compact assembly 

of professionals, conducted in a more academic, yet practical atmosphere. However the 

decision had been made to hold the Conference here at a resort hotel — I must honor it. But I 

still could try to make the program for this Tenth Conference highly academic and yet practical. 

It could still become a "swan song" of which I could be proud. Toward that end, and with some 

of the finest assistance I have ever experienced, we went all out and organized a program which 

I believe will stand in excellence for many years to come. 

I was particularly fortunate to acquire as a Deputy: 

Dr. Eve Connor: Chief Scientist of the Pudenz-Schulte Medical Research Corp. of 

Santa Barbara. 

While Eve was a proven scientist in her own right and had some experience with small 

medical conferences; this was her first experience in programming a major multi-disciplinary 

conference. She took to it like a duck to water. It was a sheer delight working with someone 

of her competence, comprehension, and drive. I have often wished that sometime we together 

could again produce the programming for another conference. 

As I stated before, all stops were pull to make this one great: For Keynoter, we had Mr. 

Samuel White, Director of the NASA-Ames Research Center at Mountain View, CA. I had met 

Sam previously, while I was performing a metrology related consulting assignment at NASA- 

Ames. Talking entirely from the context of manned aircraft research, he attempted to impress 

on his audience the fundamental necessity for integrity in measurements. That attribute, he felt, 

based on his own experiences, is too often overlooked — even deliberately disregarded — by 

today's crop of fledgling metrologists. And it is, as he also pointed out — too frequently — 

totally unknown to test engineers. 



MQD Page 69 


Our luncheon speaker the first day was my very good friend of long standing, Mr. 

Frederick Hume, then General Manager of the Precision Instrumentation Division of the John 

Fluke Man- ufacturing Company of Everett, WA. Fred constructed a thesis calling for a system 

of recognition for professionalism among metrologists; and for the necessary metrology 

education to support such a recognition program. These themes were based upon a lengthy 

conversation he and I had had over dinner, at Fisherman's Wharf in San Francisco, over a year 

before. 

Our luncheon speaker on the second day was another very old personal friend, also of 

long standing, Dr. Bruno Weinschel, President of the Weinschel Engineering Company of 

Gaithers- burg, MD. Bruno, using a hitherto unreleased internal company report, built an incontestable 

case for the necessity for training US engineers for competitiveness in the world 

market during the 1980's. 

We had, for the first time, a multiplicity of actual hands-on workshops on eight different 

topics. These were conducted independently from the main conference venue. However, 

five of those eight were also practical exercises in the application of principles which had 

been expounded upon during sessions on the same topics. These workshops were a real problem 

in logistics, as the number of rooms available, the availability hours, and the room sizes 

were all far too small for the demand. 

Eve Connor, true to her background, saw to it that we had a program heavy in 

Medical Radiology measurements; Medical Devices measurements; Pharmaceutical measurements; 

and the Metrology of the technologies supporting Bio-medicine. 

Jack Vogt of NBS put together a series on the status of the Interagency PMTE program 

at NBS which was, at that time, concerned principally with the military side of government 

metrology activity. This was counterbalanced for the private sector by another session 

concerning the State Measurement Centers, produced by Al Tholen, Chief of the Office of 

Weights and Measures of NBS. 

A new subject area to the MSC — that of Earthquake Measurements and Earthquake 

Prediction was introduced by Dr. Chiu Wong of the University of California-Berkeley and by 

Pete Bender of NBS-Boulder Laboratories. 

Another subject area, relatively new to MSC at that time, Materials Qualification, Standard 

Materials, and Stoichiometry (a metrological discipline too frequently neglected by far too 

many metrologists), was tutorialy explored in depth during a session series developed by Dr. 

John Taylor of NBS. 

My late good friend and client, George Becker, President of the Western Metrology 

Laboratories Inc, of the California Precision Inspection Corporation, and of the Measurement 

Devices Company, applied his unusually wide acquaintance with industry leaders, to produce 

several sessions on the current state of the art in several different areas of precision dimensional 

measurements, surface finish measurements, and other metrology disciplines vital to the 

machine tool and fabrication interests. 

And of course Frank Koide, as Conference Director, found it easy to prevail on several 

of his peers in the Microwave community to cooperatively produce a series of top notch Microwave 

Sessions. 

I could not have had a finer finale to my active MSC career. My thanks to one and all, 

and especially to Eve Connor, my most valued Deputy. 



MQD Page 70 


While this Tenth Conference in 1981 was the last one in which I participated actively 

and extensively; and hence, the last one that I am qualified to comment upon in any depth, I 

was to have very small parts in two more. These were the Eleventh Conference held in San 

Diego in 1982 and the Eighteenth Conference held in Anaheim in 1989. 

CHAPTER TWELVE 

THE ELEVENTH CONFERENCE — SAN DIEGO-1982 

Several weeks prior to the 1982 Conference, I received a telephone call from John 

Brady who was in charge of Awards for that Conference. John, at that time, was Dean of the 

School of Electronics Engineering, at the Orange Coast Community College, in Costa Mesa. I 

had of course, known John fairly well for a number of years. He had been Chief Engineer of 

Metron before he had taken his current teaching job at Orange Coast College. He had been Vice 

-President-Engineering of the John Fluke Manufacturing Company, in Mount Lake Terrace, 

Washington before that. I previously had favorable dealings with him in all three capacities. 

He asked me how well I knew Al Edgerton. That answer was easy; I replied that I was 

proud to have known Al since 1948, thirty-four years in all. We were two of the twelve principal 

founders of the PMA in 1958, and, as a result had developed a close and mutually respected 

friendship. We had remained in very close contact ever since; much closer than during the ten 

years we had known each other before the PMA founding. I also told him that, we had a very 

healthy respect as well as an admiration for each other. 

John then asked me if I felt I knew him well enough to write a citation honoring him. I 

asked, "What was the occasion?" "The WOODINGTON AWARD", he replied. "We want to 

present it to him in San Diego, but none of us know the man well enough to write the citation. 

Can you do it for us?" "I would be offended if I were not permitted to do it", I replied. 

There was no MSC task during my previous thirteen years of MSC involvement that 

gave me more pride and pleasure than writing the WOODINGTON AWARD CITATION for 

Mr. Albert K. Edgerton. In my mind, he exemplified “the Professional's Professional”. And, 

even better yet, he was and still is, a great and kindly friend. 

I sat with him at lunch that day and watched his surprise, as Frank Koide read the citation, 

virtually as I had written it. 

This would have been a most satisfying climax to my years of MSC service had not 

something else occurred seven years later. 

CHAPTER THIRTEEN 

THE EIGHTEENTH CONFERENCE — 1989-ANAHEIM 

On the day before the Eighteenth Conference, January 25, 1989, I went down to the 

Anaheim-Marriott to attend a PMA Board Meeting. I had awakened that morning with what 

seemed to be a bad cold. During the day it progressed into full-fledged flu, so I left the meeting 

early and went home to bed. 



MQD Page 71 


The next morning I awoke with a temperature of 102+. I was so sick I could scarcely 

stand. So I decided that for the first time ever, I would skip the MSC opening ceremonies, if 

not the entire first day, and stay home in bed. 

Then my telephone rang; it was Dave Workman. Dave was at that time the current 

PMA President. He told me that the PMA was making a presentation immediately following 

the Keynoter that morning, and I was needed. 

What could I do? I seem to be the one individual the PMA always calls upon whenever 

an award presenter is required. I agreed, providing, he could stall long enough for me to get 

presentable, and to travel from my home down to the Marriott. 

That was a trip that I shall never forget. I had filled myself with antibiotics and antihistamines 

to such an extent that I was afraid I might be picked up for driving under the influence. 

When I arrived, Dave met me at the door; rushed me to the front row; and told me to 

wait for a moment until he made the introduction. I was expecting him to introduce me as the 

presenter. But instead I soon discovered that I was not to be the presenter this time; — I was to 

be the presentee!!! 

I literally staggered to the platform to be awarded the first ever: 

PRECISION MEASUREMENTS ASSOCIATION 

CHARTER LIFE FELLOWSHIP! 

That was a hard act to beat. For once in my career, I was nearly speechless. I had really 

experienced a true emotional climax in my long association with the MEASUREMENT SCI- 

ENCE CONFERENCE. I was, and still am, most grateful to all those many people, who over 

the years have helped me to achieve that unparalleled honor. 



October 20, 1991 


MQD Page 72 


MQD Page 73 

MEASUREMENT QUALITY DIVISION OFFICERS AND COMMITTEE CHAIRS 

Chair, Certification Chair, Publication Chair, 

Newsletter Editor/Publisher, Share Point 

Administrator 

Jay L. Bucher, PH.D., ASQ-CCT 

Bucherview Metrology Services, LLC 



Voice (608) 846-6968 

E-mail: yokota-69@charter.net 

Chair-Elect, Program Chair 

Dilip A. Shah 

E = mc3 Solutions 

3359 Styx Hill Road, 

Medina, Ohio 44256-9755 

Voice (330) 328-4400 / Fax (330) 336-3974 

E-mail: emc3solu@aol.com, dashah@aol.com 

Treasurer, NCSL International Representative 

Christopher L. Grachanen 

Manager, Houston Metrology Group HP 

P. O. Box 692000 MS070110 

Houston, TX 77269-2000 

Voice (281) 518-8486 / Fax (281) 518-7275 

E-mail: Chris.Grachanen@hp.com 

Secretary 

Heather A. Wade 

Calibration Officer, ASQ-CCT 

NSF International 

789 N. Dixboro Road 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Voice (734) 913-5712 

E-mail: wade@nsf.org 

Immediate Past Chair 

Craig A. Niemann, CMSgt, USAF 

Website Liaison 





Voice (608) 846-6968 


Standards Committee Representative 





Voice (608) 846-6968 


Examining Chair 

Duane Allen 

U. S. Navy 

P.O. Box 5000, Code MS11 

Corona, CA 92878-5000 

Voice (909) 273-4783 / Fax (909) 273-4599 

E-mail: duane.allen@navy.mil 

Membership Chair, Voice of the Customer Rep. 

Elias Monreal 

Industrial Tool Die & Engineering 

4765 S. Overland Dr. 

Tucson, AZ 85714 

Voice (520) 241-0478 

E-mail: emonreal@hotmail.com 

Historian 

Brandon Downing 

3054 Cross Creek Dr 

Cumming, GA 30040 

Voice (678) 983 9455 

E-mail: bdowning42@comcast.net 

Nominating Chair 

Craig A. Niemann, CMSgt, USAF 

Joe Simmons Scholarship 

Dilip A. Shah 

E = mc3 Solutions 

3359 Styx Hill Road, 

Medina, Ohio 44256-9755 

Voice (330) 328-4400 / Fax (330) 336-3974 

E-mail: emc3solu@aol.com, dashah@aol.com 


Measurement Quality Division 

TO: 

FROM: 

Measurement Quality Division(MQD) 

Elías Monréal 

DATE: 5-23-11 

RE: 

2011-Q3 Membership Chair Report for The Standard 

2011 WCQI: 

Measurement Quality Division(MQD) representatives, Dilip Shah(Chair-Elect) and Elías Monréal 

(Membership Chair), were present at the 65 th annual World Conference on Quality and Improvement on 

May 16-18, 2011. Dilip and Elías were our ambassadors to attendees’ queries at the MQD booth. We 

hope to see you at next year’s conference in Anaheim on May 21-23, 2012. Enclosed are photos of them, 

the booth and various participants at the conference. 

Community Leadership Institute(CLI): Dilip and other ASQ Member Leaders 

QMP Award Ceremony: Dilip receiving J.S.McDermond Total Quality Award on behalf of MQD 

 

Certification Distribution

Elías Monréal, David Brown(Newly inducted ASQ Fellow, MQD Member and CCT#8), Dilip Shah 

Photo Set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26463272@N04/sets/72157626648557283/ 

Slideshow: http://www.flickr.com/photos/26463272@N04/sets/72157626648557283/show/ 

MQD 2011-Q3 Membership Report: 

Currently, we are the 12 th largest of ASQ’s 25 Divisions with 3191 members. Our current opportunity is 

to retain those 286 unpaid members and effectively communicate our relevancy to them. Please view 

enclosed membership segmentation: geographic, country, membership, market, job title, certification, and 

interest. 

Interesting facts on MQD members: 

Growth and Retention rate above ASQ average 

7% of CCT’s in MQD 

If all CCT's were in MQD, would account 40% of membership 

83% from USA, 6% Canada, 1% Mexico 

8% from CA, 5% from TX 

50% Regular, 42% Senior, 4% Associate, 1% Student 

45% MFG, 27% Service, 11% Unknown, 11% International 

37% in QMD, 20% Audit, 20% Six Sigma, 19% Stat, 19% Inspection 

67% do NOT hold one(1)certification, 22% hold at least one certification, one member holds 13 certs 

6 CCT’s certification lapsed on Dec-2011 and will have to recert by exam 

15 CCT's recert packet due on June-2011 

 


SUMMARY 

MQD 

Nov-2010 

MQD 

Dec-2010 

MQD 

Jan-2011 

MQD 

Feb-2011 

MQD 

Mar-2011 

MQD 

April-2011 

ASQ 

Average 

LAST_YEAR 3110 3110 3110 3110 3110 3110 4193 

TOTAL 3076 3095 3146 3154 3191 3203 4225 

GROWTH -1.1 -0.5 1.2 1.4 2.6 3.0 1.5 

TOTRENEW 742 830 961 1044 1194 1345 1666 

NEW 391 454 529 608 705 794 829 

RETENTION 23.9 26.7 30.9 33.6 38.4 43.2 38.9 

MQD Survey: 

As always, the main theme behind this survey is…what the MQD Executive Committee can do to make 

your ASQ experience at the division level better. Your input gives your MQD Officers and Committee 

Chairs feedback of its member’s perception of ASQ and MQD. So far, we have 117 completed surveys. 

Your earnest feedback will be used by MQD executive committee to provide you with better benefits, 

products and services and incorporated into its Quality Management Plan(QMP). With the ultimate goal, 

becoming the BEST division in ASQ. 

The survey will be short, only taking a few minutes of your time, but your feedback is invaluable. The 

executive committee will utilize your information to add and direct future discussion topics, training 

events, and make positive changes to the division. The study will be open from May 1 through June 30, 

2011. 

Follow this link to the 2011 ASQ-MQD Survey: 

https://asq.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_6loPbFhEpu31lwo 

Thank you in advance for your participation and assistance for our strategic planning in 2011-12. 

Questions, comments, or concerns? Feel free to contact me at emonreal@hotmail.com or (520) 241-0478. 

Adíos, 

Elías Monréal 

ASQ-CQIA,CMI,CQT,CSSGB,CCT,CQA,CQE,CMQ/OE 

MQD Membership Chair 

 


2011‐Q3 

Membership Data 

MQD Membership QTY % 100% CCT's % 

Dues Paid 3191 92% 229 7% CCT's in MQD 

Unpaid/Pending 286 8% 1382 40% IF all CCT's in MQD 

Potential Total 3477 

12 th Largest Division 

MQD 

Nov‐2010 

MQD 

Dec‐2010 

MQD 

Jan‐2011 

MQD 

Feb‐2011 

MQD 

March‐2011 

MQD 

April‐2011 

ASQ 

Average 

SUMMARY 

LAST_YEAR 3110 3110 3110 3110 3110 3110 4193 

TOTAL 3076 3095 3146 3154 3191 3203 4225 

GROWTH ‐1.1 ‐0.5 1.2 1.4 2.6 3.0 1.5 

TOTRENEW 742 830 961 1044 1194 1345 1666 

NEW 391 454 529 608 705 794 829 

RETENTION 23.9 26.7 30.9 33.6 38.4 43.2 38.9 

Geographic QTY % 100% 

1 Unknown (Blank) 379 11% 

2 CA 276 8% 

3 TX 184 5% 

4 OH 178 5% 

5 WI 151 4% 

6 PA 147 4% 

7 IL 146 4% 

8 MN 133 4% 

9 NY 118 3% 

10 MI 116 3% CANADA 

MA 105 3% 

ON 104 3% 

NJ 103 3% 

NC 99 3% 

FL 92 3% 

IN 88 3% 

GA 79 2% 

VA 73 2% 

TN 71 2%

CT 54 2% 

MO 53 2% 

MD 45 1% 

UT 45 1% 

AZ 40 1% 

WA 40 1% 

OR 37 1% 

SC 37 1% 

CO 36 1% 

IA 33 1% 

PR 31 1% 

OK 30 1% 

KY 29 1% 

QC 28 1% 

AR 25 1% 

BC 25 1% 

AB 24 1% 

AL 24 1% 

NE 20 1% 

ME 19 1% 

NH 17 0.5% 

RI 17 0.5% 

MS 14 0.4% 

DE 13 0.4% 

KS 13 0.4% 

LA 13 0.4% 

DC 9 0.3% 

NM 9 0.3% 

NV 8 0.2% 

MB 6 0.2% 

HI 4 0.1% 

ID 4 0.1% 

NL 4 0.1% 

VT 4 0.1% 

NS 3 0% 

WV 3 0% 

WV 3 0% 

ND 2 0% 

SK 2 0% 

AE 0 0% 

2011‐Q3 

Membership Data

Country QTY % 98% 

1 USA 2892 83% 

2 CANADA 198 6% 

3 MEXICO 38 1% 

4 INDIA 35 1% 

5 SAUDI ARABIA 30 1% 

6 AUSTRALIA 23 1% 

7 UNITED KINGDOM 17 0.5% 

8 UNITED ARAB EMIRA 15 0.4% 

9 HONG KONG 13 0.4% 

10 Unknown (Blank) 10 0.3% 

CHINA 9 0.3% 

BRAZIL 8 0.2% 

NIGERIA 8 0.2% 

SPAIN 8 0.2% 

ARGENTINA 7 0.2% 

PHILIPPINES 7 0.2% 

MALAYSIA 6 0.2% 

SOUTH AFRICA 6 0.2% 

SWITZERLAND 6 0.2% 

DENMARK 5 0.1% 

GERMANY 5 0.1% 

JAPAN 5 0.1% 

KOREA, REPUBLIC OF 5 0.1% 

KUWAIT 5 0.1% 

SINGAPORE 5 0.1% 

TRINIDAD AND TOBA 5 0.1% 

FRANCE 4 0.1% 

ITALY 4 0.1% 

TAIWAN 4 0.1% 

BELGIUM 3 0.1% 

ECUADOR 3 0.1% 

GREECE 3 0.1% 

IRAN (ISLAMIC REPU 3 0.1% 

NETHERLANDS 3 0.1% 

NETHERLANDS ANTIL 3 0.1% 

QATAR 3 0.1% 

SWEDEN 3 0.1% 

TURKEY 3 0.1% 

LATVIA 2 0.1% 

2011‐Q3 

Membership Data

2011‐Q3 


LEBANON 2 0.1% 

PORTUGAL 2 0.1% 

ROMANIA 2 0.1% 

URUGUAY 2 0.1% 

BAHAMAS 1 0% 

CAMEROON 1 0% 

CYPRUS 1 0% 

INDONESIA 1 0% 

ISRAEL 1 0% 

JAMAICA 1 0% 

RUSSIAN FEDERATIO 1 0% 

SLOVENIA 1 0% 

TUNISIA 1 0% 

Membership QTY % 100% 

REGULAR 1725 50% 

SENIOR 1452 42% 

ASSOCIATE 132 4% 

ORGANIZATION 46 1% 

STUDENT 44 1% 

SUSTAINING 36 1% 

FELLOW 30 1% 

ORGMEMBER 10 0.3% 

FORUM 1 0% 

HONORARY 1 0% 

DISTRICT 0 0% 

SCHOOL 0 0% 

MARKET Qty % 100% 

Manufacturing 1577 45% 

Service 952 27% 

Unknown 386 11% 

International 378 11% 

Healthcare 77 2% 

Unclassified 38 1% 

Government 37 1% 

Education 32 1%

Job Title Qty % 94% 

1 Manager 699 20% 

2 Engineer 594 17% 

3 Technician 399 11% 

4 Director 259 7% 

5 Unknown (Blank) 250 7% 

6 Other 142 4% 

7 Consultant 115 3% 

8 Inspector 114 3% 

9 Specialist 93 3% 

10 Auditor 65 2% 

President 64 2% 

Analyst 64 2% 

Senior Staff 59 2% 

General Manager 40 1% 

Six Sigma Black Belt 31 1% 

Administrator 29 1% 

Unemployed 26 1% 

Chemist 26 1% 

Scientist 26 1% 

Owner 22 1% 

Retired 17 0.5% 

Student 15 0.4% 

Principal 14 0.4% 

CEO 13 0.4% 

Statistician 12 0.3% 

Advisor 10 0.3% 

Contractor 8 0.2% 

Instructor 8 0.2% 

Staff 7 0.2% 

Superintendent 7 0.2% 4% 

Six Sigma Green Belt 6 0.2% 

Programmer 6 0.2% 

Nurse 5 0.1% 

Representative 5 0.1% 

Teacher 4 0.1% 

Accountant 3 0.1% 

Machinist 3 0.1% 

Controller/Comptrol 2 0.1% 

Clinician 1 0.0% 

2011‐Q3 

Membership Data

2011‐Q3 


Certification Qty % 100% Certification(s) QTY % 100% 

1 CQE 435 21% 0 2328 67% 

2 CQA 355 17% 1 776 22% 

3 CQT 308 15% 2 236 7% 

4 CCT 229 11% 3 83 2% 

5 CQI 184 9% 4 29 1% 

6 CMQ/OE 183 9% 5 12 0.3% 

7 CSSBB 110 5% 6 6 0.2% 

8 CQIA 94 5% 7 4 0.1% 

9 CSSGB 57 3% 8 1 0.0% 33% 

10 CRE 42 2% 9 0 0.0% 

CSQE 34 2% 10 0 0.0% 

CBA 22 1% 11 1 0.0% 

CQPA 14 1% 12 0 0.0% 

HACCP 9 0% 13 1 0.0% 

DON 1 0% 14 0 0.0% 

2077 15 0 0.0% 

Cert Expired/Upcoming QTY % 

201006 6 0.2% 

201012 15 0.4% 

201106 31 0.9% 

201112 29 0.8% 

201206 37 1.1% 

201212 36 1.0% 

201306 42 1.2% 

201312 33 0.9% 

3477

Interest Qty % % Normalize 

1 17.MQD 3477 29% 100% 

2 1.QMD 1301 11% 37% 

3 19.AD 697 6% 20% 

4 26.SIXSIGMA 681 6% 20% 

5 12.STAT 669 6% 19% 

6 9.INSP 650 5% 19% 

7 23.AMIG 442 4% 13% 

8 16.SQD 399 3% 11% 

9 27.TEAMPART 315 3% 9% 

10 13.HD&L 300 2% 9% 

8.RELIAB 294 2% 8% 

7.FD&C 282 2% 8% 

15.CSD 256 2% 7% 

3.AUTO 254 2% 7% 

10.BIOMED 246 2% 7% 

2.ASD 221 2% 6% 

18.HCD 219 2% 6% 

14.SOFT 189 2% 5% 

11.EED 184 2% 5% 

4.CPID 180 1% 5% 

5.ECD 169 1% 5% 

21.EDD 165 1% 5% 

22.GOVDIV 147 1% 4% 

25.PSLP 141 1% 4% 

20.DCD 130 1% 4% 

12008 

2011‐Q3 

Membership Data

All Division MBR Qty % 100% 

1 Quality Management 23203 22% 

2 Six Sigma 11193 11% 

3 Quality Audit 8781 8% 

4 Lean Enterprise 6009 6% 

5 Food‐Drug‐Cosmetic 5103 5% 

6 Biomedical 4594 4% 

7 Statistics 4569 4% 

8 Healthcare 4046 4% 

9 Aviation Space & Def 3654 3% 

10 Automotive 3344 3% 

Inspection 3221 3% 

Measurement Qualit 3191 3% 

Software 2907 3% 

Service Quality 2831 3% 

Human Development 2702 3% 

Reliability 2614 2% 

Teamwork & Particip 2456 2% 

Customer‐Supplier 1893 2% 

Energy and Environm 1862 2% 

Electronic and Comm 1524 1% 

Education 1398 1% 

Chemical & Process I 1357 1% 

Governement 1323 1% 

Design and Construct 1166 1% 

Product Safety & Liab 690 1% 

105631 

2011‐Q3 

Membership Data

2011‐Q3 


DIV NAME MBRTYPE LAST_YEAR TOTAL GROWTH TOTRENEW NEW RETENTION 

1 Quality Management TOTAL 22734 23203 2.1 9528 4513 41.9 

2 Six Sigma TOTAL 11383 11193 ‐1.7 4521 2432 39.7 

3 Quality Audit TOTAL 8928 8781 ‐1.6 3511 1267 39.3 

4 Lean Enterprise TOTAL 5955 6009 0.9 2360 1262 39.6 

5 Food‐Drug‐Cosmetic TOTAL 5121 5103 ‐0.4 2086 854 40.7 

6 Biomedical TOTAL 4634 4594 ‐0.9 1882 752 40.6 

7 Statistics TOTAL 4698 4569 ‐2.7 1796 681 38.2 

8 Healthcare TOTAL 3841 4046 5.3 1566 1000 40.8 

9 Aviation Space & DefenTOTAL 3614 3654 1.1 1368 669 37.9 

10 Automotive TOTAL 3395 3344 ‐1.5 1266 475 37.3 

11 Inspection TOTAL 3217 3221 0.1 1239 725 38.5 

12 Measurement Quality TOTAL 3110 3191 2.6 1194 705 38.4 

13 Software TOTAL 2928 2907 ‐0.7 1180 570 40.3 

14 Service Quality TOTAL 2761 2831 2.5 1111 683 40.2 

15 Human Development &TOTAL 2667 2702 1.3 937 617 35.1 

16 Reliability TOTAL 2523 2614 3.6 1002 492 39.7 

17 Teamwork & ParticipatTOTAL 2346 2456 4.7 893 631 38.1 

18 Customer‐Supplier TOTAL 1875 1893 1.0 709 318 37.8 

19 Energy and Environme TOTAL 1890 1862 ‐1.5 714 363 37.8 

20 Electronic and Commu TOTAL 1489 1524 2.4 568 323 38.1 

21 Education TOTAL 1358 1398 2.9 520 332 38.3 

22 Chemical & Process IndTOTAL 1345 1357 0.9 505 247 37.5 

23 Governement TOTAL 1304 1323 1.5 506 343 38.8 

24 Design and ConstructioTOTAL 1073 1166 8.7 443 307 41.3 

25 Product Safety & Liabil TOTAL 647 690 6.6 235 170 36.3 

104,836 105,631 1.5 1,666 829 38.9

2011 MQD Survey 

Initial Report 

Downloaded 052211: 119 Started & 106 Completed 

1. How long have you been a member of the ASQ Measurement 

Quality Division? 

# Answer Response % 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

Less than one 

year 

1 year to less 

than 4 years 

4 years to less 

than 7 years 

7 years to less 

than 20 years 

20 or more 

years 

17 15% 

28 24% 

28 24% 

38 32% 

6 5% 

Total 117 100% 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 5 

Mean 2.90 

Variance 1.35 

Standard Deviation 1.16 

Total Responses 117


2. What type of ASQ Membership do you have? 


1 Associate 7 6% 

2 Student 1 1% 

3 Regular 51 43% 

4 Senior 53 45% 

5 Fellow 3 3% 

6 

Other 

(Enterprise, 

Site, etc.) 

3 3% 

Total 118 100% 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 6 

Mean 3.45 

Variance 0.83 


Total Responses 118


3. Please select all applicable reasons why you joined the ASQ 

Measurement Quality Division continue to be a member: 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

Courses and 

training for 

professional 

development 

Networking 

opportunities 

Resources and 

support to my 

specific 

industry/interests 

Newsletter and 

other publications 

Conferences and 

events 

Curiosity about 

the subject 

matter 

Recommendation 

from another 

Statistics Division 

member 

59 50% 

49 42% 

80 68% 

59 50% 

31 26% 

37 32% 

9 8% 

8 Cost to join 4 3% 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 8 

Total Responses 117


4. Do you belong to any other ASQ Divisions? 


1 Yes 65 55% 

2 No 53 45% 

Total 118 100% 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 2 

Mean 1.45 

Variance 0.25 


Total Responses 118

5. Please list the other divisions: 


Aerospace 

All of them! 

audit 

Audit 

Audit 

Audit , Management 

Auditing, ESIG, Management 

Audits 

auto 

Automotive & Lean Enterprise Divisions 

Automotive, Education, Inspection, Lean, Reliability, Audit, Team and Workplace 

Biomedical 

ECD, Reliability, Audit, Service, Health Care, Management, Aerospace and Defense 

Energy and Environment,al, Food drug ‐‐‐, Quality Audit, and others 

FD&C, Statistics, Biomedical 

FDA 

Government, Quality Management, Service 

healthcare 

inspection 

Inspection 

Inspection 

Inspection 

Inspection 

Lean Enterprise, Quality Management, Six Sigma, Statistics 

lnspection 

Management 

Management, Audit 

Management, Audit 

Management, Education, Team, 

Management, Quality Control 

measurement Quality 

Montréal francophone 

New to Quality

Not sure. Wish you had a drop down. 

QM,leader,6‐segma,auditing 

QMD, Lean Enterprise 

Quality Engineer 

Quality Management 

Quality Management 

Quality Management Division 

Quality Management, Reliability, Service Quality 


Quality Management, Service Quality, Measurement Quality, Audit 

Quality Management, Statistics 

Reliability 

Reliability 

Six Sigma, Lean Enterprise, Healthcare, Quality Mgmt, Service Quality, Aviation, Measurement Quality, 

Statistics, Team & workplace excellence 

Six Sigma and Quality Management 

stat CPI 

Statistics 

Statistics Pharmaceutical Audit Lean 

statistics, quality engineer, quality audit, six sigma 

Stats 

Vista, California and Temecula, California 

Statistic 

Value 

Total Responses 53


6. The ASQ Measurement Quality Division has a websites for your 

use. In the past twelve months, have you visited 

the website: http://asq.org/measure/ ? 


1 Yes 47 43% 

2 No 26 24% 

3 

Did not know we had 

a division website 

37 34% 

Total 110 100% 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 3 

Mean 1.91 

Variance 0.76 


Total Responses 110 

7. The Measurement Quality Division currently publishes and 

distributes via email four newsletters per year. Are you happy with 

that number of newsletters? 


1 

2 

3 

4 

Yes, four is a good 

number 

No, would like more 

newsletters, for 

example, five per year 

No, would like fewer 

newsletters, i.e., 1 or 2 

per year 

Do not read the 

newsletters 

87 79% 

16 15% 

0 0% 

7 6% 

Total 110 100%


Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 4 

Mean 1.34 

Variance 0.61 



8. Have you ever attended the World Conference on Quality 

Improvement (WCQI)? 


1 Yes 15 14% 

2 No 95 86% 

Total 110 100% 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 2 

Mean 1.86 

Variance 0.12 


Total Responses 110


9. If you have ever attended the World Conference on Quality 

Improvement, please indicate what you enjoyed about your 

attendance (check all that apply): 


1 

2 

3 

4 

Networking with other 

quality professional 

The presentations I 

attended 

Able to meet with 

different vendors 

Learning new skills 

and/or techniques 

10 67% 

12 80% 

8 53% 

9 60% 

5 Other (please describe) 0 0% 

Other (please describe) 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 4 

Total Responses 15


10. If you have never attended the World Conference on Quality 

Improvement, please select all applicable reasons as to why you have 

not: 


1 

2 

Cost to attend the 

conference 

Lack of funding/support 

by my company 

54 57% 

51 54% 

3 Location of conference 33 35% 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Content of the 

conference 

Work obligations 

prevent me from 

attending 

Family obligations 


attending 

No interest in attending 

conferences 

Difficult in getting paper 

approved to present at 

conference 

8 9% 

33 35% 

12 13% 

3 3% 

2 2% 

9 Other (please specify) 5 5% 

Other (please specify) 

too far for me (in Japan) 

First conf since joining 

would like toipics to be in a non traditional, learning based on open forum 

Have not made it a priority 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 9 

Total Responses 94


11. Comment on the level of the presentation(s) at the WCQI: 


1 Too technical 0 0% 

2 Not technical enough 4 27% 

3 

Do not know, have not 

attended 

0 0% 

4 At the right level 11 73% 

Total 15 100% 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 2 

Max Value 4 

Mean 3.47 

Variance 0.84 



12. Have you ever attended the Measurement Science 

Conference(MSC) or the National Conference of Standards 

Laboratories International(NCSLI)? 


1 Yes 19 18% 

2 No 85 82% 

Total 104 100%


Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 2 

Mean 1.82 

Variance 0.15 



13. If you have ever attended the MSC or NCSLI Conference, please 

indicate what you enjoyed about your attendance (check all that 

apply): 


1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

Networking with other 

quality professional 

The presentations I 

attended 

Able to meet with 

different vendors 

Learning new skills 

and/or techniques 

The tutorial workshops 

I attended 

The CCT primer review I 

attended 

17 89% 

17 89% 

15 79% 

11 58% 

10 53% 

1 5% 

7 Other (please describe) 2 11% 

Other (please describe) 

Disney 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 7 

Total Responses 19


14. If you have never attended the MSC or NCSLI Conference, please 

select all applicable reasons as to why you have not: 


1 

2 

Cost to attend the 

conference 

Lack of funding/support 

by my company 

44 53% 

34 41% 

3 Location of conference 30 36% 

4 

8 

5 

6 

Content of the 

conference 

Work obligations 


attending 

Family obligations 


attending 

No interest in attending 

conferences 

5 6% 

28 34% 

13 16% 

8 10% 

7 Other (please specify) 8 10% 

Other (please specify) 

Did not know this conference existed 

Hasn't been one since I joined 

Need to make a priority and plan a year in advance to attend 

Never heard of this conference 

not aware of it 

too far for me 

unaware of them 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 8 

Total Responses 83


15. Comment on the level of the presentation(s) at the MSC or NCSLI 

Conference: 


1 Too technical 3 16% 

2 Not technical enough 2 11% 

3 At the right level 14 74% 

Total 19 100% 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 3 

Mean 2.58 

Variance 0.59 



16. How valuable has your membership in the ASQ Measurement 

Quality Division been to your career? 


1 Extremely valuable 10 9% 

2 Valuable 51 48% 

3 Unsure 35 33% 

4 Not valuable 7 7% 

5 Not valuable at all 3 3% 

Total 106 100%


Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 5 

Mean 2.45 

Variance 0.75 


Total Responses 106


17. What one topic delivered as a short course should the ASQ 

Measurement Quality Division consider at a future World Conference 

on Quality Improvement, MSC or NCSLI Conference? 

Text Response 

? 

6 sigma is a measurement tool and methodology for continuous improvement. we should use it as such. 

A more complete package regarding Business Measurements that drive Cost Reduction. 

Applications at the grunt level. We do not all have the support to do all the complicated applications, 

but still have to get creditable evaluations. 

Board Governance/Corporate Responsibility for Quality; Ethical Dilemmas 

Calibration tequinecs 

coût de la non qualité 

Don't know 

Educational opportunities in Measurement Science 

Equipment Calibration and Measurement Uncertainty 

Equipment or non‐clean room Validation requirements 

Food safety 

Gage R&R and MSA (Measurement System Analysis) 

Gage R&R challenges 

GR&R 

how to establish quality management 

I expect mainly information. 

Industry Related KPI 

Lean 

Let me spend some time in the group and see if I have further interest. 

measurement uncertainty 

Measurement uncertainty 

Measurement Uncertainty 

Metrology 

MSA 

N/A 

na 

Operational Excellence in Metrology services 

pharmacovigilance

Planning for careers in measurement quality 

Preparing for 17025 accreditation 


Product versus Process ‐ We 100% test all our product that leaves the shipping docks but we have a lot 

of confusion in controlling the lines 

Proper tolerencing and analysis methodologies for World Class Systems. Unilateral vs Bilateral 

tolerances, etc. 

Ramifications for flawed or unacceptable quality in measurements 

Random errors in Quality Control measurements 

requirement for calculating measurement uncertainty in the measurement division 

short run measurement 

Something statistical in nature 

Sorry, but other that subsidize membership dues, my former employer would do nothing to further my 

quality education nor improve their quality department. My current employment status bears proof to 

that. 

Supplier development 

THe Future of Measurement Quality 

THE NECESSITY FOR METROLOGY EDUCATION AT THE BACCALAURATE (FOUR YEAR UNINVERSITY) LEVE 

RATHER THAN THE "TRADE SCHOOL" LEVER THAT IS OFTEN PROPOSED. 

TOC 

undecided 

understanding how ASQ works in total 

Variation 

Statistic 

Value 

Total Responses 46


18. What one offering should the ASQ Measurement Quality Division 

provide to its members that it currently does not? 

Text Response 

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ 

? 

? 

? 

? 

? 

A regular paper newsletter; the whole newsletter pub has fallen off dramatically since Dwayne Sharp 

and I stopped the Editorial roles. Get someone as Executive Editor who has a spark and renewed energy. 

Am happy with the division. 

Benefits currently offered are adequate to meet my needs 

better teachers in my area 

don't know 

Food safety 

GR&R 

how to accurately measure close tolerance bore diameters in real world. This relates to gage R&R 

I wish I could provide an honest answer to this question. I am not aware of what might be offered. 

Perhaps now I'll have a little time to find out. 

Its own conference. Last one was in Dayton years ago. 

Let me spend some time in the group and see if I have further interest. 

lower cost training 

MORE TECHNICAL ARTICLES AT A WORKING LEVEL (THE TECHNICAL LEVEL OF THE PREDOMINANCE OF 

THE MENBERSHIP) RATHER THAN THE HIGH OBTUSE LEVEL THAT ARE USELY PUBLISHED, IN OTHER 

WORDS THE OFFICERS SHOULD BE OUT SOLICITING ARTICLES RATHER THAN WAITING FOR VOLUNTARY 

ITEMS TO BE SUBMITTED, 

MSA 

N/A 

N/A 

Not entirely sure of what is on offer. Measurement uncertainty is the biggest problem in the company I 

work for. 

Nothing comes to mind 

Nothing. 

pharmacovigilance 

Publications or reference to periodicals


Special prize "Attendance at Conference" complete package! 

Test Method Validation 

TOC 

undecided 

Unsure 

unsure 

Webinars like the Reliability Division does. 

Statistic 

Value 


19. Do you receive enough communications from the ASQ 

Measurement Quality Division leadership? 


1 

2 

3 

4 

Yes, receive the right 

amount 

No, I wish there were 

more 

No, I wish there were 

less 

I do not wish to receive 

any communications 

77 75% 

26 25% 

0 0% 

0 0% 

Total 103 100% 

Statistic 

Value 

Min Value 1 

Max Value 2 

Mean 1.25 

Variance 0.19 


Total Responses 103


20. If you would like someone from the ASQ Measurement Quality 

Division leadership to follow up with you about this survey or 

increasing your involvement in the Division, please provide your 

name, email address and/or phone number below: 

Name Email Address Phone number 

Frank Voehl FVoehl@aol.com 954‐830‐1366 

TAKAMASA ISHIHARA ishiqesa@r6.dion.ne.jp +81‐45‐891‐4535 

Michael Adamczak 

adamczakmi@yahoo.com 

Reynaldo Pampolino reynaldo.lts@lonestar‐lab.com +97125500767 

Keith Kruse krusek@drs‐esi.com 859‐372‐8238 

John Wiles jwiles@craneenergy.com 936‐588‐8395 

Didier Leroux dleroux@viausila.com 4506656100 

Vijay Jere anewstandard@earthlink.net 847‐296‐7121 

Elias Monreal emonreal@itde.com 520‐241‐0478 

Anish Shah anish.shah@pqi.net 7632498130 

Amr Elkhayat amre@gene.com 760‐231‐2527 

José Luis Prieto jotaelepece@gmail.com +34988368124 

Craig Town craig.town@baesystems.com 00 44 1229 874206 

HOW MUCH MORE COULD IT BE 

INVOLVED THAN I AM ALREADY? 

ahmad alanazi ahmed_ahmed555@hotmail.com +96612897088 

allen owens aowens@opw‐fc.com 513‐870‐3146 

Carlos A Perez Brizuela brizuelape@yahoo.com.mx 0015556323488 

Statistic 

Value 

Total Responses 17

articles - American Society for Quality

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?