This is a quality case analysis that was submitted in Steve Prevette's MC550 class. It was our first assignment this quarter, with the purpose of applying Deming's 14 Points to analyze a company. My group consisted of myself and 3 other contributors.

Roberta:

Excellent analysis. I especially liked the fact that you chose a farming operation, which is most certainly not the first type of business one thinks of when discussing Deming.

Thanks for sharing.

Very well written on a topic and industry not likely to be classified as "Deming" material.

Good job! :applause:

I, on the other hand, as a confirmed Demingite, feel EVERY operation could benefit from incorporating the 14 points. I thought the choice of case study demonstrated that concept well. The conclusions were logical and well presented.

:topic: As a graduate level paper, this document needs some proofreading for grammar. I would not make this comment except I expect more rigor in an academic paper.

:topic: As a graduate level paper, this document needs some proofreading for grammar. I would not make this comment except I expect more rigor in an academic paper.

Remember, their instructor are an engineer . . .

Remember, their instructor are an engineer . . .at a kolich kampiss:lmao:

It is interesting to see “City University” students attacking a farm management scenario. Armed with Deming’s points, these students’ present good suggestions, but I would expect better results with more emphasis on the main issue, “turf disputes” in upper management. Instead of “pep talks” (see Deming point #10 about exhortation) the first priority should be real, focused problem-solving sessions involving all of those hard-shelled turf guardians. The CEO (who should also be trained in Quality) should be leading this.
Consider the Japanese (who showed the real value of Deming’s points). They will scrutinize detailed data, use the established tools to identify and attack the real problems, plan and implement improvements, monitor results, and perhaps most important, ‘institutionalize’ the improvements. In the U.S. we also should promote discipline to prevent backsliding.
In 30 years of industry experience, I have seen a lot of “pep talks” and newsletters, but none had the value of honest, data-supported, sweaty, dirty, Plan-Do-Check-Act. (Perhaps I missed that in this analysis?)

It is interesting to see “City University” students attacking a farm management scenario. Armed with Deming’s points, these students’ present good suggestions, but I would expect better results with more emphasis on the main issue, “turf disputes” in upper management. Instead of “pep talks” (see Deming point #10 about exhortation) the first priority should be real, focused problem-solving sessions involving all of those hard-shelled turf guardians. The CEO (who should also be trained in Quality) should be leading this.
Consider the Japanese (who showed the real value of Deming’s points). They will scrutinize detailed data, use the established tools to identify and attack the real problems, plan and implement improvements, monitor results, and perhaps most important, ‘institutionalize’ the improvements. In the U.S. we also should promote discipline to prevent backsliding.
In 30 years of industry experience, I have seen a lot of “pep talks” and newsletters, but none had the value of honest, data-supported, sweaty, dirty, Plan-Do-Check-Act. (Perhaps I missed that in this analysis?)
Lately, there has been a flurry of posts in the ASQ "Ask a Quality Professional" Forum (http://www.asq.org/discussionBoards/forum.jspa?forumID=18) open to the public, wherein one of the senior ASQ members in Japan, Akio Miura, has been lambasting the widely-held belief that Japanese manufacturers are showing the "real value of Deming’s points."

Re: PDCA
In fact, many contend Deming used another phrase
By the way, Deming preferred the use of PDSA, Study instead of Check. Check seemed to be very judgmental, and many people misuse it as "check against the numerical goal".


These were Steve's students, not mine. I thought that, for "beginners," they did extremely well with some interesting problems. As a Socratic teacher myself, I value the idea of helping students learn the process of thinking, rather than requiring them to achieve the same answer I might have reached. Think of a Design of Experiments situation. We ask the designer to come up with a list of experiments. We don't know the correct experiment (the one resulting in the most favorable outcome) until we actually run it. Thus it is in a class project such as the corporate farm.

I'd value your comments to continue the discourse.

Think of a Design of Experiments situation. We ask the designer to come up with a list of experiments. We don't know the correct experiment (the one resulting in the most favorable outcome) until we actually run it.
The purpose of any scientifically designed experiment should be to attempt to disprove a hypothesis. I've never seen a situation where anyone was asked to "come up with a list of experiments." I think you're confusing "test" with "experiment." A single experiment may include more than one test. Whether more than one experiment is necessary is wholly dependent upon the design and outcome of the initial experiment. An experiment is incorrect only if it's poorly designed, and an unbiased experimenter isn't looking for a "favorable" outcome. The outcome is what it is, and it either serves to support the hypothesis (by not disproving it) or it doesn't.

A few things to realize on this paper - 1st we are dealing with students working on an MBA, not experienced practitioners of the Deming methodology. Yes, there is some "soft" recommendations in there. 2nd - one of the students is an employee of the company in question. They were considerably concerned that we manage to protect his/her anonymity and the anonymity of the employer.

With all respect to the students and professor, the paper, which I have now read 3 times, seems OK to me for MBA level students. The Holy Grail for many Quality practitioners is culture change, and training, benchmarking, incentives, etc., are all accepted approaches. It is self-evident that performance and culture are "sub-optimum" when compartmentalized upper management indulges in the "turf disputes" the students describe, as I read it. So far so good for analysis. My own experience is that a culture of effective problem solving gets us away from sub-optimalization. Some managers (like almost everybody) snipe a bit, but after forming-storming-norming-...you know. Whether we call it PDCA, PDSA, 5-P, 8-D, K-T, or whatever, objective evidence will show whether we have done the right thing. Are we gathering and understanding that evidence? Have we sought to implement good solutions wherever they might apply? Is the customer demanding to do repeat business? Honestly focusing on these questions reduces sniping, and then we may subjectively notice a culture change.

With all respect to the students and professor, the paper, which I have now read 3 times, seems OK to me for MBA level students. The Holy Grail for many Quality practitioners is culture change, and training, benchmarking, incentives, etc., are all accepted approaches. It is self-evident that performance and culture are "sub-optimum" when compartmentalized upper management indulges in the "turf disputes" the students describe, as I read it. So far so good for analysis. My own experience is that a culture of effective problem solving gets us away from sub-optimalization. Some managers (like almost everybody) snipe a bit, but after forming-storming-norming-...you know. Whether we call it PDCA, PDSA, 5-P, 8-D, K-T, or whatever, objective evidence will show whether we have done the right thing. Are we gathering and understanding that evidence? Have we sought to implement good solutions wherever they might apply? Is the customer demanding to do repeat business? Honestly focusing on these questions reduces sniping, and then we may subjectively notice a culture change.
I don't know whether we're straying off topic here or not, but I've seen far too many people at all levels of corporate hierarchies who tenaciously hold on to closely-held beliefs in spite of undeniable objective evidence that the beliefs are full of poop. What's missing in nearly all CI plans is plans for dealing with people (again, at all levels) whose personalities become significant obstacles to improvement.

I do not know if anything has or is becoming of the paper at the company in question. We may not know until they (if they are able to) go to press with the "story of their success".

The paper I think could serve to open some eyes, and then I suspect the company would need to look more into the details of how to pull off improvements, and how to measure them, and how to determind success.

I will say this was the most interesting paper of those that came to me. One paper was simply a case study from past literature at a company no one in the group worked for. This was a nice paper in that it was "near and dear" to at least one of the students in the group.

By the way, I will be running the MC550 course next winter with another batch of students. I hope at least one of the papers will be as interesting as this one was.