I read this post last week and thought it would be a good topic here in the Cove. Let me know your thoughts folks. Here it is:

Subject:Influence of Demings "Out of Crisis" From: Marino Montani - Thu Mar 18 3:25:25 US/Central 1999<Picture>
It is claimed that American economy is now in very good health and that the crisis is over. What is the influence and impact of Dr. Deming's "Out of the crisis" and his 14 points on the present very good condition of American economy? Do his ideas changed the attitudes of managers and helped to change the organisational cultures? Are there any empirical data or at least opinions or experiences.


Marino Montani, Slovenia


Back to the group...

I found this post thought provoking, but somewhat disturbing as well. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

…and that the crisis is over.

Really?? I wonder?

There are many companies that use the Deming Management Method with great success. There are also just as many who do not. During times of economic good fortune, many managers tend to get spoiled, resting on their laurels and enjoying the good times. They tend to get lax.

But, economies are cyclic. Things will turn down, and the ‘crisis’ will again be upon us. When? Who knows. But when it does happen, Deming’s readings will just as significant as they were during the original ‘crisis.’

Do his ideas changed the attitudes of managers and helped to change the organisational cultures?

Absolutely! But only when used as a whole, rather than a sum of parts. Organizations will select a portion of OOTC or TNE and apply it with vigor. But the result is, more often that not, no improvement. Why? Because they are linear thinkers. They fail to realize that Deming (I believe) saw items as ‘systems’ rather than ‘singular.’ His 14 points are a system, a whole, if you will. Trying to apply any one or a subgroup will not work. The same goes for OOTC. Any single chapter or subgroup of chapters are useless. It is also a system, and must be applied as such.

Short term results must never be confused with long term goals.

Just the ramblings of an Old Wizard Warrior.

Regards,

Don

[This message has been edited by Don Winton (edited 03-30-99).]

Don,

Agreed. Holistic thinking must be applied.

The crisis is not over, at least in my opinion. As you pointed out, different economic times can create the appearance that the crisis is over. But time challenges everything. Vanity in the USA seems to get the best of us often. I hope that we do not rely on our laurels, a hazardous proposition at best.

I was struck with the thought that folks outside of the USA really feel this way. Could it be? Well I am not sure who has made this claim, but I claim otherwise.

"Deming’s readings will be just as significant as they were during the original ‘crisis.’ " Perhaps more so, if we are to learn anything from our past mistakes.

Back to the group...

I was struck with the thought that folks outside of the USA really feel this way.

Yea, that is what I meant by 'disturbing.'

Regards,
Don

Ok. I would like to meet those who claim that the crisis is over. Are they in the middle of the crisis? Or maybe just sitting on the outside looking in.....

I agree 100% Economics are indeed cyclic....and so now we are riding the crest at this point, but this too shall pass....

I have a copy of the 14 Points pinned to my wall, just above this computer.....as I sit here typing, I am reading the list....I am sure that each and every one of us can cite a personal example of violation of at least one of the points, if not more, (and indeed all..) In fact, I see (and have seen ) examples of them almost daily.

I have a personal copy of "Out of the Crisis", which was given to me by the man that gave me my start in management, (damn him and bless his soul, all at the same time...) Shortly after that, his employment was terminated by the powers that be.(he was, at the time, Number 3 man in the organization)...

I have read that book with vigor many many times since then, and always seem to glean something more each time I read it.

Is the crisis over? Hardly......As long as the Taylor mentality exists, we will be in crisis.....this may be a bit exaggerated, but the basic premise is valid....

The crisis is over?????? WIshful thinking..the diseases are as prevalent today as they have ever been..we are merely being blinded by large quarterly profits....

Thoughts anyone.......??

Bryon

Bryon,

I've got my copy of the 14 Points in a small laminent (sp) resting on my computer. What's that saying: Sick minds think alike (hahaha)!

You are right on the point that oragnizations make money in spite of themselves. Blind to the troubles within. I worked for a 1.286 billion dollar organization which had trouble paying their bills in the end and were taken over. How could that happen? Simple. Management forgot that they actually had to manage so when the bottom dropped out of the market, they would stay at the top. Several large loans, several layoffs, and the buy out, they are still on top. Wonder if they think that the Crisis is over? The management morons there probably think so, but come on!!! Same record, just keeps skipping! The only way they will realize their folly, when the whole structure finally collapses on itself. Hasn't happened overnight, but the mighty empire that once was is now a sinking ship with many scared rats!

The poor soul who got you on the path, you are right. A mixed blessing. But hang in there. We may be several miles apart, but there are a few of us out here trying to bring our organizations out of our crisis.

Don,

Disturbing? And how!!

Back to the group...

I always thought that it was "great minds think alike."

Frustrating is the word on the homefront. Here, I dig and ask questions getting the right words, but actions do not line up. I guess I realize that it's not an overnight process, old habits are hard to change. Especially coming off three record years in a row. I'm asked how did we do so well? We must be doing something right managment says. Still trying to get them to show me some measures, besides the bottomline.

Big picture,it is disturbing. Are we (USA) being successful in presenting a facade to the rest of the world. Just hope we don't fool ourselves. Things do not always look so rosy from the inside. The whole attitude of "we've arrived" is suspect.

Bill

Bill,

Hang in there! Don's suggestion is a good one. Show them. To steal a line "Make the invisible, visible." Management in your organization needs to step out of the "euphoria", take the blinders off, and make some good decisions. I guess it could be argued that we are wrong and they are right, I mean after all, they made profit! Three record years to boot! But what measurables are shared with management to coroborate senior management claims? The bottom line? Making statements without quantifiable measures is purely guess work. We would all like to think we make great decisions everyday. I would. Reality though, so long as you know your place in this world, is that you are probably right as often as you are wrong. So how could we collectively believe that we are so right, and in fact are? I think what leads me to believe that we are correct in our perspective is because of its objectivity and that it is constantly evolving. While statements are shared here and often delivered as "a matter of fact" is because there is underlying understanding of both sides of the story, and continued learning. Stating "We must be doing things right. Just look at the past three years!" which is based solely on the bottom line and not how you got there is a "matter of opinion" only. Don's words, "Rubbish." I agree. Opinion is always subjective.

crisis - 1 the turning point of a disease for better or worse, 2 a decisive or crucial time, stage, or event.

Both definitions are appropriate here I feel.

Marshal Thurber showed me something (perhaps he got this from Deming himself) about the word EMERGENCY. Within that word is the word EMERGE.

emerge - 2 to become visible or apparent, 3 to evolve. Again, very appropriate.

He spoke to the point of organizations emerging through emergency, specifically FORD. Only when the mighty empire was in danger of being demolished did management take action. Better for an organization, especially an organization with three record years of profit, to emerge without emergency unlike FORD. Funny thing; Ford's senior management was the stereo typical Western Management zoo. 80's purists through and through. They went to Deming, Deming did not go to them. In fact, when they sought his expertise, they sent the Number 2 or 3 man in the organization. He asked, "Are you number one?" "No." replied number 2 or 3. Deming's response, "I'll speak to number one." He sent number 2/3 back and told him to bring the message "I'll speak to number one only." FORDs CEO soon followed. Result: FORD is arguably the best Domestic automobile manufacturer (certainly in the late 80's and early 90's). Soon GM and Chrysler were knocking on Deming's door. Interesting I think.

So what about the caretakers (the one's who believe that the old rules still apply, ie Taylorists)? They are the ones who will look back at the past performance, as if that is an indicator of future performance. Rubbish, rubbish, more rubbish (I am working on not swearing)! You will need great patience, but you will need to lead them out of the darkness. Hurt feelings abound. People do not accept that they are wrong well, I don't anyway. But I am improving on that as well (remaining objective). The crisis is never over. It just changes shape. That's all.

Enough of my babble here. Time to shut up and listen (read). Back to the group...

Another Deming 'story' is where GM went to him and he agreed to work with them and then came the negotiation for charges. Deming sald to just open an open ended PO and that he would bill them whatever he felt was appropriate. GM balked. Deming said no problem - no agreement. GM eventually gave him his open ended PO.

I had heard the Ford story, but that is the first I heard of the GM. Thanks, Marc.

Regards,
Don

As long as the Taylor mentality exists, we will be in crisis.....this may be a bit exaggerated, but the basic premise is valid...

It is a bit widespread, eh? Seriously, the reason why: That is what modern managers were, and still are, taught. A bit exaggerated? Not at all. Perhaps understated would be more in order.

…the diseases are as prevalent today as they have ever been.

Agreed. And as long as they are, the Crisis will never be over.

You are right on the point that organizations make money in spite of themselves. Blind to the troubles within.

Blind is correct. Many organizations see a profit and think all is well. Rubbish. That is precisely why the Crisis will never be over. In times of economic good, that is precisely the time to improve, while you have the capitol and manpower to do it. Wait for the bad times, and improvement projects become harder to sell to the higher-ups and more costly to implement. Sadly, mine is a lonely (not alone, thankfully) voice in the wilderness.

I always thought that it was "great minds think alike.”

I am not sure I would include myself in that. :>)

We must be doing something right management says.

Typical linear thinkers. They see the profit, but not the waste. How much more profit could the organization make is their COQ was reduced from 25% of sales to 15% or lower? “There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all.” Peter F. Drucker

Still trying to get them to show me some measures

Try showing them! At one organization, the MRB was a joke. They dispositioned the nonconforming product, but kept no records of the costs or the other impacts (remanufacture to replace, cost of collection and salvage, etc.). After one particularly frustrating session, I began collecting, rather that disposition the product. After a six week collection, I counted and recorded the costs (for six weeks, the cost of JUST the nonconforming product was in excess of $75,000!). The next meeting, I showed up late, literally dumped the contents of the box on the shiny conference table (we were a component manufacturer, so there was a LOT in that box), presented the cost impact report and left. I told them I would attend MRB meetings when they were serious about it. That got the message across.

Just hope we don't fool ourselves.

Too late. American organizations are already fooled into a false euphoria. As far as getting them to listen, I have only one more thing to add:

“Who’s more foolish. The fool, or the one who follows him?” Obi Wan “Ben” Kenobi, Jedi Knight

Regards,
Don

Marc,

I hadn't heard that story yet either. Still, I can hear his voice uttering the words "No problem - no agreement." Classic! Thanks for posting that.

Kevin

Almost 4 years later, what's YOUR opinion?

Almost 4 years later, what's YOUR opinion?Probably well known by regular readers - I echo Deming a lot. Upon reading the "no problem - no agreement" piece I was struck by the sense of what Deming did. He negotiated from the strength of his conviction and was always ready to walk away from the table. He certainly had "NO FEAR." (or at least he didn't let GM see him sweat!)

Back in the Sixties, there were a few maverick sales and marketing types who were trying to help sales folk get more sales by working "smarter, not harder." One of the "great truths" was to "talk to everybody, but only DEAL with decision makers." The effectiveness of the Ford story (only Number 1) demonstrates the great truth was still a great truth.

Thanks for resurrecting the thread, Marc.

I would say as an "entity" the U.S.A. is still in a serious crisis. Perhaps of slightly different symptoms than 25 years ago, but a crisis none the less. With much the same root causes - focus on short term gains at the expense of the system.

And I do believe that the theories in OOC, when applied, are very successful. I can at least personally attest to that.

I also am a deming fan.

the more aware of the nonsense here at work, the more clear deming's words of warning are.

I see no movement of management towards enlightened action. Always and continuosly $$$ and short term profits terms seems to drag our company down.

unfortunately, it does not appear that other parts of the world will challenge the quality of our product. In this respect, perhaps the 'quality' crisis is over for a time. Another is set to begin IMHO as china and asia, capatilize on their cheap labor. If china /asia,etc can better organize itself, perhaps china will conquer world manufacturing- after all with more infrastructure, they can do anything we can- and I think decades of ignoring important lessons of quality have left us weak.

The question is can china teach itself the fundmental lessons on quality that US corp ignore?

The new frontier and the new hope of quality surely must lie in asia for the US seems to have ignored its many lessons. Until chinese/asian companies can triumph on efficiency and quality- there will be no great managerial interest here in the US about quality, just continuos cost-cutting and market loss. Management is obsessed over $$$ so losing business on price teaches them nothing- except to try to weasel more and more of their factories in asian and 3rd world places.

I also am a deming fan.

the more aware of the nonsense here at work, the more clear deming's words of warning are.

I see no movement of management towards enlightened action. Always and continuosly $$$ and short term profits terms seems to drag our company down.

unfortunately, it does not appear that other parts of the world will challenge the quality of our product. In this respect, perhaps the 'quality' crisis is over for a time. Another is set to begin IMHO as china and asia, capatilize on their cheap labor. If china /asia,etc can better organize itself, perhaps china will conquer world manufacturing- after all with more infrastructure, they can do anything we can- and I think decades of ignoring important lessons of quality have left us weak.

The question is can china teach itself the fundmental lessons on quality that US corp ignore?

The new frontier and the new hope of quality surely must lie in asia for the US seems to have ignored its many lessons. Until chinese/asian companies can triumph on efficiency and quality- there will be no great managerial interest here in the US about quality, just continuos cost-cutting and market loss. Management is obsessed over $$$ so losing business on price teaches them nothing- except to try to weasel more and more of their factories in asian and 3rd world places.

Used The Cove Search Engine for articles on 'Change Management'...
How ironic...another year will soon pass us by...and yet the majority of comments and observations within this thread still 'ring true'.

Are we still in a crisis? To what degree? Hmmmm.... Is the glass half-full or is it half-empty. I say its both, silly!

Look, the US has been and is still the world's greatest economic and military superpower. We have technology that boggles the mind. We can put men on the moon, land spacecraft on small rocks streaking through space and get data from them, and see atoms. We have a great deal of freedom. Our country is so great, in so many ways, that people from other countries still risk their very lives to come here. We are among the hardest working people in the world. We are doing something right, and folks who can only see the negative will always annoy me.

But I will also be one of the first to admit that we can, of course, do better. That will always be the case -- we will always fall short of perfection by varying degrees. We should strive to do better, to "continuously improve". I see many companies that are managed so poorly that it amazes me that they can exist at all.

There are several ways, IMO, to get that improvement. Deming's principals are quite good, and I agree with many of them, but I will likely never be a 100% Deming deciple. Anyone who thinks following all his principals 100% is the answer to all ills is welcome to their opinion, but I don't share it. IMO no one person or philosophy is right for every situation -- "one size does not fit all" so to speak.

There are varying degrees of "crisis" and the US (and the rest of the world) will always be in a "crisis" of some magnitude. But a realistic and balanced view is important. Successes always exist as well. Let's not get sucked into a mentality of permanent pessimism or malaise lest it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

JMHO

There are varying degrees of "crisis" and the US (and the rest of the world) will always be in a "crisis" of some magnitude. But a realistic and balanced view is important. Successes always exist as well. Let's not get sucked into a mentality of permanent pessimism or malaise lest it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

JMHO

This is true and probable if not checked. Remember the "toilet paper shortage" created by Johnny Carson as a joke during all the so called shortages being broadcast constantly in the mid 70's

Remember the "toilet paper shortage" created by Johnny Carson as a joke during all the so called shortages being broadcast constantly in the mid 70's

Now that would be a crisis! :eek: Especially since Sears catalogs are so rare these days... :bonk:

Now that would be a crisis! :eek: Especially since Sears catalogs are so rare these days... :bonk:

Got two fives for a ten?

Mike,

Yes, this is undoubtedly a great nation, especially to those of us who live here or would risk life to get here. We are a great nation of invention and unfortunately, a great exporter of it as well. Perhaps the negativism is borne out of many bitter experiences rather than many happy endings or the optimism of a better tomorrow. Perhaps it is easier to complain than to offer solutions. I can’t really say. But we should strive to be more optimistic in life: work or play. You are right about that!

We, IMHO, are still in the crisis. Keep in mind, Deming’s focus in OOTC was on the prevailing management paradigm, which of course, is still lodged in place. As most of you already know (I say it here for neophytes to our discussions) we are under the Financial Management Paradigm. Dr. Deming called it the Western Management Philosophy. Has good come from it? Absolutely. The question here, though, is whether or not the price we ultimately pay will make it worth it in the long run. Don’t worry: we’ll all be long dead before the final report on this is filed. In Dr. Deming’s opinion, until we are free of the tyrannical grip of this paradigm, we are in the crisis. He was not being cynical when he made this statement. Optimist or not: I believe that this is where we are. I also believe that this will become more apparent in the Quality Community once the Greatest Boom in history finally ends and we begin an economic decline. Quality will become again, an essential ingredient. Remember: innovation and quality are not the same thing. You can dazzle folks with poor quality but great innovation for a period, but in the long run, the quality has to be there for sustainability. New innovations will lead to different levels of incremental gain, but once the “cream is gone” you’ll need a quality product/service to fall back on until the new innovation comes along.

It’s also no secret that this country banks on the ‘cream’. Many business models in the Western Hemisphere are built upon release of new design after new design. Re-engineering hardly exists in this country. To the current businessman, the product quality can suffer so long as we get to market first, capture the cream; do whatever it takes! The problem is that this plan does not support Constancy of Purpose, Point 1 of Deming’s 14 Point for Management. It is also a short-term strategy. Tactics to implement this strategy truly lack creativity and do not require much to implement. These tactics collide head on with Dr. Deming’s SoPK. I suppose that it is harder for Deming Management Method supporters to talk about this without a measure of cynicism, but for those who have studied this management method, I believe the cynicism begins to give way to new understanding. When working in or with organizations dedicated to the ‘cream’ (which most are on this side of the pond), you see examples daily that conflict with Dr. Deming’s theory of management as well as many of the other Quality/Management Gurus. It is what it is.

As you point, ‘one size does not fit all’. That’s why Dr. Deming never authored a step-by-step cookie cutter plan (and is often criticized for this). All businesses are different and require different implementation plans. The theory behind it though (SoPK) is a one-size-fits-all solution. The strategy is straightforward; the tactics to implement are left up to you. However, it is fair to say that the good Dr. had something to say on this, and often did. One such rule is learning from a hack when it comes to statistical theory. The same could be said of all the tenets of SoPK. While personal mastery is not required, learning from a master to the best of your ability is. As I’m sure Mike Thompson would point out on Senge’s behalf, we should strive for personal mastery nonetheless. This will mean different things to different people. We should also not ignore the teachings of the other notable, and not so notable, gurus of Quality and Management. Theory should be challenged, blended, refined to a point where it becomes usable. If you are the purist, then you will undoubtedly follow one theory to its fullest.

Learning the Transformation for myself has led me to become more of a purist when it comes to the Deming Management Method. So far, I haven’t found a management theory that can challenge it. In fact, many alternate theories on management tactics (Goldratt for instance) reinforce my adopted theory. This is not to say that Goldratt is evil or unknowing. I have learned from him as much as from anyone else, I suppose, but sometimes in a different way (learning what not to do, for example). Still his Theory of Constraints is an important lesson and his story telling gets the point across in a simple, straightforward method. It is a good theory.

Well, enough of my ramble here. Thanks for resurrecting this old discussion, Mike.

Regards,

Kevin

Nice to see you posting again, Kevin. Thanks for some reinforcement of the idea that long-term strategy outweighs short-term gain when short-term gain is at the expense of quality.

Personally, I doubt we'll see a change in the C-level suites of transnational organizations until business schools start making the 14 points [of Deming] the core curriculum for an MBA.

Did you happen to notice the item that folks are looking for papers on Deming or the use of his principles?
Research Seminar Seeking Deming Papers (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?p=106831#post106831)

Wes,

As you probably know, Dr. Joyce Orsini teaches a Deming's Scholar MBA course at Fordam University (as a note, the WED Institute holds their annual call for papers seminar at Fordam as a guest of Dr. Orsini). I spoke with her briefly last October during a Deming Seminar (featuring Robert Rodin) and a few of the Deming Scholars themselves about the program. One night, a colleague and I joined the Scholars for some drinks and pool at a nearby pub. We had very interesting discussions.

Many of the Scholars were handpicked out of the regular MBA program and invited to join the Deming Scholars MBA program by Dr. Orsini. Some hadn't any previous knowledge of Dr. Deming's Management Methods, but most I met did. They attend the conference to learn more about Dr. Deming's methods and expose themselves to many folks from around the world who work in different industries. They are there to learn from the experiences and knowledge of others, and they take advantage of the opportunity, often joining different attendees during breaks, lunches and dinners, and in our case, for some cues and brews. They took advantage of the diversity!! Many of these young folks have worked for various businesses and have been exposed to the Western Management Philosophy. Many are looking forward to working in internships with businesses that promote Dr. Deming's methods. They are interested in seeing how it is to work. Most related stories of the usual business grind, some cut-throat practices they observed, and the demoralization many felt when they were reviewed by their mentors. Most seemed to be interested in working in an environment that made them feel welcome. What struck me later was how high they placed this attribute of work. I didn't think to ask them why, but might do that. All were happy that they were in the program, even those who signed up blind. They were moved by the presentations and stories told at the conference. I remember that feeling well!

To your point, it will take more MBA programs that spend quality time on Dr. Deming's SoPK. Until then (in the late Dr.s words), we'll be subject to "Recycled Ignorance."

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin, good to see your astute responses again. A friend of mine from New York went to Fordham to get his MBA, and I was delighted to hear from him that part of his requirements was a project on quality systems. This was in 1991 and he earned his MBA in 1992.

Are there recent published case-studies of companies who used Deming's 14 points as the "bible" for their company and are running away from their competitors?

Are there recent published case-studies of companies who used Deming's 14 points as the "bible" for their company and are running away from their competitors?

I can say that as an individual within a company I have applied the 14 points to my own role (my own company, you might say) and am running far ahead of my competitors.

The company is now starting to run ahead of its competitors due to some of this work. As a plug, I will be presenting case studies of what we have accomplished in session T212 at the ASQ WCQI in two weeks in Seattle.

Thanks, Steve. But surely there must be more, right? If none of the Demingites here can point to any examples I will be shocked, but also will be thinking about that key question: why?

Wow! Great thought-provoking question, Mike!
I'm a Demingite and I don't know of any studies. If it turns out to be fodder for a new book, I'll need to know your last name so I can give you a plug in the Acknowledgements.

Maybe you'll lead the next "big thing" as far as management revolutions, Wes. :eek: Every one seems to have a charismatic champion who writes a book about "it" and "it" becomes the next big thing. Good luck. :bigwave:

It just amazes me that there are tons of examples of companies who have embraced or implemented (at least for awhile) TQM, ISO, DOE, SPC, six-sigma and all the rest. Literally volumes (pardon the pun) have been written on these companies and these programs. Hundreds, maybe thousands of books. But Deming? (Can you hear the crickets chirping?)

:confused:

Are there recent published case-studies of companies who used Deming's 14 points as the "bible" for their company and are running away from their competitors?

I do not claim to know the answer to this question but, are there not a number of "Deming Associations" around the world all supposedly adherents to and disciples of the W.E.D approach and wisdom? Could not they advise us? Are there any Covers who are members of such groups who could answer the question? And could any recipients of "Deming" awards/ medals etc not provide us with an answer?

Rather like the claims that ISO 9K registered outperform competitors or that winners of Baldrige Awards outperform for a while (though some do mock that a number of MB recipients went bust!) if we could find the answer maybe then an enterprising firm will create a mutual fund comprised entirely of "Deminingites" or "ISO9Kites" or whatever. And should we all then entrust our retirement or children's college funds to that fund?

I do want to document there are several case studies from the 80's of successes with Dr. Deming's methods. Perhaps some of the best documentation were the two books on Deming Management at Work series by Mary Walton. See http://www.bo.uiowa.edu/~fusstfdv/detail.cfm?record=4098

http://groups.msn.com/THETOTALQUALITYMANAGEMENTSITE/books.msnw

The New Economics and Out of the Crisis also contain documentation of successes. A few Baldrige winners over the years also have made very public use of Deming's methods.

Mike,

Here is a list of some of the organizations that attended the Deming Conference last fall in California. All are at varying stages of their journies, but here it is nonetheless.

Marshal Industries
MedPro Health Services
MetLife
American Standard
OmniLingua
The Boeing Company
Alden Management Services
Alden Reality Services
Alden Bennett Construction
Prism Healthcare Services
AeroVironment INc.
Scott Jordan Furniture
Communications Data Services
Luxfer Gas Cylinders
Eugene Electric & Water Board
Family Home Health Services
Sun Microsystems
Community Physical Therapy
Hydrospin

The folks at American Standard related to me their success with applying the Deming Method and have introduced practices across many of their sister facilities. The Alden Group has spread this along a few veins within their corporation based on early successes. Many of the participants were repeat participants, like myself, who attend these annually. There are others, most notably, Toyota and Scania who have achieved dramatic success using the Deming Method. It wont belong before the "New Big Three" (Toyota, Honda, and Nissan) take over the coveted spot shared by Ford, GM, and Chrysler. It is project that by 2010, Toyota will take the top spot from GM. I wouldn't be surprised to see GM being bailed out like Chrysler was by the US Government. Is GM in Crisis now? They seem to be based on Wall Street posting recently.

Perhaps many of the companies above are not so notable, but they share a common interest: radical change in the way they do business. They believe in an alternative management method they believe to be better. Not everyone's cup of tea, but they seek better results (including financial) through a system of cooperation and trust.

Regards,

Kevin

Are we still in a crisis? To what degree? Hmmmm.... Is the glass half-full or is it half-empty. I say its both, silly!

There are varying degrees of "crisis" and the US (and the rest of the world) will always be in a "crisis" of some magnitude. But a realistic and balanced view is important. Successes always exist as well. Let's not get sucked into a mentality of permanent pessimism or malaise lest it become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

JMHO

Yes, the glass may very well still be both half-full AND half-empty. This is indeed a fascinating thread to follow. I've definitely been "sucked into" following this thread. Hey, is this "a self-fulfilling prophecy"? :tg:

Seriously though, people approach this topic with passion. :horse:

As I recall, WED did a considerable amount of work with/ for Ford Motor some years ago. Ford business results have deteriorated. On today's news it seems Toyota increased its US sales some 36% over the last 12 months. If WED assisted/ influenced Toyota as well, one could appreciate there are those who wish to get out of a crisis and those who do not. There are those who know they are in a crisis and still seem incapable of getting out. Whatever may be the merits of WED's work, the message even predating him is this: it comes from the top. And if the USA remains a society in which failed CEOs/ Presidents etc are rewarded with bountiful golden handshakes they are personally never going to face the personal type of crisis which might focus their minds.

David Kearns who led the 1980s recovery of Xerox made these two telling observations: "We've been so busy cleaning up the mess down on the factory floor, we've forgotten the mess upstairs". And: "Let's face it, the poor productivity of white-collar people puts blue-collar people out of work." The book, "Xerox, American Samurai" is as appropriate and essential reading today as it was when released in 1986.

Yes, the glass may very well still be both half-full AND half-empty. This is indeed a fascinating thread to follow. I've definitely been "sucked into" following this thread. Hey, is this "a self-fulfilling prophecy"? :tg:

Seriously though, people approach this topic with passion. :horse:

I don't believe that the question should stop with "Is the glass half-full or half-empty?", but should consider the direction the flow is going. Just as in barometric pressure the concern is NOT what the immediate pressure is, but which direction is it headed.

I believe if we look at the trend taking place (import sales increasing, US manufacturer sales declining) we have to arrive at a concensus that whether we are "in a crisis" or not, we need to begin (and probably should have begun some time ago) striving to stop the bleeding.

How long can this country's economy survive when we outsource manufacturing jobs to low-overhead overseas economies, while our workforce here continues striving for increases in pay and benefits (pricing ourselves out of the market)? Who within the USA is going to be able to purchase our overpriced products (companies continue charging the same price for product manufactured overseas as they did when the product was made here) when we are all taking cuts in pay, or moving on to lower paying employment in a service industry?

The bubble will have to burst sooner or later. Not only will the pay scale have to decline (which companies have been attempting to force on employees since the mid to late 80's), but the price of manufacturered items will have to decline along with the wages (something that has NOT happened, in-fact the inverse has remained the theme for many years now).

If it comes down to manufacturers having to lower prices, only those with better effeciencies/productivity numbers (higher profit margins) with have that capability.

And when you couple the conflict of economies with a perceived lack of customer concern (better reliability and quality/increased value found in import competition) I think that GM, Ford, and others ARE on a very slippery slope.
:mad:

Then again, maybe this is just my perception. ;)

Mike,

Here is a list of some of the organizations that attended the Deming Conference last fall in California. All are at varying stages of their journies, but here it is nonetheless.

Regards,

Kevin

Thanks, Kevin. It is good to see someone trying Deming's philosophy in the modern day! It would be much nicer to see some scientific looks at companies implementing Deming's philosophies and the results they achieved compared both to pre-implementation and to peer companies who do not use the Deming philosophy. Maybe something as these companies move forward?

One point I want to make is that no matter how good a particular philosophy is, if for whatever reason it turns out that it is so difficult to actually implement in the "real world" that hardly anyone does it, the philosophy is not very helpful. It is kinda like a cancer cure that costs $1,000,000 per patient and requires ther patient to work-out for 6 hours a day. How many can afford the cure, and even for those who can, how many are willing to go through with it? Whatever the "cure" is, it has to be, in perception and in reality, practical to implement. That's what sales and marketing is for, huh?

One point I want to make is that no matter how good a particular philosophy is, if for whatever reason it turns out that it is so difficult to actually implement in the "real world" that hardly anyone does it, the philosophy is not very helpful. It is kinda like a cancer cure that costs $1,000,000 per patient and requires ther patient to work-out for 6 hours a day. How many can afford the cure, and even for those who can, how many are willing to go through with it? Whatever the "cure" is, it has to be, in perception and in reality, practical to implement. That's what sales and marketing is for, huh?

One piece of anecdotal evidence - I was asked to help an organization that was spending 40 hours per month trying to do its performance charts. Much of that time was rework due to management whims and changes, can't you make this look better? Make it a pie chart instead of a bar chart. Add 3-d effects. Etc etc etc.

I replaced their process with a Deming process. Automated processing of the data from their source log. Use of Statistical Process Control and Pareto Charts in a standardized format. The 40 hour process dropped to a 15 minute per month process.

In every case where I have implemented a Deming (SPC and Pareto) based set of charts and management tools, time has been saved, not expended.

Steve,

I do not doubt you for a minute. But you must admit (I think!) that is only a very small part of the whole Deming philosophy. And not uniquely Deming.

Steve,

I do not doubt you for a minute. But you must admit (I think!) that is only a very small part of the whole Deming philosophy. And not uniquely Deming.
True on both counts. Knowledge of Variation is one of the 4 parts of the System of Profound Knowledge. And Dr. Deming certainly always attributed Dr. Shewhart as the source of control charting. At Fluor, we are also making progress on the other 3 parts (Appreciation for systems, Theory of Knowledge, and Psychology).

One point I want to make is that no matter how good a particular philosophy is, if for whatever reason it turns out that it is so difficult to actually implement in the "real world" that hardly anyone does it, the philosophy is not very helpful. It is kinda like a cancer cure that costs $1,000,000 per patient and requires ther patient to work-out for 6 hours a day. How many can afford the cure, and even for those who can, how many are willing to go through with it? Whatever the "cure" is, it has to be, in perception and in reality, practical to implement. That's what sales and marketing is for, huh?

Deming, unlike other "gurus" such as Crosby and Shainin, never attempted to package his ideas and sell them. There is nothing about Deming's ideas that would prohibit them from being implemented due to the expense involved, or the difficulty of implementation. Deming proposed that once one is possessed of "profound knowledge," and exercises leadership in its implementation, everything else will fall in place.

He was right. The numbers don't lie, but managers who don't understand the numbers and who don't understand that continuous improvement is a way of life -- not a process or commodity -- do lie. American manufacturing is in trouble today because of the ignorance, greed and hubris of the people in charge, and because of shareholders' demands for short-term gains. The once-powerful behemoth is now devouring itself, tail first, and doesn't seem to have the will to shift its focus to a more healthy source of nutrition.

About 15 years ago there was an article about Deming in the Chicago Tribune Magazine, a Sunday supplement which I thought was a rather odd place for such subject matter. The author, who had the opportunity to attend a seminar and speak with Deming afterwards, asked the aged icon how he would like to be remembered. "Well," he replied, "if I could be remembered as someone who spent his life trying to keep American manufacturing from committing suicide..."

If the alternative to change is a slow and painful death, then those who refuse the cure will get what they asked for.

If Dr. Juran is still alive, it would be interesting to hear his take on the current conditions of American manufacturing methods too. Last I heard, he was writing another book at age 100

Folks,

Great responses! I see some new names (to me anyway) and I appreciate the new input.

Mike, you challenges are solid as usual. It is good exercise trying to answer your questions the best we can (at least, I see it that way). I can say that my efforts in my current employer is to increase awareness of the 4 tenets of SoPK. For several months, a group of managers, directors, engineers and manufacturing people have been meeting on our own most Thursday evenings after work. We've viewed the Deming Video Library and have worked Deming's philosophy into our routines as best we can. Many times folks comment to me on items they have taken away from the videos or the Deming Conference from last October (I took 10 managers, director, and a VP then). Most agree that applying some aspects of each of the 4 pieces is not hard work. Some see it as fun trying to work it in. One example: our quarterly recognition award once received many inputs for consideration. Even though this still exists, we haven't issued one in many months. Everyone agrees that it was doing the reverse of what was intended. In addition, we have increased the use of run charts to learn more about various processes (change orders, complaint for example). We have used them effectively to establish predictable outputs for these processes and are viewed as the most accomplished in these areas across the corporate spectrum. This is purely an ancillary benefit as we did this to learn and control variation. We continue to expand ourselves and our subordinates across all of the SoPK tenets. It is gradual to aggressive at times. But everyone seems to be happy with the journey as much as we happy with the results. It is a continual effort to evolve.

The Red Beads have been a great source of discussion. Snippets from the news introduced by various people has lead to powerful discussions that last into the early evening. We start our meetings at 5 and go to 6:30, but I don't think we've ever left before 7. We usually have to leave when our spouses start calling on our whereabouts. Just today, we had some friction between two people from different departments. I commented, "Is the problem with the system or with either of you?" invoking Dr. Deming's 94/6% rule of the problems are from the system. Each smiled and agreed: our frustrations were system caused. We moved on, found a solution, and are working together to achieve a desirable outcome. Some of this may not be purely Deming-like, but we seem to make those types of connections freely.

Regards,

Kevin

How long can this country's economy survive when we outsource manufacturing jobs to low-overhead overseas economies, while our workforce here continues striving for increases in pay and benefits (pricing ourselves out of the market)? Who within the USA is going to be able to purchase our overpriced products (companies continue charging the same price for product manufactured overseas as they did when the product was made here) when we are all taking cuts in pay, or moving on to lower paying employment in a service industry?

The bubble will have to burst sooner or later. Not only will the pay scale have to decline (which companies have been attempting to force on employees since the mid to late 80's), but the price of manufacturered items will have to decline along with the wages (something that has NOT happened, in-fact the inverse has remained the theme for many years now).

If it comes down to manufacturers having to lower prices, only those with better effeciencies/productivity numbers (higher profit margins) with have that capability.

Then again, maybe this is just my perception. ;)

And a sound perception it is. :applause:

Regardless of whether or not one does use WED's philosophy, it is value for money that determines whether or not a customer will buy one's wares. And so to global competition.

Some years ago (1997) Bill Wolman and Anne Colamosca wrote a percipient book, "The Judas Economy" in which they predicted that global wages must eventually converge. Consistent with that view, ddhartma is quite correct in his prognosis about the need for labour costs to be adjusted. Mr Wolman used to be the Chief Economics Editor for Business Week and I believe he is now retired. His predictions have stuck in my mind.

But those wages must converge only in the case of the USA competing in the same market with the same products/ services. If, as I mention in my article about "Auditing - Dawn of Opprtunity" in the Reading Room, the USA can identify a comparative advantage in some market not greatly contested by others, perhaps the associated wage rates can prevail. But, of course, in a world of global knowledge dissemination, such advantage may at best be fleeting.

Perhaps the greates threat comes from the fact that the US education system is not producing sufficiently world class people in suffciently great numbers to create new knowledge. Overseas firms and nations are setting up state-of- the-art research facilities that will inevitably create the new materials, products, inventions and innovations of which new markets are created. Rather like the USA overtook Britain and Germany a century or so ago, it is being overtaken itself. To my mind, that is the biggest crisis facing the USA and as I also mention in that article, the education system needs a massive buisness improvement program - and it needs one urgently.

Tomorrow's comparative advantage comes from today's education system. The "educators" et al have much to answer for considering the vast resources that are expended on that closed-shop highly unionized sector of the American economy. Though dealing with Social Security issues is currently regarded as the "3rd rail" of American politics, in fact it is the education system's performance that is the real 3rd rail and America's politicians while knowing that are unwilling to grasp the issue as they lack the guts to take on America's most powerful union.

Yes, we can advocate WED's (or others') solutions but one does first of all need businesses in which to apply it.

The issue with the education system (as I view it):

Knowledge as an integral part of the information economy, is of no profitable use unless, it is created with focus, managed effectively and re-invested as an improvement tool.

In the western world, we have failed to re-invest knowledge back into the information economy and, have thus failed to see and experience the long term gains of creative knowledge management and re-investment of innovative and system thinking.
JMO,FWIW.
Wallace. ;)

Great discussion, gentlemen.

The fixation on short-term thinking/profiteering is the prevailing paradigm, especially amongst the financiers who basically govern how business is conducted. This, coupled with our facination to maximize everything, is leading towards a massive collapse of the System. WED emphasized over and over again that the System must be optimized.

With this in mind, who will go to the workers and ask them for a wage freeze? Who will educate them to understand that it might be for the benefit of the System as a whole? Who educates them on the System? Who here places a higher emphasis on Optimization rather than Maximization in your businesses?

I think that Deming and Shewhart found great insight into Lewis's philosophy of Mind and World Order. Both only built on it: they did not reinvent it.

Keep the great thoughts coming guys!!

Regards,

Kevin :applause:

Kevin

JSW -- Deming wrote and sold books and did seminars. Did he take no profit from this? How is this different than Crosby? Doesn't someone profit from Deming's name to this day? I'm not saying he was money-hungry or that it was his primary goal, just trying to understand how he was different than Crosby based on your statement.

Kevin -- Your statement, "Most agree that applying some aspects of each of the 4 pieces is not hard work" was interesting (to me). In the past, most Demingites seemed (to me) to berate anyone who did not immediately accept and implement his philosophy in its entirity. Yet you and your team seem to look at it differently. And, IMO, more realistically.

In the past, most Demingites seemed (to me) to berate anyone who did not immediately accept and implement his philosophy in its entirity. Yet you and your team seem to look at it differently. And, IMO, more realistically.

Dr. Deming's system is a system, and we do tend to take a dim view of people who want to "cherry-pick" only those things they want to do. But Dr. Deming had a good response to those who asked where should I start? or What if I only implement point number 3? His response was - fine go ahead, get started. You'll discover the need for the rest of the system on your own.

JSW -- Deming wrote and sold books and did seminars. Did he take no profit from this? How is this different than Crosby? Doesn't someone profit from Deming's name to this day? I'm not saying he was money-hungry or that it was his primary goal, just trying to understand how he was different than Crosby based on your statement.

If you're not familiar with the huge Crosby marketing machine of the eighties, I can understand why you'd wonder about the difference. Crosby packaged his "zero defects" mantra and sold it in the form of training courses, video tapes, you name it. I personally believe Crosby did a lot of damage in making people believe that quality could be bought off the shelf. His "Zero Defects Day" concepts was one of the prime targets of Deming's 10th point: Eliminate slogans, exhortation, and targets for the workplace."

With this in mind, who will go to the workers and ask them for a wage freeze? Who will educate them to understand that it might be for the benefit of the System as a whole? Who educates them on the System? Who here places a higher emphasis on Optimization rather than Maximization in your businesses?

After approximately 2 decades of business management requesting wage cuts and/or freezes from the employees, while they themselves (CEO's in particular) were granted salary increases, bonuses and increased shares of stock - I wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to go once again into that fray.

But, I believe the next step (and one that should have taken place 20 years ago) is that management needs to begin some "lean" initiatives to increase management efficiencies, assess their salaries (reduce or freeze them), evaluate current profit margins, determine how much they can be reduced (with the leaner, less costly management structure), then bring to the bargaining table a plan that includes a reduction in product price, management salary, and a proposed reduction/freeze to employee wage.

As an employee's wages are reduced (hourly or salary), we need to ensure that our products price is reduced accordingly (afterall; in many cases it is employees, family, friends, etc. who will be buying our products). Along those same lines, if I move my operation overseas where I have lower overhead, then I need to pass on at least some of that savings to my customers - else I'm setting up the following senario:

Now that I have taught people in a foriegn country how to run a business, and build my product; what is to stop one these local employees from starting their own business and underselling me in my own country?

In Warsaw, Indiana we currently have 3 companies competing for the design and manufacture prosthetics, two of which were started by former employees of the first. Could I someday find myself buying a Chinese designed and manufactured car for less than GM, Ford, or even the Japanese can sell it?

Dave,

Chinese cars for less? Count on it!! It is very likely that they will emerge as the largest superpower the world has ever known. What is to stop them?

No mystery here: the USA has one of the largest earnings disparity in the world. The gap is manmade thus, controllable. The Western businessman needs to recognize that this is unnecessary and largely destructive. Our facination with being on-top at any cost must depart from our thinking. We need to look at Optimization of the System, personally as well as in business. I think it is the only way to sustain the whole.

JSW05,

I've not been a huge fan of Crosby either, but appreciated his thoughts on Leadership. If you browse the Deming Electronic Network archives, you may find a quote by Dr. Deming saying something to this effect. When asked about Crosby, Dr. Deming replied, "He's a heck of a salesman."

Steve,

Great point! I think when folks go through their personal Transformation, it becomes obvious: all four parts are necessary. We might have our favorites, but the reality is that focus on any one part leads to sub-optimization (as you know) and reduced results (or alternate results).

Mike,

Yeah, we Demingites may over emphasize the need to pay credence to all four parts to their fullest. The thought that comes to mind here is something the late Dr stated in his books: we needn't be masters of each part, but we should strive to do our best and get the best. If you recall, he would often say that if you don't learn from a master, you deserve to get rooked!

With regards our efforts here, I've found it interesting on how we seem to talk to each other about issues. I recognize that of the 10 of us who went to the Deming Conference, some of us are further down our Personal Transformation path than others. What impresses me are the hallway chats and comparisons on theory regarding a host of topics. Rewards here was a biggie. One Production Manager set goals outside of the predictable limits of a process: folks working in that process rarely got the bonus pizza. When they did, the sitdown parties turned into gripe sessions about how hard they work and the reward is some cheesie pizza. Who won here? When we discussed this, it was decided that everyone loses (boss not appreciated for getting pizza, workers angry because they thought they should get more, customer not aware, but probably unaffected; not evidence of numbers tampering). The outcome: pizza every other month regardless of arbitrary targets; everyone happier. I don't think that this would have happened without studying Dr. Deming's theories. Folks here really thought that they were doing the right thing with our rewards programs. Now they know better. The journey continues...

Regards,

Kevin

I've not been a huge fan of Crosby either, but appreciated his thoughts on Leadership. If you browse the Deming Electronic Network archives, you may find a quote by Dr. Deming saying something to this effect. When asked about Crosby, Dr. Deming replied, "He's a heck of a salesman."
There's an intersting thread that you took part in here (http://elsmar.com/ubb/Forum42/HTML/000004.html). I especially like the quote attributed to Deming, re: zero defects being "the highway down the tubes." There's also the excellent point that Deming was essentially at odds with ZD and Crosbly because of the fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between reducing variation and goals for output.

JSW05

While I certainly tend towards Deming, I think that there are several different "gurus" that have valuable things to say. Some are even here at the Cove!

That said, I think that in the cases of both Deming and Crosby each has one key misunderstanding that seems to be all too common and hinders the understanding of both schools of thought in their own way.

The "Deming misunderstanding" is that we must eliminate inspection completely. The reason why this happens is that people often drop the "...dependance on..." part of that point, and end up flying willy-nilly trying to stop testing the product wherever and whenever they can. This can cause a rather spectacular train wreck.

The "Crosby misunderstanding" is that we should work towards zero defects. None. Zilch. Well, that is not quite right. As discussed in Quality is Free, we should have the attitude that we don't just let nonconformance slip by. We should find the root cause and make the nonconformance disappear.

Now, I am not saying this to try to start a fight, but I do believe that both approaches have merit, although, again, I tend towards Deming. I once attended an SPC seminar at the Crosby Institute (I think that's what it was called) near Orlando. This was in the early 1990s. By the end of the seminar I believe the instructor thought I was a big pain in the rear becasue I asked some questions in an effort to rationalize some, um, inconsistencies between the two approaches. Oh, well.

JSW05

While I certainly tend towards Deming, I think that there are several different "gurus" that have valuable things to say. Some are even here at the Cove!

That said, I think that in the cases of both Deming and Crosby each has one key misunderstanding that seems to be all too common and hinders the understanding of both schools of thought in their own way.

The "Deming misunderstanding" is that we must eliminate inspection completely. The reason why this happens is that people often drop the "...dependance on..." part of that point, and end up flying willy-nilly trying to stop testing the product wherever and whenever they can. This can cause a rather spectacular train wreck.

The "Crosby misunderstanding" is that we should work towards zero defects. None. Zilch. Well, that is not quite right. As discussed in Quality is Free, we should have the attitude that we don't just let nonconformance slip by. We should find the root cause and make the nonconformance disappear.

Now, I am not saying this to try to start a fight, but I do believe that both approaches have merit, although, again, I tend towards Deming. I once attended an SPC seminar at the Crosby Institute (I think that's what it was called) near Orlando. This was in the early 1990s. By the end of the seminar I believe the instructor thought I was a big pain in the rear becasue I asked some questions in an effort to rationalize some, um, inconsistencies between the two approaches. Oh, well.

Craig,

I think your points are well taken. I agree that the Crosby approach was intended to focus on not "accepting" defects, and that we should approach the cause whenever possible. Nonetheless, the perception was strongly sold by Crosby that the goal had to be "zero defects."

You're also right about the Deming "end dependance on inspection." Anyone who omits the middle two words in the phrase and ascribes the idea to Deming has missed the whole point of controlling variation.

JSW05

The "Deming misunderstanding" is that we must eliminate inspection completely. The reason why this happens is that people often drop the "...dependance on..." part of that point, and end up flying willy-nilly trying to stop testing the product wherever and whenever they can. This can cause a rather spectacular train wreck.



I am in the aircraft inspection/maintenance/repair/service industry, regulated by FAA, and also have ISO9000 certification. As a U.S. Certificated Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic, I absolutely refuse to 'eliminate inspection' criterial of any sort. I'm sure Mr. Deming would agree.

One size does NOT fit all.

I am in the aircraft inspection/maintenance/repair/service industry, regulated by FAA, and also have ISO9000 certification. As a U.S. Certificated Airframe and Powerplant Mechanic, I absolutely refuse to 'eliminate inspection' criterial of any sort. I'm sure Mr. Deming would agree.

One size does NOT fit all.


Yes, that's the point. We don't eliminate inspection, but we refine our process so that it will not produce parts that are noncomforming. The inspection just confirms that the part is right. In other words, we don't "inspect in" quality. It happens because that is the way the process normally (pun intended) works.

The "Deming misunderstanding" is that we must eliminate inspection completely. The reason why this happens is that people often drop the "...dependance on..." part of that point, and end up flying willy-nilly trying to stop testing the product wherever and whenever they can. This can cause a rather spectacular train wreck.

Deming did not say eliminate inspections. Chapter 15 of Out of the Crisis was all about planning inspections. Interestingly, he favored an all-or-nothing approach to sampling, rather than random sampling.

On page 261 "Computations of interest, penalty, and other transactions in a bank may require 100 percent inspection (or review or verification, as one might prefer to call it), not only for safety and preservation of reputation for accuracy, but for minimum total cost as well.

The key is to eliminate the belief that you can "inspect quality into the product".

Nice discussion developing about what did or did not WED say, mean or infer etc. But, to return to the thread title, "Is USA out of the crisis"?

With the tectonic shift in economic power and spread of knowledge and education around the world, could USA get out of the crisis that is rapidly developing?

Deming did not say eliminate inspections.

I think Craig's point was that he knows that's not what Deming said. People have confused Deming's admonishment to "end the dependency on inspection" with the idea that inspection should be eliminated altogether. Deming said, in essence, that inspection should never be seen as a substitute for knowing about the variation in a process, and reducing it to an optimum level. If variation has been controlled to the extent possible and the output is still unacceptable, then the process has to be changed.

I think Craig's point was that he knows that's not what Deming said. People have confused Deming's admonishment to "end the dependency on inspection" with the idea that inspection should be eliminated altogether. Deming said, in essence, that inspection should never be seen as a substitute for knowing about the variation in a process, and reducing it to an optimum level. If variation has been controlled to the extent possible and the output is still unacceptable, then the process has to be changed.


Thanks for clarifying my thoughts. That is what I intended to convey.

:agree1:

Nice discussion developing about what did or did not WED say, mean or infer etc. But, to return to the thread title, "Is USA out of the crisis"?

With the tectonic shift in economic power and spread of knowledge and education around the world, could USA get out of the crisis that is rapidly developing?


Allen, you are right. I think I need to see if we can split this discussion off into another philosophy thread.

Dave,

Chinese cars for less? Count on it!! It is very likely that they will emerge as the largest superpower the world has ever known. What is to stop them?

If you recall, he would often say that if you don't learn from a master, you deserve to get rooked!

Kevin

What's to stop them? What was to stop the Soviet Union from being the largest superpower? Communism/lack of freedom, IMO.

As for the "master" quote -- those are the kind of holier-than-thou or abrasive comments that, IMO, are one reason Deming hurt his own cause. His personality hurt his cause, IMO. There are certain sports figures who are fantastic players but I still hope "my" team doesn't sign them. I wonder why someone who preached psychology so much didn't realize this.

Mike,

Exactly right: China could be its own worst enemy. I think that unless they arrive at the conclusion that we all need each other, the world will have to hope that they are.

Dr. Deming's point, for me, is well taken. We should strive to learn from the best that are available to us. How many out there were taken to the cleaners from consultants who did not know enough (ISO for instance)? Maybe a 'master' is not available, but we should get the best we can find. I don't really think this was a personal endorsement angle: just the fact that he believed that there isn't a substitute for knowledge.

Allan,

I think that we are in the crisis and, to your point, it seems to be worsening. We do, however, possess the ability to turn this around. The question is do we have the will to? I hope so.

Our educational system is disrepair. What’s worse, our politicians seem to argue over whose poor platform/model is better. We better get it together while we have the chance. As with business, government and education are in crisis as so noted in The New Economics. I think that we have it within ourselves to do a tremendous amount of good, and, we are still in possession of the resources necessary to do it. Do we have the motivation to do it though? I see glimmers of hope, but in reality, I think that we will once again, emerge through ‘emergency’. I believe our vanity is getting in the way. We cling to failing paradigms and sacred cows: in a very real sense, we are blind to anything different. Tranformation is a solution, but will we take it?

Well, if H.S. Dent is right, the Boom will be gone by 2009, 4 short years away, and we will be in recession. To make matters worse, the 20 year Asian lag in births will surely help to usher in the economic shift we fear. What companies will there be then (to Dave’s point)? Who will survive in the West? What direction are Deming companies (like Toyota) going when compared to those who don’t, or no longer support, his method? It will be interesting to see, perhaps scary, what transpires in the next two decades.

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin,

Don't worry too much. People have been worrying about what things will look like 20 years into the future for many decades -- most often predicting some type of catastrophe, either economic, environmental, political, war, medical, etc. Thank god they've mostly been wrong.

As I was mowing the lawn I got to wondering about something maybe you can help me understand. Dr. Deming spoke about "not ranking people". Many Demingites have railed against performance reviews/bonuses, grading systems in school, etc.

So how would Deming say you should determine who is a "master"? Isn't that "ranking"?

How would he determine what to pay the workers in his new company, and how/when to give them raises? Can he justify paying some folks more than others?

How might he determine batting order on a baseball team he managed?

So how would Deming say you should determine who is a "master"? Isn't that "ranking"?

How would he determine what to pay the workers in his new company, and how/when to give them raises? Can he justify paying some folks more than others?

How might he determine batting order on a baseball team he managed?

Dr. Deming, I believe, would say that a master is someone who is 3 standard deviations ahead of the pack. Yes, we should recognize who is significantly ahead or behind of "the pack", and take appropriate actions. However, ranking within the pack (within the "noise", within the control limits) accomplishes nothing. This is what the Red Bead Experiment demonstrates.

I have asked others who knew Dr. Deming about the pay issue. What I have heard is you should pay based upon three issues:

1. Knowledge
2. Experience
3. Responsibilities of the job

He would (again caveated with I believe), determine the batting order by establishing the optimal order to maximize the likelihood of accomplishing the aim of the team. Note that the "best" batter is not likely first - sometimes they are placed fourth in the order.

Steve,

Thanks for the response. Yet I'm still confused. (I'm slow sometimes. :bonk: )

"3 standard deviations ahead of the pack" by what measure? Only 3 out of a thousand people should be ranked by any means lest we do harm?
Someone 2.5 SD below the mean should make the same as someone 2.5 SD above?

Would you really run your own company this way?

Are there any Deming "rules" you would not embrace & implement if you owned your own company?

Steve,

Thanks for the response. Yet I'm still confused. (I'm slow sometimes. :bonk: )

"3 standard deviations ahead of the pack" by what measure? Only 3 out of a thousand people should be ranked by any means lest we do harm?
Someone 2.5 SD below the mean should make the same as someone 2.5 SD above?

Would you really run your own company this way?

Are there any Deming "rules" you would not embrace & implement if you owned your own company?

By the measure(s) that work.

Yes

No

(remember, you asked, and I have volunteered an answer)

By the measure(s) that work.

Yes

No

(remember, you asked, and I have volunteered an answer)

Sure, Steve, and I really do appreciate your answers. I'm trying to learn here, too. :bigwave: But I asked 5 questions, and you gave 3 answers, 2 of which I'm not sure which question they are matched to.

Sure, Steve, and I really do appreciate your answers. I'm trying to learn here, too. :bigwave: But I asked 5 questions, and you gave 3 answers, 2 of which I'm not sure which question they are matched to.
OK, I'll try again. Again, this is the caveat that this is only an answer, and I can only interpret Dr. Deming's works from my readings and interactions with other Deming practitioners

"3 standard deviations ahead of the pack" by what measure?

SSP- By whatever measure works. This may be conceptual, it may be a hard number. Of course I cannot give you a "firm" answer, that would be silly. About as silly as using IQ to rank people. Yes, we can declare the outliers high as geniuses. But what does that mean, and many "geniuses" have done "stupid" things over the years. You would have to consider the situation and do what is appropriate.

Only 3 out of a thousand people should be ranked by any means lest we do harm?

SSP: The 3 in 1000 is based upon the normal distribution. Not everything is normally distributed.

Someone 2.5 SD below the mean should make the same as someone 2.5 SD above?

SSP: For purposes of "Economic Control of Quality" - Yes. Dr. Shewhart postulated and empirically showed, and 75 years of experience has supported that 3 standard deviations is a reasonable standard. But also remember, there are other rules. For example, if in two independent measurements in a row (not measuring IQ twice) were 2 standard deviations above average, then they would be an outlier. 7 in a row the same side of the average. This is an operational definition.

Would you really run your own company this way?

SSP: yes, and I run my life this way, which is to say "my company". Now, I have to give "grades" in the City University classes I teach, but I try to use the Deming theories to minimize their adverse impact. Before you say "AHA", please realize if I don't assign grades, I don't get paid.

Are there any Deming "rules" you would not embrace & implement if you owned your own company?

SSP: The short answer is "no". By default I would follow his "rules" (really more theory than rules). And if experience proved a theory not to work, then I would revise the theory, at least for myself.

If everyone now feels normally distributed, would it be possible to return to the subject of the thread?

If everyone now feels normally distributed, would it be possible to return to the subject of the thread?

Sow tinly :topic:

nyuck nyuck

I have asked others who knew Dr. Deming about the pay issue. What I have heard is you should pay based upon three issues:

1. Knowledge
2. Experience
3. Responsibilities of the job



What about performance on the job? If one has high knowledge AND experience, with a given amount of responsibility, and yet does not perform well on the job, does that come into play at all?

What about performance on the job? If one has high knowledge AND experience, with a given amount of responsibility, and yet does not perform well on the job, does that come into play at all?
Side Note - perhaps we do need to split this off to a separate thread.

The difficulty is this. "Performance" is an interaction between the worker and the system. Now yes, in very infrequent occasions you may end up with a worker who is 'lazy' and willing to put in no effort. But, I truly believe that is not a case that happens often enough for the amount of energy our corporations put into writing HR policies to deal with it. It should be pointed out that such a person should have never been hired in the first place.

If there are performance issues, we really need to look at what is going on. Is it truly the worker, or is it the interaction with the system. Maybe the worker has been put in a job not suited for them. Can the corporation get value with the worker in another role? Maybe the systems are broke. Maybe the worker has been unlucky or lucky.

There are several examples of where workers get penalized in the "performance" arena for things out of their control. There are many who get rewarded who simply know how to manipulate the system.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Are we really "off topic"? The subject of the thread obviously deals with application of Deming theories, and what has/will happen if they are not applied correctly, etc. A few of us are trying to better understand these very theories and questioning some of them and/or their application and how they might help this "crisis" of some magnitude that some feel we are in. Seems related to me. How "pure" do we need to be in a thread w/o someone saying we're "off topic"? It's not like we started discussing the best fish bait for trout in this thread. JMO.

Steve -- Thanks again for your efforts. Kevin, too. This is one area where I perhaps most disagree with the Good Doctor and his followers. It may very well be that I'm the dummy, but I have to be honest with myself. In reality, if we leave religion out of it, there is no one whom I think has all the answers or the one right philosophy in all areas. Dr. Deming might frown on my "cherry picking" of his stuff, but I'll do it anyway. As I will with many others, to create what I think is the best "system" which in reality is an amalgamation of many, which I continuously refine as I learn more.

there is no one whom I think has all the answers or the one right philosophy in all areas.
Then you haven't met my wife:eek: .

Dr. Deming might frown on my "cherry picking" of his stuff, but I'll do it anyway. As I will with many others, to create what I think is the best "system" which in reality is an amalgamation of many, which I continuously refine as I learn more.
I think Deming had the best general take on things, but I agree that hitching your wagon to one particular guru's star is ill-advised. The fact that you feel confident enough to A) educate yourself and B) assess a situation and make a decision based on your own knowledge, experience and the best available evidence is much more important than being able to rote-learn the 14 points.

My thoughts are this: Dr. Deming developed some very good and practical theories for management (and life, for that manner). I am at least willing to try out his ideas as stated, at least once, without tampering, to see how it works. Then I can apply experience to modify the theory. But, I must admit general consternation to those folks who take a management theory (be it reengineering, TQM, six sigma) and immediately twiddle and tamper with it and then wonder why it didn't work.

I agree with you, Deming teachings are not yet fully understood...and used to take advantage...

Wow, this thread really took off!

Mike, I get some of my best thinking done doing yard work, especially if the mower or blower noise makes it impossible to do anything else!!

One comment to make on the individual 2.5 below and the other 2.5 above: as explained, there is no statistical significance between either. This is demonstrated during the red bead experiment. I think what is affecting you (and others) is the years of ranking when in fact, we shouldn’t have. For this reason, we feel compelled to rank things and people and when we don’t, we feel like we’ve forgotten something important. It’s a tough paradigm to shift from!

As Steve mentioned, Dr. Deming offered his thoughts on ranking: those in need of special help and those who could help others (outside of the limits). Each is a special case. In addition, he included the folks who might show, over years of data, to be on one side or the other of the centerline. Here to he thought folks might demonstrate with consistency if they were more or less likely to contribute. As we know, seven points on one side of the centerline (trend) or a shift demonstrates an assignable cause.

To Allan’s point, we are focusing our attention for the moment on one aspect that contributes to the crisis: ranking (psychology). I think that many of our discussions track one way or the other based on the passion of the majority contributors. I will attempt to bring balance.

The US crisis is brought about by the fundamental tenets of financial strategy. Tactics over the years have shifted, but the core need in business has been the accumulation of wealth. Unfortunately, there are many ways to accumulate wealth: ethically, morally and lawfully. The current financial paradigm dances along the narrow edges of each of these, for some, more often. It would be unfair to label all business leaning solely towards that of being unsavory, but I think it might be fair to say that many of the larger businesses we hear about in the news tend to be that way. Wisdom helps us to build character, but it can build either folks/businesses of good or bad character. I think that this is an important example of Dr. Deming’s “Experience alone teaches nothing!” We need to have Experience and Knowledge to develop values of righteousness. Big business has seldom been held accountable to righteousness largely because governments themselves have seldom been righteous. I don’t want to paint a picture that governments, people or businesses are wicked. This is not my point. What is my point is that it becomes difficult to point a finger when, of course, the finger can be pointed at you. Greed is at the root of it.

Allan raised this a few posts ago: Ford and Toyota. Both were Deming companies. Both the Taurus and the Camry were developed under Deming. Both cars are/were revered as ‘world beaters’. Now look at the business path each has taken since Dr. Deming’s death in 1993. Ford began to move away from Dr. Deming’s teachings (post Donald Peterson) towards compliance under QS9000. Ford literally waited until after Dr. Deming’s death to finally (half-heartedly) endorse the QS9000 requirements (I’ve wondered why and have an opinion on this, but I would like to know). The leadership under Jacque Nasser was also less than stellar. IMO, Ford began to regress on how it viewed Quality and Leadership. It’s growth, strong in the mid-80s to early 90’s flattened. Toyota, on the other hand, has consistently produced the same amount of revenue as Ford, Chrysler and GM combined despite being outsold by a large margin (this year’s numbers should be very interesting). Toyota delivers what the others cannot: value. While the Big 3 were busy selling cars at 0% financing, their largest competitors did not have to. Their brand loyalty and proven reliability continued to support their sales and will continue to do so in the future. If you get the chance, take a look at Toyota’s global business plan. I think it is interesting reading. The Western Management philosophy of maximization will in the long run, I fear, ruin our way of life. It threatens our businesses, education and government. While many 20 year old predictions haven’t come true, in full or in part, I think that the evidence around us suggests that a collapse of a colossal nature is indeed, very possible. Scenes from a Sci-Fi movie might not be all that inaccurate.

So here are some questions:

• If we are not in a Crisis, were we ever in one? How would we know?
• Were we in a Crisis, but have emerged? How did we do it?
• If we are in a Crisis, are things getting worse or better? Why?
• How do we get out of the Crisis?

Regards,

Kevin

So here are some questions:

• If we are not in a Crisis, were we ever in one? How would we know?
• Were we in a Crisis, but have emerged? How did we do it?
• If we are in a Crisis, are things getting worse or better? Why?
• How do we get out of the Crisis?

In my personal opinion:

1. Yes. If there was not a crisis, half of the traffic in the Cove would cease to exist.

2. No, not completely.

3. I believe we have regressed from some of the initial strides in the 80's. Ford motor company is a poster-child for that reversion.

4. For us individually, hold our ground, and take new ground in helping people towards the transformation that is necessary.

Hey Steve,

On item 3, I think you are right. Could it be that the current management paradigm (Financial) is enjoying a short resurgence to 'glory' as part of the classic paradigm shift (top of the S where it flattens for a short time prior to jumping into the next paradigm)? Or, has SoPK lost its spot to other Quality movements destined to govern the next management paradigm: Quality?

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin Mader[/b]]So here are some questions:

• If we are not in a Crisis, were we ever in one? How would we know?
• Were we in a Crisis, but have emerged? How did we do it?
• If we are in a Crisis, are things getting worse or better? Why?
• How do we get out of the Crisis?
In my personal opinion:

1. Yes. If there was not a crisis, half of the traffic in the Cove would cease to exist.

2. No, not completely.

3. I believe we have regressed from some of the initial strides in the 80's. Ford motor company is a poster-child for that reversion.

4. For us individually, hold our ground, and take new ground in helping people towards the transformation that is necessary.
For my part, I generally agree with Steve's response, with this addition:
Many of the problems organizations world-wide face are analogous to addictions (chemical or emotional) and often require hitting "rock bottom" before they can begin rehabilitation. Sometimes, rock bottom is too low and the organization, like some addicts, will die.

Rarely is intervention successful unless the "or else" part of the intervention makes the addict realize he has hit rock bottom, already.

I've dealt with two organizations (among dozens in the past 15 years) headed by bipolar [manic-depressive] individuals. When these folks were in their "high" moods, they were extremely exciting and seductive. They looked and acted like world beaters (for a time.) As they reached the manic stage, they crossed the line of propriety and legality time after time, since (in their opinion) only their decisions were valid. Little things like laws and ethics didn't apply to them, only to "other guys" who were "jealous and envious" and wanted to see them fail. One CEO had a prescription, but refused to take it, because "it took the edge off."

Eventually, each of these folks began to spiral into the depressive state and their organizations wallowed in the doldrums while these "leaders" stopped taking meetings and answering phone calls. They still wielded enough power and, compounded with their paranoia, were able to keep anyone in their organizations from implementing changes or improvements.

One executive got ousted from the company in a coup and went from living in a $1 million suburban estate to a $125/week motel room in less than two years. He scratches out a living as a "barter broker."

The other executive was a woman who had her company thrown into involuntary bankruptcy. There were barely enough assets to pay the lawyers and court fees. The employees were completely shafted and some were even sued by creditors for return of paychecks written in the two weeks before the bankruptcy filing. The employees in the woman's company were absolutely shell-shocked when the sheriff's deputy served the various legal papers because the woman had lied to them for the final six months of the company's existence, because they trusted her from her "up" phase.

The woman was indicted for fraud and pled out, promising restitution in exchange for house arrest and probation. She lives with her elderly mom and works as an office temp. The folks she promised restitution have received about 3 to 5 cents on the dollar so far.

The company where the CEO got ousted moved from the palatial HQ into smaller rented space in a grade B building and are slowly rebuilding a tarnished reputation one step at a time. They lost some customers, but, in my opinion, they were unprofitable customers whose "prestige" actually lost money. All but one supplier stuck with them, in some cases extending even more credit. Employees now get cash bonuses which previously went to pay for lavish parties and a "skybox" at a sports arena (for a customer base which didn't need those as an incentive to do business.)

Bottom line:
Think about dot coms and other organizations who bought super bowl TV ads and had no infrastructure to take advantage of any new business the ad might generate. These were business processes which did not undergo a FMEA before implementation. Such wild and profligate spending is a sign of an organization management spiraling out of control.

If you are a low-ranking employee in such a company, you need an escape strategy BEFORE you try to create a turnaround plan for the organization. Loyalty is fine, but don't misplace your loyalty. Your first loyalty is to your self and family; then, when they are provided for, to everyone else, including your organization. If you aren't privy to a rational explanation for business decisions your organization is making, odds are you won't have any meaningful impact in making any other rational decisions for your organization.

I would be especially leery of any organization which expected its current employees to make sacrifices when none of the top executives are making GREATER sacrifices than the ones asked of rank and file employees.

Bottom line:
Think about dot coms and other organizations who bought super bowl TV ads and had no infrastructure to take advantage of any new business the ad might generate. These were business processes which did not undergo a FMEA before implementation. Such wild and profligate spending is a sign of an organization management spiraling out of control.

If you are a low-ranking employee in such a company, you need an escape strategy BEFORE you try to create a turnaround plan for the organization. Loyalty is fine, but don't misplace your loyalty. Your first loyalty is to your self and family; then, when they are provided for, to everyone else, including your organization. If you aren't privy to a rational explanation for business decisions your organization is making, odds are you won't have any meaningful impact in making any other rational decisions for your organization.

I would be especially leery of any organization which expected its current employees to make sacrifices when none of the top executives are making GREATER sacrifices than the ones asked of rank and file employees.

:agree1: Probably the best advice of any kind I've seen here.

Yes, Wes does have a way with words. I especially enjoyed the 'addict' analogy, much like the pictured painted by Joel Arthur Barker with his term "Paradigm paralysis". Gripping!

Yes, Wes does have a way with words. I especially enjoyed the 'addict' analogy, much like the pictured painted by Joel Arthur Barker with his term "Paradigm paralysis". Gripping!
When I perused Baker's book sometime last year, my reaction was:
"If I have two paradigms, I'll have forty cents, still not enough to buy coffee at Starbucks."

Hi
Nice way with words, I agree, you explained how do the organizations (not all but many) ‘behave” and create more problems for themselves and for others.
I do think “we” are in a crisis…and it is deeper than it looks.

I have had similar experiences with companies, and yet got to different conclusions, let me explain.

Dr. Deming stated 14 points, most of us and practically ALL of the organizations use the “technical points” …and the tools associated with them.

3.- Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.
5.- Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.

But what about the “social points”, and what tools can we use?

1.- Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.
11.- Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
12.- Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective

I have rarely seen organizations developing programs to achieve this, so Deming theory has yet to be fully implemented.

But what exactly is missing? (If at all) I think the basic concept of “Profound knowledge” we have learned how to control a process but forgot that organizations are “social systems”, further more they are “designed systems” and we can modify and redesign them, but we have forgotten or never learned that organizations are Socio-Technical systems and that we must take care of both if we are to maximize productivity.

So it is time to take a good look at the more “soft” side of the problem, the human and social side.

“Many of the problems organizations world-wide face are analogous to addictions (chemical or emotional) and often require hitting "rock bottom" before they can begin rehabilitation. Sometimes, rock bottom is too low and the organization, like some addicts, will die.”

If a company is not “aware” of its problems how is it possible to do something about them?

But what about the “social points”, and what tools can we use?

1.- Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.
11.- Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
12.- Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to pride of workmanship. This means, inter alia, abolishment of the annual or merit rating and of management by objective

I have rarely seen organizations developing programs to achieve this, so Deming theory has yet to be fully implemented.

But what exactly is missing? (If at all) I think the basic concept of “Profound knowledge” we have learned how to control a process but forgot that organizations are “social systems”, further more they are “designed systems” and we can modify and redesign them, but we have forgotten or never learned that organizations are Socio-Technical systems and that we must take care of both if we are to maximize productivity.

So it is time to take a good look at the more “soft” side of the problem, the human and social side.

“Many of the problems organizations world-wide face are analogous to addictions (chemical or emotional) and often require hitting "rock bottom" before they can begin rehabilitation. Sometimes, rock bottom is too low and the organization, like some addicts, will die.”

If a company is not “aware” of its problems how is it possible to do something about them?
Welcome to the Cove!:bigwave:

Yep. I agree the "soft" side of the problem is really the toughest to recognize and reengineer.

If you have a problem with product quality, you get pretty effective notice - customers either complain or they stop buying.

If you have an internal social problem (I see many companies every year which have at least one), often it is shrouded by a "taboo" - practically a religious proscription to even acknowledge it exists, let alone do anything to alleviate it.

Here's some examples. See if you recognize any:

Boss is bedding a female staff member. She gets higher pay and her work load falls on fellow workers while she enjoys long, leisurely "lunches" with the boss.
Boss is a sadist. He enjoys humiliating workers just because he can. Workers either suck it up and work or they leave. The bully boss, in turn, like Eddie Haskell on Leave It to Beaver, always ingratiates himself with his superiors, so no one with power notes the social situation. Intimidated workers, under constant stress, spend their time figuring out how to "manage" a bad boss instead of working to get him fired.
Bosses and owners run an out and out "sweat shop" hiring desperate folks and overworking them and underpaying them. The constant threat of losing the job and, in turn, losing home and family (FEAR - one of Deming's big bugaboos) keeps the workers in line. This kind of operation frequently hires illegal immigrants, adding to the stress the fear of being turned in to authorities and deported.
Bosses who flaunt their wealth and possessions to poorly paid employees. This ranges from the boss who makes employees eat lunch outside in the parking lot while the space inside where they could have eaten is taken up by his bright, shiny speedboat on its trailer. Perhaps the boss who wears $2,000 suits berating a $300/week salesman for not dressing "better." Maybe it's the boss who has the company picnic at his palatial estate in a far suburb, but never lets them see the inside of the house, required to use portapotties while even the catering staff gets to use toilets inside the house. Maybe it's just the boss who brags about the fabulous dinner he had at some celebrity chef's kitchen (where everyone knows the minimum price per diner is over $200 - about a week's takehome for the clerk who is forced to hear the tale.)
Yep. The social conditions are often intolerable. They seem to be getting worse as organizations misinterpret "Lean" to be "mean" and overburden workers by cutting staffing to a skeleton crew and cutting pay.

Yes, the social side is a tough one to master.

Regarding the workplace and compensation, I think it is a matter of fairness. All of us have stories like the shiny boat in the lunchroom. By no means am I saying that we should all be paid the same (some folks like to run the ‘communism’ angle when the owner/bosses pay comes into question or see this as an afront to capitalism). What I am saying is that folks should be fairly compensated. This, admittedly, will never be done perfectly. However, the disparity in the business place, especially the Western hemisphere, is inescapable.

Fear and greed are a crippling duo in society. Curbing both would do us a world of good, literally.

Regards,

Kevin

Lordy but some of you guys can paint a depressing picture. How'd we ever get to be such a great country with all this bad stuff? Does anything good ever happen to anyone? Sorry, but I see a bunch of pessimists here, not balance.

Lordy but some of you guys can paint a depressing picture. How'd we ever get to be such a great country with all this bad stuff? Does anything good ever happen to anyone? Sorry, but I see a bunch of pessimists here, not balance.

You're free to counter with optimism, if you want to. You shouldn't complain about lack of balance if you're not going to provide some yourself. I think that the points Wes has brought up in this thread are important ones to consider, and I've had some of the same experiences and made similar observations in the past. Sometimes the truth hurts, but nothing gets changed by painting rosy pictures.

Lordy but some of you guys can paint a depressing picture. How'd we ever get to be such a great country with all this bad stuff? Does anything good ever happen to anyone? Sorry, but I see a bunch of pessimists here, not balance.

Russ Ackoff tells us this is what is great about America. We still manage to be successful even with our great inefficiencies. Just think what we could do if we cleared out the inefficiencies!

Wes
Thanks for the warm welcome, I have learn a lot just by reading some of the ideas that are expossed here, congratulations and keep up the good work.

Yes it gets depressing sometimes, or should we say some places?
For I think this is not the rule for every company…there are examples of organizations that work well and do not exhibit a total lack of social conscience.
I have been lucky and got to work with one that would, and actually have, fired a Plant Manager for bedding a girl.

But I am not talking about socialism or any other political theory, I am talking about understanding how does the “human process work” in our organizations the same way we try to understand how a manufacturing process “works”.

For example, Point Number ONE

Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.

I think every one in the cove would agree with it…? Now the question…how do you! Create! constancy of purpose, what is the process we use, how should it operate, how can we refine it to the point it no longer needs “inspection”? And to start with, how are we doing it today.
Are we responsible for this process or who is?

Would you agree that “this is the crisis”?

When the going gets tough, the tough are suposed to get going.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

When the going gets tough, the tough are suposed to get going.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

"Eliminate slogans, exhortations..." :read:

"A slogan saved is a slogan yearned?"

Dave

"A slogan saved is a slogan yearned?"

Dave
Except that, sometimes, "A slogan saved is a workforce enslaved."

"I'd rather die while I'm living than live while I'm dead."

When I was in school, I was a "fair to middling" jock. I had teammates and friends who were much better and obviously destined for pro careers and a few actually made the pros.

One of my giant friends ("five feet, twenty inches," as he used to joke) went to college on a full athletic scholarship for basketball.

In a meaningless, non-conference game his first year in college, he twisted a knee. The coach called him a sissy, wrapped it with an Ace bandage and sent him back out on the floor with the exhortation, "Take one for the team!" Sadly, he got double teamed when he went up for a rebound and came down in a tangle. End of knee, end of college career, and end of scholarship!

I'm ashamed to admit that I have "wordsmithed" more than one slogan in my career. I now admit that the slogans were merely demogoguery intended to distract folks from the real issues.

Think of most slogans:

"Tastes great! Less filling!"
"You deserve a break today!"
"It's the real thing!"
"Ask not what your country can do for you . . ."
Each is slanted to distract the audience from the real issues. In some cases, they intend to distract you from the concept of ingesting empty calories. In other cases, they intend to distract you from sacrifices being made by your sons and daughters in a foreign war.

"Take one for the team!" indeed! Slogans CAN be evil.

Think of most slogans:

"Tastes great! Less filling!"
"You deserve a break today!"
"It's the real thing!"
"Ask not what your country can do for you . . ."



Thanks for reminding me, Wes - I forgot about the KitKat I brought in today!
(munching...)

Slogans can be evil? :eek:

Isn't there a fine line sometimes between a slogan and just a sentence? Of course, it's fine if you just call it a "point" instead of a slogan... :D

Slogans can be evil? :eek:

Isn't there a fine line sometimes between a slogan and just a sentence? Of course, it's fine if you just call it a "point" instead of a slogan... :D

1) End the dependence upon mass inspection...

2) We strive for zero defects

The difference is that #1 actually says something, while #2 presents the illusion of something having been said, but nothing more. #2 is political language, and

" Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. " George Orwell

1) End the dependence upon mass inspection...

2) We strive for zero defects

The difference is that #1 actually says something, while #2 presents the illusion of something having been said, but nothing more. #2 is political language, and

" Political language - and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists - is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. " George Orwell





So, is this what politicians and news people call "Spin"?
No one has done anything wrong because wrong is not defined as an acceptable characteristic because of the agenda being pursued.

A point also to be made is that meaningless slogans don't contain any hint as to the means as to how to carry them out.

A point also to be made is that meaningless slogans don't contain any hint as to the means as to how to carry them out.

That's what makes them meaningless. :) And what makes them dangerous is that the omission is usually willful.

That's what makes them meaningless. :) And what makes them dangerous is that the omission is usually willful.
Absolutely true! Dumb guys don't invent slogans. Smart guys have a deep agenda when they create the slogan.

I remember the sheer shock I felt when I visited a prospect's plant in California. The parent company was Asian and had bought an American industrial plant and converted it to the parent's products.

My colleagues and I had looked over the request for quotation and were intrigued enough to travel on our own nickel to do some "concurrent engineering" which might set us apart from all competitors.

We were asked to arrive when the first shift started at 7:00 am (a no brainer to Midwesterners for whom it was 9:00 am on our internal clocks.)

What we encountered was the entire third and first shift out on a field adjoining the parking lot doing calisthenics and shouting slogans in the Asian language of the parent company.

Ultimately, we sat down at a table with a plant manager, the top purchasing agent, and the chief design engineer and his assistant, all sweaty from the calisthenics. Only the plant manager was Asian.

Each time I or one of my colleagues made a suggestion about a design modification that would meet fit and function requirements at a substantial savings from the original design, one of the company's Americans would shout (Literally, "SHOUT!") out a slogan or phrase in the language of the parent, with no further explanation. We were unable to get any response to our direct suggestions other than this chorus of shouts - one would shout and then the others would shout another phrase. It was like "call and response" in some church services.

After an hour of this nonsense, my colleagues and I understood that no one in the American site had power or authority to even bring a design change suggestion to the parent, let alone make an independent decision here in the states. We took as courteous a leave as we could and left back through the plant, decorated with dozens and dozens of banners with slogans in English and the Asian language of the parent. Every employee, male and female, from plant manager on down to the guy sweeping the floor wore identical clothing - khaki slacks and powder blue polo shirt, with absolutely no talking anywhere in a plant with hundreds of assemblers sitting at long benches. For the rest of the week, all anyone had to do in our company to get uproarious laughter in return was merely sing or hum a couple bars of the Twilight Zone theme.

It was a completely bizarre experience.

The point:
The folks who created and enforced the slogans on the American subsidiary wanted and got absolute, unquestioning obedience from all the American workers. What they killed was any spark of creativity or innovation. They had turned an entire workforce into automatons who did exactly as they were told. Everyone was unflaggingly polite to us, but the entire morning was like swimming in Jello. Our own chief machinist, who was along for the trip, said afterward (I think he was serious), "If we go there again, I could make us hoods from aluminum or copper to deflect the radio waves that control their brains." That day, we didn't know whether to laugh or cry.

In hindsight, I'm pretty sure Deming would have labeled the atmosphere "FEAR!"

Mike,

I knew you would respond as you did! Fair enough. We can sound like a bunch of whiners. Often times when we are engaged in dialogue on a given topic where we all seem to congregate, I think about how I might respond where the message doesn’t sound so bleak, so dark, so yucky! Its not easy formulating a response given the theory and experiences I have. Here again, within my statement, I find myself on uncomfortable ground, dancing around the term of being ‘enlightened’, a label given to many Demingites. I don’t really know what else to call it, but for me, having gone through my personal Transformation, I guess I will end up viewing some accomplishments, ideas, what-have-you as being incomplete or perhaps wrong. I do appreciate your challenges, though, to my (our) ideas as well as the challenge itself of communicating with you in a positive light. It’s reality and I accept that and trust me: you’re not the only one challenging me.

To us all:

I think our friend from Mexico is presenting us with a topic that hasn’t received much attention (I say this haven’t been here much in the last two years): the human spirit. When I think of this and Constancy of Purpose, I think about this in terms of a state of mind. Does the business culture endorse a culture of system optimization or does it endorse a culture of fear. Fear is a mighty good tool, in the short term anyway, of getting compliance with ideas or initiatives. It also doesn’t require much thought or effort to dispense with it, thus making it a seductive means to an end. But in theory: is this a good way to do things, doing things to people to get results? I think that we all would agree that it looks as awful as it is in practice. Its plain ugly and sometimes, inhumane. But sometimes it isn’t as obvious to folks that fear is the tactic. As Alfie Kohn points out, punishments and rewards are opposite sides of the same coin. Not getting a reward after working hard and meeting most/all the requirements might even be worse than getting a punishment. The example Wes gave: was it obvious to the shouters?

What does the business do to create an AIM of Constancy of Purpose? While there may not be 100% guarantees in life, how far does a business go to easing your mind of worries like downsizing, employment based on performance against arbitrary targets? While a company can’t remove all the risks like these, do they have an AIM and a Plan to reduce these risks to acceptably low levels and eliminating those that can?

From OOTC, second and third paragraphs on page ix: “…Failure of management to plan for the future and to foresee problems has brought about waste of manpower, of materials, and of machine-time, all of which raise the manufacturer’s cost and price that the purchaser must pay. The consumer is not always willing to subsidize this waste. The inevitable result is loss of market. Loss of market begets unemployment. Performance of management should be measured by potential to stay in business, to protect investments, to ensure future dividends and jobs through improvement of products and services for the future, not the quarterly dividend.

It is no longer socially acceptable to dump employees on to the heap of the unemployed. Loss of market, and resulting unemployment, are not foreordained. They are not inevitable. They are man-made.”

For me, the crisis we are in is summed up in paragraph three. What is man creating? While we have the market, things will always look pretty rosy. Once things get tough, and I mean tougher than the early 80s and 2000s, I think that we will find out quickly that much of the good gets wiped away in a hurry. Pessimistic? Perhaps. But based on theory developed by many including Dr. Deming coupled with my own observations and experiences, my view to me is an eventual reality I wish we could avoid.
What I hope to accomplish is that I can do my small part in helping us transition from the financial paradigm to the quality paradigm of management. There I think the future will find another comfortable spot for a couple hundred years until the next paradigm comes along. I just can't stand by and do nothing.

Regards,

Kevin

So, is this what politicians and news people call "Spin"?
No one has done anything wrong because wrong is not defined as an acceptable characteristic because of the agenda being pursued.
By Jove! I think you've got it, Ralph!

The folks in power and control have one overriding goal:
"To stay in power and control!"

Macchiavelli only voiced what people in power have long known:

A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise.
Ambition is so powerful a passion in the human breast, that however high we reach we are never satisfied.
And if, to be sure, sometimes you need to conceal a fact with words, do it in such a way that it does not become known, or, if it does become known, that you have a ready and quick defense.
For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.
Men in general judge more from appearances than from reality. All men have eyes; but few have the gift of penetration.
It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.

Remember the SoPK thread Kevin? I do!
Have a peek at this link, it may facilitate additional food for thought? It's a Cove oldie.
http://elsmar.com/Forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1182
Wallace :rolleyes:

Mike,

I knew you would respond as you did!
. . .
I do appreciate your challenges, though, to my (our) ideas as well as the challenge itself of communicating with you in a positive light. It’s reality and I accept that and trust me: you’re not the only one challenging me.

I suspect Mike relishes the ROLE of gadfly more than he has legitimate gripes against Deming or Deming's acolytes.

To us all:

I think our friend from Mexico is presenting us with a topic that hasn’t received much attention (I say this haven’t been here much in the last two years): the human spirit. When I think of this and Constancy of Purpose, I think about this in terms of a state of mind. Does the business culture endorse a culture of system optimization or does it endorse a culture of fear. Fear is a mighty good tool, in the short term anyway, of getting compliance with ideas or initiatives. It also doesn’t require much thought or effort to dispense with it, thus making it a seductive means to an end. But in theory: is this a good way to do things, doing things to people to get results? I think that we all would agree that it looks as awful as it is in practice. Its plain ugly and sometimes, inhumane. But sometimes it isn’t as obvious to folks that fear is the tactic.

It's my opinion that most bullies use FEAR because they, themselves are fearful. They reason (consciously or unconsciously): "If I perform because I'm afraid, these other people will perform because they fear me." Each time the victims knuckle under to the bully, the bully takes that as positive reinforcement that his tactic of FEAR is the correct one to use. The cycle can be vicious.

What I hope to accomplish is that I can do my small part in helping us transition from the financial paradigm to the quality paradigm of management. There I think the future will find another comfortable spot for a couple hundred years until the next paradigm comes along. I just can't stand by and do nothing.

Regards,

Kevin

Even the financial paradigm ultimately recognizes the necessity of "quality" when the time table is stretched far enough.

It's nice to see you participating again, Kevin. I think even Mike, in his own way, is happy to see you back.

I suspect Mike relishes the ROLE of gadfly more than he has legitimate gripes against Deming or Deming's acolytes.

It's my opinion that most bullies use FEAR because they, themselves are fearful.

It's nice to see you participating again, Kevin. I think even Mike, in his own way, is happy to see you back.

Geez. I relish the role of gadfly? Surely a word guy like you knows that means I'm enjoying playing a "A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance" in your eyes. Well, thanks for being honest at least. Is anyone who criticizes or questions something you believe in a gadfly -- or at least playing that role with relish? Sounds like a fear to me.

No, I'm not playing a role just to create some spark or excitement in the thread. The points I've made are real, meaning they are my honest thoughts and concerns, and you would probably find similar points made years ago in my posts.

I know from some IM's I have received that others here in the Cove, who are otherwise respected long-time posters, agree with some of the Deming criticisms and questions I have raised, and have others of their own, but they quit mentioning their own thoughts (here and elsewhere) because they felt they were being ridiculed by rabid Demingites and it wasn't worth it to them. Was fear created by the Demingites :eek: ? Well, maybe not fear, but aren't the results the same -- people unwilling to risk ridicule so they stay silent?

Sometimes a mirror tells us what we may not want to know. All of us need to peer into one now and again.

Maybe I'm the dummy and everything Deming wrote and said is right up there with the holy scriptures. Heck, I've been wrong often enough in life that I realize that might just be the case. But I say what I believe, and if I'm being facetious or playing I'll add a rolleyes or something -- it'll be obvious.

The funny thing is I agree with much (probably most) of Deming's stuff, yet that for some reason is apparently not good enough to satisfy some true believers who want 100%! How many favorite politicians do you agree with 100%? Your spouse? Your pastor/religious leader? Your mentor? Your father/mother? Yourself???? (Don't you ever debate yourself? I do.) So what makes Deming unquestionable?

You're right about one thing, though -- I'm always glad to see Kevin posting. "In my own way" of course. :tg: I respect him and have learned from him, and I suspect I will continue to do so.

Geez. I relish the role of gadfly? Surely a word guy like you knows that means I'm enjoying playing a "A persistent irritating critic; a nuisance" in your eyes. Well, thanks for being honest at least. Is anyone who criticizes or questions something you believe in a gadfly -- or at least playing that role with relish? Sounds like a fear to me.

No, I'm not playing a role just to create some spark or excitement in the thread. The points I've made are real, meaning they are my honest thoughts and concerns, and you would probably find similar points made years ago in my posts.

I know from some IM's I have received that others here in the Cove, who are otherwise respected long-time posters, agree with some of the Deming criticisms and questions I have raised, and have others of their own, but they quit mentioning their own thoughts (here and elsewhere) because they felt they were being ridiculed by rabid Demingites and it wasn't worth it to them. Was fear created by the Demingites :eek: ? Well, maybe not fear, but aren't the results the same -- people unwilling to risk ridicule so they stay silent?

Sometimes a mirror tells us what we may not want to know. All of us need to peer into one now and again.

Maybe I'm the dummy and everything Deming wrote and said is right up there with the holy scriptures. Heck, I've been wrong often enough in life that I realize that might just be the case. But I say what I believe, and if I'm being facetious or playing I'll add a rolleyes or something -- it'll be obvious.

The funny thing is I agree with much (probably most) of Deming's stuff, yet that for some reason is apparently not good enough to satisfy some true believers who want 100%! How many favorite politicians do you agree with 100%? Your spouse? Your pastor/religious leader? Your mentor? Your father/mother? Yourself???? (Don't you ever debate yourself? I do.) So what makes Deming unquestionable?

You're right about one thing, though -- I'm always glad to see Kevin posting. "In my own way" of course. :tg: I respect him and have learned from him, and I suspect I will continue to do so.
My understanding of "gadfly":
gadfly (social)
"Gadfly" is a term for people who upset the status quo by posing upsetting or novel questions, or attempts to stimulate innovation by proving an irritant.

The term "gadfly" was coined by Plato to describe Socrates' relationship of uncomfortable goad to the Athenian politician scene, which he compared to a slow and dimwitted horse. The term has been used to describe many politicians and social commentators.

During his defence when on trial for his life, Plato wrote that Socrates pointed out that dissent, like the tiny (relative to the size of a horse) gadfly, was easy to swat, but the cost to society of silencing individuals who were irritating could be very high. "If you kill a man like me, you will injure yourselves more than you will injure me" because his role was that of a gadfly, "to sting people and whip them into a fury, all in the service of truth."

There are times when we Demingites can seem like "a slow and dimwitted horse!"

Mike S,
I for one, enjoy and appreciate your particular understanding of Cove issues.
Do you remember my initial postings in the SoPK thread some time ago? Oh I do, and it was a tough time. I recall both you and Energy (How you doing buddy?) got stuck right into to me and, I learned a lot from both you guys through the dialogue we had.
The Cove has recently experienced a high degree of word smithings that reminds me of how I perceive, a traditional English gentleman's club type of atmosphere to be.
The cove is and always shall be an open forum for discussion and dialogue for the betterment of all who contribute to threads relating to our professional backgrounds.
Deming? I am a demingite in the sense that, I accept and attempt to practice the core values of Demings' SoPK. I do however understand that the so called System of Profound Knowledge is not holy writ and should be understood as an excellent set of core values for folk who wish to step forward, learn, understand and develop their awareness of system.
Yes, it's great to see Kevin back in full swing and, I look forward to learning and sharing more from and with Kevin.
Wallace.

In response to Mike S (and all of you), I do want to at least try to say that in my postings I try to represent what Dr. Deming (and others) have said. I hopefully have provided context for what has worked and hasn't worked for me. Certainly I have no intent of trying to force anyone here to do anything they don't want to do, and I respect countering opinions. Hopefully, this has been a helpful exchange, and not some sort of Deming dictatorship :bigwave:

This is probably as good a place as any to post that I will be away from computers (both home and office) for the next week and a half. I'm off to the ASQ WCQI (and yes, paying a little visit to at least show my face to the ASQ board) and then a little vacation time on Vancouver Island. :sleep:

Thanks folks, for the kind recognition! I’m glad that we have great exchanges of our thoughts!! Along with the friendly chit-chat I’ve had with many of you, I’ve missed the discussions and learning here quite a bit!

To Mike’s point of being overwhelming:

One sure way to get people to resist your ideas and opinions is to force either onto them. I think that folks here do their best to present either without condemning those who disagree, but inevitably, as we our passion increases with a given item, we can become overbearing and righteous. No matter: someone here is apt to put them in check! A few have done it here to me, rightfully so I might add. The objective, however, is to point it out this out without any personal attacks. Thankfully, this has been the general rule and for those who don’t play nice, Marc has his way of dealing with these few.

I am concerned, however, that we may be stifling the dialogue for fear of reprisal. From what Mike has posted, we may have inadvertently created narrow avenues for folks with alternate theories to navigate. I think that we Demingites (and others) need to keep this in mind. After all, Dr. Deming said that profound knowledge comes from outside of the system. I encourage everyone to participate: it improves the learning. When I got started here, I was concerned that I was beginning to believe my own b.s., sometimes unsure if I really had command of a topic or concept. The best thing I did was to take the risk of being wrong by getting involved here in many discussions. I know the feeling of intimidation: there are many good minds here that can upset the applecart. Thankfully, almost everyone was gracious enough to correct my thinking (Don Winton was a master at that) without being personally critical. I hope that we achieve the same to a high degree with our newer members (and old).

To the Crisis:

I posted an excerpt from OOTC. I must admit that when I read the Preface today, I’m still impressed by the language Dr. Deming selected. It still excites me! What interests me with the paragraphs I posted is that he attempts to dispel with the false assumption that business loss cannot be avoided. Perhaps this is not a fast rule, but I think that a majority of people believe that the business is victim to forces beyond our control. I agree with Dr. Deming: we have more control than we probably realize. It could also be that leadership and management are aware that they have more control as to the destiny of an organization, but use the ignorance of people to offset their own follies. It’s probably a mixture of both.

I do recall a meeting where the President, with heavy heart, told the company that it was very unfortunate that they were forced to layoff employees. He told a story how these sacrifices had to be made to sustain the business. What he failed to tell folks was that the business had its best sales year ever. Margins, on the other hand, were flat and in order to improve the ROI per employee, the denominator (people) had to shrink in order to produce the budgeted ratio. Bonus money for managers was reduced and then totally eliminated for most engineers to make the numbers. Still, leadership earned a corporate bonus of $20,000 each for that quarter, an ‘entitlement’ that was contract guaranteed. This plays out the world over, but bearing witness to this rolls your stomach worse than reading it in the paper or hearing it on the news. Needless to say, the human spirit of those let go (for no good reason) was shattered and those that remained, shaken. Is this Constancy of Purpose? Who do the leaders look out for? Was compensation at all levels fair (perhaps not enough information here to make that call)? Was any of this not 'preventable'?

Well, back to the group. Keep the thoughts coming, EVERYONE (including the silent so far).

Regards,

Kevin :bigwave:

After all, Dr. Deming said that profound knowledge comes from outside of the system.
And just to prove that Deming wasn't always thinking clearly himself, the quoted statement leads nowhere; it's clearly tautological. If profound knowledge exists, it must have come from outside the system, because the system in it's pre-PK state couldn't have contained any. So now we have a system that includes profound knowledge, but it can't because PK only exists outside the system.

I'd have to run it by one of the disciples, but what I think he was trying to say is this: since a system can't understand itself, the people within the system need to understand how it works. While within the system, people have two things: some theory of how it works (which may be incomplete, good, bad, etc.) and experience. As we know, experience alone teaches nothing.

With these two ingredients, folks draw inferences on how the system works. Some are better than others but either way, Dr. Deming saw this as the Old Philosophy. In order for folks to learn the New Philosophy (his management philosophy, they need new knowledge, a new theory. He suggests that this theory comes from the outside, from folks who aren't engaged in the system (note: one could argue that the system is all inclusive, thus, it can't come from the outside). When folks are frozen by paradigm paralysis, they may never even know that another theory of operation exists. Examples of people in paralysis are everywhere. This thread exposes at least one outside of business management: our system of education.

I'd admit that the statement, when taken alone, could be viewed as tautological (also keep in mind that I may have misquoted). However, when taken in context, I think the outcome is much different. Of course, this is my take on it. Others may have a different slant.

Regards,

Kevin

Hi I am a Deming fan, my first thoughts about quality and the purpose of an organization were provoked by his writings but…there is always a but isn’t it?
I have found that what I really am is a fan of organizations, I love to see them grow and evolve and fail, for all of this is part of an organizations life.
So now I listen to every one interested in understanding what an organization is and how to get the best out of them. And there are many…
I do not think that Deming meant to know it all, I do not think that is what he meant when he talk about “Profound learning” if you read carefully his book (Out of the crisis) you will not find many of the “processes” that we know are part of the system, (Recruiting for one, Lidership for another) and we can go on and take all the “Quality principles from the Malcolm Baldrige, ISO 9000:2000 and we will find very little of it in Demig’s book, why?, I think that because the biggest problem, in his time, was…you guess it “Process control” so he concentrated on that one.
So now, how do you get “Profound knowledge” you make it…yes I think that his best point is “Management IS RESPONSYBLE” for the system.

So what I am saying is !who is managment! and have to agree wit Kevin, people makes systems, not systems make people.


Rings any bell?

Hi I am soory i meant "Profound Knowledge"....

I'd have to run it by one of the disciples
I think the use of "disciples" points to the root of the problem that Mike S. is uncomfortable with. A cult mindset has developed among Deming followers, and the evidence of it is the assumption that what Deming said must be true, and we're just misunderstanding it. Because this requires a somewhat lengthy response, and I have a few alligators nipping at my heels at the moment, later on this morning I'm going to start a new thread on this subject.

I think the use of "disciples" points to the root of the problem that Mike S. is uncomfortable with. A cult mindset has developed among Deming followers, and the evidence of it is the assumption that what Deming said must be true, and we're just misunderstanding it.

Not to mention y'alls use of words like "tautological". :tg:

Not to mention y'alls use of words like "tautological". :tg:
For those who are wondering, in logic a "tautology" is a statement that includes all logical possibilities and is therefore always true and doesn't provide any useful information. For example, the statement "All Republicans believe in tax cuts" is tautological because "Republicans" may be defined as "those who believe in tax cuts." If we were to change the statement to read, "All registered Republicans believe in tax cuts," we would have a basis for testing the truthfulness of the statement, but without an independent definition of "Republican," the statement is meaningless.
In the statement at hand--"All profound knowledge comes from outside the system"--all we know is that we can define profound knowledge by the fact that it comes from outside the system. If significant knowledge is present within the system, it can't be profound knowledge. The statement doesn't provide any useful information.

In reference to "disciples" - since I am the one who includes that in my picture I suppose I am the guilty party here.

I will say that I am a believer in Tom Peter's "Branding" ideas, thus it is simple and effective to state that I am a "Deming Disciple". Besides, I had thought about using "Statistical Steve", but I see someone beat me to it!

Please note that for the most part I am simply answering questions posted by others, and at least by saying I am a "Deming Disciple" you are fore-warned what context I am giving the response in. And of course, you can choose to use or ignore any information I volunteer to you.

Ever more interesting to hear the views being expressed about Mr Deming and the use of the English language.

Perhaps amidst all of this someone is actually answering the question posed in the title of the thread, "Is USA out of the crisis?" etc.

I think there are various degrees of crisis and, if I may quote the late Mr Ronald Reagan, former actor, former governor of California and former USA President, in comparison to the degree of crisis existing when WED wrote his book: "You ain't seen nothing yet!"