My special thanks to Rip Stauffer of the DEN for putting into words what I have been preaching (or nagging, depending upon your point of view).

-------Snip-------

Part of it is that we are products of an upbringing that looks at systems the wrong way. We see a system (say four units in larger units-platoons in a company, departments on a ship or whatever) like this:

A+B+C+D= the system.

So we think that if we have the best possible A, the best possible B, C and D, we will have the best possible system. It sounds good, but it is wrong. It ignores a fundamental truth about systems-that systems are not merely collections of components thrown together. Systems are defined more by their interactions (and, of course, the product of all the interactions-the aim) than by their components.

A Venn Diagram is a better picture of a system. With a Venn Diagram you get to see that it's not A+B+C+D, but A+B+C+D+(A intersect B)+(B intersect C)+(C intersect D)...+(A intersect B intersect C intersect D). So it's OK to optimize A, but you have to do it with an appreciation for how it will affect (A intersect B), (A intersect C), (A intersect D), (A intersect B intersect C), (A intersect C intersect D) and (A intersect B intersect C intersect D). If you do NOT understand those interactions and the effect your "optimization" efforts have on them, you have no business whatsoever attempting to optimize, as you stand in danger of actually becoming a disease that will harm, cripple or kill the larger system.

-------End Snip-------

Those familiar with the Venn diagram will immediately see the truth of this picture. From another of my posts:

There are those that would focus on customer wants so intently they would drive the organization to the brink of extinction. I have seen it before and I see it now. But these are the same folks that see a system as a sum of its parts, which is not true.

I guess what I am trying to say is that to concentrate on any singular portion of a system without regard to the rest of the components of that system is doomed to failure, with the degree of that failure proportional to the lack of concentration on the balance of the components.

I wrote the words above with the knowledge but without the simplicity of Rip’s model. But upon review, I realize that the Venn diagram is a very good example of system/circular thinking. No singular component of a true system is mutually exclusive, it has to interact with the other components. My statistical training knew they could not be mutually exclusive, but my lack of statistical training kept the Venn model at arms length. Now, I SEE it as well as conceptualize it. Thanks again, Rip.

Define the organization as A, the shareholders as B, the customer as C and the community as D and you will see my point. These are then broken down into smaller Venn diagrams, each optimized with regards to the others, resulting in a better overall system (whole). Similar to an affinity diagram, start at the innermost points and work your way back, or with a Venn, out.

So it's OK to optimize A, but you have to do it with an appreciation for how it will affect (A intersect B), (A intersect C), (A intersect D), (A intersect B intersect C), (A intersect C intersect D) and (A intersect B intersect C intersect D).

Again, a good example of this is the automobile. Try the Venn on your car, and you will see it. Try it on your organization. The truth is out there. Catch it if you can.

If you do NOT understand those interactions and the effect your "optimization" efforts have on them, you have no business whatsoever attempting to optimize, as you stand in danger of actually becoming a disease that will harm, cripple or kill the larger system.

I sincerely hope the above will help us all, including myself, better understand system/circular thinking and avoid the pitfalls of linear thinking.

Comments, anyone.

Just the ramblings of an old wizard warrior.

Regards,
Don

Don,

It didn't take me long to figure that you would post on this topic.

The Venn diagram is an excellent visual tool. Very cool stuff! Very powerful too! I too wish I thought of that. The sad thing, while studying for the CQE, you review the diagram and insersections/unions. Funny thing, if you aren't looking for it, you may never find it, even when it stares you in the face.

Last week I attended a Seminar on Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty. The Venn diagram was used to show a "secure" customer. In order to have a 'secure' customer (loyal), the example used the diagram comprising of three circles representing, very satisfied with, definately would recommend, and definately would continue to buy labels (these three key ingredients are needed to make a loyal customer). In order for you to achieve customer loyalty, the circles (arranged in a triangle) must overlap, creating the intersection. The larger the overlap, the higher percentage of customer loyalty (more secure customers). Without an intersection, no loyalty, only varying levels of satisfaction. I saw this and thought to myself, how profound a visual statement. The proverbial picture means a thousand words rang true.

To the diagram created by Rip: 'total' system optimization occurs when all subsystem lie one on top of the other. The perfect world, all systems intersect to form one circle. Clever on illustrating how making an adjustment in one subsystem could affect each other subsystem differently. Adjust A too much (or any other letter), totally eliminate any level of 'total' system optimization. I like this diagram very much. Giving me more ideas. I still may short out at some point today! I'll deal with that then.

Good post Don! Back to the group...

Don, This stands to reason:

So it's OK to optimize A, but you have to do it with an appreciation for how it will
affect (A intersect B), (A intersect C), (A intersect D), (A intersect B intersect C),
(A intersect C intersect D) and (A intersect B intersect C intersect D).
Substitute each members (lurkers, too) name in place of the variables and change intersect to interact, and the equation is the forum itself. Hence, to optimize the forum, one has to have the interaction of the individual members, eh?

We are all parts of the Whole.

------------------
Dusty Rhoads
(Chief Dummy)

It didn't take me long to figure that you would post on this topic.

Yea, I figured that after my last post in Defects and Systems, I should expound on this, but that one was getting a little long, hence the new topic. I wanted to try to visualize what the systems approach to my statements there were trying to make. And, I did not want anyone thinking I was customer bashing. You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it would make a good paper: “Quality and the Art of Venn.” As a matter of fact, I may begin working on that this evening. Whaddya think?

Dusty,

Funny you should mention that. I had thought of that after my original post. I like yours very well indeed.

With the Venn diagram in mind, I invite everyone to re-read The Structure elsewhere in this forum and see if the story makes more (or less)sense. For a good discussion of Venn, try http://www.theory.cs.uvic.ca/~cos/venn/ .

Just the ramblings of an old wizard warrior.

Regards,
Don

Don,

Write it. I'll read it. I am thinking of how to use this internally here to illustrate a few points. Could be interesting.....

Back to the group...

Kevin,

Try this and let me know what ya think:

*** Dead link removed ***

Regards,
Don

Don,

I like it! Straight forward and easily understood. I was thinking (scarey) about something more. I'll put it here for your consideration.

Using the three circle Venn diagram, I think of the three cicles moving along axis in the shape of a "Y". Each circle moves toward the intersection of the three axis. As suboptimization occurs, a circle (let say the red circle for the Organization) moves away from the intersection point (the target). This demonstrates the reduction of the Maximum Optimization Area. It also shows how suboptimization harms a System. Folk reading this should keep in mind that my "Y" axis suggests that there is an equal relationship amongst the three factors, which we know is also in the 'Perfect World'. Also, the three circles are of equal size, indicating each subsystem is of equal importance, which may not be the case. The size of the circle may also change in regard to its position. I know that I am adding a bunch of information here that muddles up the simplicity of you example, but I guess I am just excited to put out a few thoughts on this visual aid as I think it really gets the point across. Thoughts?

By the way, the page is coming along nicely! Anyway, back to the group...

Don,

Good stuff! You are right not to take this to the deepest depths. You may scare off some folks if you had. I just wanted to throw out some "extras" for the geeks like me who like to complicate things (for myself only). hehehe

Dusty (anyone really), are you still out there? I feel like I am monopolizing the air time here. Time to 'optimize' this thread! Back to the group...

I like it! Straight forward and easily understood.

Yea, for the purposes of the site, I try to stick to the KISS principle as much as possible. I would like to be useful to ‘seasoned’ veterans and those less seasoned. Thanks.

Your ‘Y’ example is about what I had in mind, but mine was more along the X, Y and Z concept behind some multiple regression analysis techniques. I also would want to try to explain, in layman’s terms, the probability theories behind the Venn diagram. For example the difference between mutually exclusive events and events that are not mutually exclusive. That would be somewhat along your thoughts of different circles. When events are mutually exclusive, they could be removed from the interaction reducing the size of the circle. I had wanted to add some statistical concepts to the theory, but that is taking some actual work (Ha! Ha!). But, when I get the theories straight, I will probably save that for more of a ‘presentation’ or ‘technical paper’ format.

Your varied size of circles is also correct. Some contributions are less of an affect than others. Your concept is correct (and very good, also) and the ‘Y’ example with the intersection as the target will work.

Try this. Start with the simple approach and develop it along your concepts. As your model develops, add the variations then (smaller circle, etc). You could even weigh the lines of the ‘Y’ indicating status, i.e. a five point weight for small, 9 point for medium and 13 point for high. For example, if customer wants and needs are greater than community, weigh the lines accordingly. Just a thought.

Regards,
Don

Monopolize all you like...

Thanks Marc. I just can't read enough. It gets my synapses firing!

Im afraid all this stuff about systems drives me a little crazy. Either i read too much or too little into it.

Peter Senge pushed me over the edge i am afraid. I read the complete book and never derived an ounce of use from it (i know, Im a Philistine).

My favourite party trick whenever somebody start to expound about Peter Senge is too ask 'Ahh very interesting, can you remember exactly what the fifth discipline is...' and it seems that i am not the only Philistine.

Anybody want to try and sell Peter Senge to me.

------------------
Andy B

I haven't read any of his stuff. What's his premise?

I think the most uncomforting thing about systems thinking is our inability to see the big picture. If you have a look at some of Escher's drawings, you will see perpetual motion, water flowing continually downhill in circles, and monks walking continually uphill in circles. We cannot concentrate on two parts of the picture at once, and I suggest the same applies to management systems. When thinking about quality we tend to follow a linear process without recognising the concurrent requirements of the other parts of the system (safety, environment, security) and the tradeoffs which must occur. It helps to be able to think laterally, and sometimes take a big step backwards.

Hello Allan,

For me, anyway, Systems Thinking is the Big Picture. Many subsystems make up the 'big picture' and viewing them independently is the problem under linear thinking. The systems are interrelated, dependent on each other. Correlations exist, and sometimes not directly, but influencing one has impact on another or others. This speaks to your point of having a concurrent approach to system optimization. Working to optimize the Big Picture requires careful understanding and manipulation of multiple subsystems. Knowledge of the System (Big Picture) is key and having the correct Theory. This is a difficult objective, and why, IMHO, many organizations abandon this theory. It takes too much work and results aren't instant. Many organizations focus on the Short Term successes.

Linear thinking leads to suboptimization of subsystems. It lacks the Big Picture understanding required for organizational success. As Deming is careful to point out, precise optimization is not necessary nor desireable. In short, perfection isn't necessary to achieve good organizational success, nor profitable.

Regards,

Kevin

Wait a second. You've forgotten that there's more than two dimensions in this equation.
The interrelationship between the organization, shareholders, customer and community is an on-going process, and time should be factored in. Future profits, promising future products for the customer, or future benefits for the community might be causes for short term loss of optimization.
That's one of the reasons behind communities giving tax breaks to large corporations.
Looking to the future,
AJP

Originally posted by Alan Cotterell:

I think the most uncomforting thing about systems thinking is our inability to see the big picture.I emphatically disagree. Quite the contrary - systems thinking allows one to see the 'big picture'.

Originally posted by Kevin Mader:

...Systems Thinking is the Big Picture.YES!

GM refused air bags for years citing cost while customers clamored for air bags. Yes - GM did eventually see that they were losing market share because people were increasingly shopping with safety in mind. My opinion is it should not have taken GM's customers crying for air bags for them to embrace them. GM is no company to talk about customer satisfaction - it talks bottom line.

I don't have a problem with a company trying to please customers - to do what a customer requests. What comes into play is real life.

But - how far do you go? If I sell to 10,000 companies and one little guy who commands a whopping 0.5% of my business wants me to change something, should I do it? Let's say they request QS-9000 registration. Pretty expensive if only that customer wants it.

Intel told the automotive folks to go smoke one because they had no intention of doing the QS-9000 dance. Motorola said OK - and they also used their QS-9000 project to take a serious, focused look at their quality (business) systems. Harley-Davidson did the ISO dance, after rejecting it for a number of years, only because Germany sent them a letter telling them they could no longer sell their motorcycles in Germany without being ISO9001 registered.

Comments???

I tried to open *** Dead Link Removed *** This is from, and copyright of, the folks that ran (?) that site.

http://Elsmar.com/pdf_files/ProcessLoop.gif

Flash version: http://Elsmar.com/pdf_files/ - look for ProcessLoop.swf

Marc,

Forced compliance to me, is a mistake. Especially without quantifiable proof that such a standard generates a positive gain for either party. Too me, this theory is unproven and faulty.

Instant Pudding anyone?

Regards,

Kevin

Reread my earlier post and forgot one important detail - my comment was applied to Voluntary Standards (as noted in your post).

For Regulatory guidelines, I guess a certain level of mandated protocols may improve product safety and without a minimum requirement, organizations can run unchecked. However, I must admit that I have not read of any correlation studies that have been performed demonstrating that compliant organizations perform better or produce safer product.

Regards,

Kevin

Reread my earlier post and forgot one important detail - my comment was applied to Voluntary Standards (ISO).

For Regulatory guidelines, I guess a certain level of mandated protocols may improve product safety and without a minimum requirement, organizations can run unchecked. However, I must admit that I have not read of any correlation studies that have been performed demonstrating that compliant organizations perform better or produce safer product.

For Customer Driven requirements, well, some wishful thinking. Still no proof that by being registered, quality or profitability will be increased.

Regards,

Kevin

[This message has been edited by Kevin Mader (edited 16 May 2000).]

I look at it this way...

ISO9000 is a nice idea. left to their own methods, most companies do what is necesary. On the other side of the fence is stuff like safety and environmental (regulatory) aspects. Few companies can be trusted to set 'proper levels' such as, for example, CO2 emission levels. In the same vein, companies cannot always be trusted to, on their own, set 'reasonable' safety standards. This is where the government comes in and sets standards for them.

All I can think of is safety and environmental, off hand. None the less, neither of these in any way relate to ISO9000.

"Still no proof that by being registered, quality or profitability will be increased." True, true.

Originally posted by Kevin Mader:
Marc,

Forced compliance to me is a mistake. Especially without quantifiable proof that such a standard generates a positive gain for either party. Too me, this theory is unproven and faulty.Yes, yes, yes.

[This message has been edited by Marc Smith (edited 03 June 2000).]