Deming's SoPK (System of Profound Knowledge) Discussion [Elsmar Cove Index (Ar)]

Mike S.

29th January 2004, 03:43 PM

Wallace,

I'm hopeful that if folks find themselves at odd with a statement made by another contributor that they enter into a dialogue for discovery rather than the traditional discussions we generally enter.

Any other ground rules we should consider? They should be detailed within the first few posts so folks know where to find them.

Kevin

Kevin and Other "Demingites",

I applaud your (and other's) efforts at helping to clairify the SoPK -- IMO that is needed.

But it seems to me you are insinuating that in other threads posts are not for a “dialogue for discovery” but for something else. Please explain. And explain to me why this thread needs its own “special” rules for posting. IMHO it seems to me you folks are starting off this thread right from the beginning by lightly insulting other threads and suggesting that this thread is somehow “above” others, therefore requiring “special” rules. Is that really the best way to start? I don't mean to "cast stones or heap ridicule" just for kicks, but rightly or wrongly I just get a sense -- a gut feeling -- about how this is starting and it ain't a good one. Sometimes it’s not the steak, it’s the sizzle.

So am I way off base -- anyone?

WALLACE

29th January 2004, 04:02 PM

Mike,
I haven't read too much into threads at the Cove in a negative manner, I've had my moments though.
Yeah some folk at the Cove tend to use sarcasm, open insults and ridicule to get their points across but, that's all part of the human condition and, I fully accept the human condition.
There's no special rules for posting at the Cove yet, I firmly believe, it's possible to use sarcasm, open insults and ridicule in a positive manner when posting at the Cove. Each and every post at the cove has potential as a "Dialogue for discovery”.
Consideration should, for the sake of respect for others at the Cove, be made when posting at the Cove. We all have degrees of sensitivity regarding learning, knowledge sharing and respectful confrontation.
The ground rules are a good way of agreeing to a process that, when adopted by consensus, facilitates a productive flow to thread discussions, it's a guideline of common sense.
Peace out Mike.
Wallace.

ralphsulser

29th January 2004, 04:33 PM

WALLACE

29th January 2004, 04:57 PM

Attached for your viewing are the four parts of the SoPK visual separated for individual viewing.
Wallace.

Raptorwild

29th January 2004, 06:52 PM

I think it means leave your ego's at the door, and try to absorb, and participate, rather than control. Learning how to improve what we are doing is always a positive experience. Cynics tend to obstruct the benefits of learning. Questions will always arise for puposes of understanding, and clarification. This allows all to learn something. So, I guess it's like a TV program, if you don't like what's on you have a choice not to participate. This same philosphy applies to other threads as well. Respect, dignity and value of others opinions along with suggestions for improvement.

I agree! I feel pretty stupid, since I just asked for help on this subject in another thread before discovering this one! I am like a sponge, soaking up all your knowledge no matter how you spit it out! :biglaugh:

Thanks to everyones input here at the cove!
Paula

energy

29th January 2004, 10:58 PM

Kevin and Other "Demingites",
But it seems to me you are insinuating that in other threads posts are not for a “dialogue for discovery” but for something else. Please explain. And explain to me why this thread needs its own “special” rules for posting. IMHO it seems to me you folks are starting off this thread right from the beginning by lightly insulting other threads and suggesting that this thread is somehow “above” others, therefore requiring “special” rules. Is that really the best way to start? I don't mean to "cast stones or heap ridicule" just for kicks, but rightly or wrongly I just get a sense -- a gut feeling -- about how this is starting and it ain't a good one. Sometimes it’s not the steak, it’s the sizzle.
So am I way off base -- anyone?
Marc..Delete this thread if you feel it falls outside the guidelines. Sometimes emotions can fool us. Anywho, here goes:
Mike, You were never a person to mince words and I have to love it. I promised not to post in this thread, but I lied and it’s not exclusive, yet. And, it will never be. I won’t post again unless……Attached is a link to a thread which Marc started and turned rather quickly to Something of Profound Knowledge. Please notice how long it remained dormant.
http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=1339
Well, it’s another day with a new crop of “intellectuals”. Everything I ever wanted to say on this topic is in there and doesn’t need repeating. Especially because of the new proposed rules. By the way….who decides if the rules are broken and what are you going to do about it? The “Super Moderator” engaged in the proliferation of this thread has a conflict of interest, so that’s out.
The best post in the thread is, IMO, the challenge from Jim Wade…read it. Kevin’s eloquent and candid response was most admirable. Kevin, you are true to form and only after reading this thread again, I realized how bad you kicked behind. Not mine though. :vfunny: It’s Okay. Us dullards and yawners feel no mental anguish cuz we jus dun git it. Are we still on that prophetic timeline?

More to the point of my post. If this attempt to control the content of this thread appears to be “exclusive” because of posts that don’t measure up by whatever standards you cook up, you can count on more, not so polished posts. The following excerpts are velvet coated barbs designed to silence “unsophisticated dissent”. I read all new posts and only hope that some day I will say"AHA!". I doubt it. In the meantime, here’s what I’m referring to. "Duh...Who dat?" "Huh? Me?"

It will be interesting to see if we help anyone reach an
"AHA!"
moment.

Even the folk who try to cast stones and heap ridicule (especially the 'yawners') will be helpful because we can gain a sense of the resistance to systems thinking.

Who are you talking to Wes?

Mike,
Yeah some folk at the Cove tend to use sarcasm, open insults and ridicule to get their points across but, that's all part of the human condition and, I fully accept the human condition.
There's no special rules for posting at the Cove yet, I firmly believe
Consideration should, for the sake of respect for others at the Cove, be made when posting at the Cove. We all have degrees of sensitivity regarding learning, knowledge sharing and respectful confrontation.
The ground rules are a good way of agreeing to a process that, when adopted by consensus, facilitates a productive flow to thread discussions, it's a guideline of common sense.
Peace out Mike.
Wallace.
I beg your pardon. There are rules and they weren't cooked up to be exclusive. Maybe you just haven’t read them, yet.

I think it means leave your ego's at the door, and try to absorb, and participate, rather than control. Learning how to improve what we are doing is always a positive experience. .
Are you really doing it? Or just dreaming about it?

Cynics tend to obstruct the benefits of learning. Questions will always arise for purposes of understanding, and clarification. This allows all to learn something. So, I guess it's like a TV program, if you don't like what's on you have a choice not to participate. This same philosophy applies to other threads as well. Respect, dignity and value of others opinions along with suggestions for improvement.
Respect, dignity, and values. Like only some of you know what these are. If egos were left at the door, this thread wouldn’t even exist. It’s all about egos, with a dash of arrogance and a pinch of pomposity. You see it as education. I see it as elitist posturing before a crowd of impressionable young minds that desire to look just like that someday, when they grow up.Your view of control is silencing those that don’t think the same way and say so, without the acceptable Club Dressing on their vocabulary. Like go somewhere else. Well, I’m paying for cable and I scan the ban. If I don’t, how am I going to get angry? How am I going to raise my expectations? How am I going to learn to toss cow pies when I’m in the company of pie tossers?
Enjoy the attached thread with the realization that today's buzz may be yesterday's trash. :thanx:

Wes Bucey

30th January 2004, 01:09 AM

I'd like to thank Energy for the reference to an old thread. I read it all and was fascinated. I recommend it to everyone for some interesting background.

I guess I'm better at velvet-coating barbs than I suspected. I never saw the barb. I was and am sincere. I mean it when I say, "Take what I say at face value." I just don't play that game of "gotcha."

"Elitist posturing." "crowd of impressionable young minds."
I guess there are times I'd willingly accept the cognomen of Elitist Posturer if I could get even one or two, let alone "a crowd of," impressionable young minds to sit and listen to my "posturings."

There are myriad ideas and theories about Dr. Deming's "glue" which held the components of SoPK together. I saw him in person once (couldn't stay for the whole 4 days) and the closest I could compare the aura which surrounded him was indeed that of a Zen Master posing koans to an eager group of acolytes.

The entire effect was that of an incredibly confident person who was convinced the "truths" he spoke were completely self-evident; that he was almost embarrassed he had to explain them at all. He didn't seem to have pride of discovery or ownership of his concepts. His lack of "I" seemed to imply that "anyone" could come to the same conclusions he had. In fact, that anyone WOULD come to the same conclusions he had, whether he was around to kickstart the process or not.

Do some folks (particularly those who work for the Deming Institute) try to make a Religion out of Deming? Hey. Yeah. They try to make a living. Energy constantly reminds us it's a cold world out there and he certainly doesn't begrudge anyone compromising a few principles to keep a roof over his head and food on the table.

Even I can't read the following out loud with a straight face. If this were someone's only exposure to Deming, I can easily understand the ridicule:
The Values of the Deming Institute:

Participation in The W. Edwards Deming Institute means that we share Dr. Deming's vision of a better world. We participate because we strive, with joy, to carry on the work that he began. We seek to conduct ourselves in a manner consistent with his high moral and ethical standards, professional and personal integrity, and commitment to lifelong learning. We do this solely from dedication to the philosophy and values of Dr. Deming and belief that together, with humility, we can and will make a difference in the quality of life for everyone.
Kevin used a word, "harmony," which IS pretty descriptive of the fabric which holds the components of SoPK together. "Holistic" is another buzzword which gives an inkling of the state of mind necessary to embrace and immerse one's self in a grand overview of the way things need to work together to produce a desired outcome.

"Fear" and "paranoia" and, especially, "bullying," just don't have any place in the way I think of SoPK.

energy

30th January 2004, 08:37 AM

I guess I'm better at velvet-coating barbs than I suspected. I never saw the barb. I was and am sincere. I mean it when I say, "Take what I say at face value." I just don't play that game of "gotcha."

"Fear" and "paranoia" and, especially, "bullying," just don't have any place in the way I think of SoPK.[/font][/color]

I'm not sure I agree with the non-velvet-coated use "bullying", but it's how you see it. I would call it Poo Pooing. ;) Maybe it's just the sound of it that bothers some. "Profound Knowledge." The things we call things. Anyway, thank you for the measured response. I half expected to find my post gone when I came in today. Enjoy the discussion. :thanx: :agree:

Mike S.

30th January 2004, 12:21 PM

I actually think this thread can do some good and am willing to learn more about Deming's ideas and participate in it. I just didn't like what I personally saw as some arrogance in the beginning. I don't think it is/was necessary or conducive to what the alleged goal of the thread is/was. Deming is not God, not perfect, not close to perfect, and he didn't have all the right answers, but that's okay as neither do any of the other folks in a multitude of disciplines (Q and others) that I look-up to -- or anyone here at the Cove.

The person I hold the greatest respect for as an expert in his field is truly no-exaggerating one of the world's best in his field as recognized by myself and especially his peers. A true genius at what he does, with very broad knowledge and tons of experience. Tons of awards, patents, inventions, and lots of respect in his field. But I recognize, as does he, that he was/is still often wrong. It's okay. He doesn't stifle those who disagree -- if he has proof he shows it, if not he debates respectfully, if proven wrong he humbly admits it. Class. Humility. Respect. Ego well in check -- sometimes to a fault (doesn't like to be called "Doctor" and hates when he has to do a bio for a publication as it seems too much like bragging). I know it when I see it and when I see the opposite.

I admit I tried to read "Out of the Crisis" years ago and couldn't get through it all. And I love to read. I admit seeing lots I agreed with and some I didn't.

Personally, it would help me and maybe others, if we did something like picking out one or two points at a time from the Deming philosophy and the "experts" here try to explain them from Deming's perspective in a way the average Joe can understand it. Then the debate should follow naturally.

JMO as always.

Wes Bucey

30th January 2004, 01:20 PM

I actually think this thread can do some good and am willing to learn more about Deming's ideas and participate in it. I just didn't like what I personally saw as some arrogance in the beginning.
. . .

I admit I tried to read "Out of the Crisis" years ago and couldn't get through it all. And I love to read. I admit seeing lots I agreed with and some I didn't.

Personally, it would help me and maybe others, if we did something like picking out one or two points at a time from the Deming philosophy and the "experts" here try to explain them from Deming's perspective in a way the average Joe can understand it. Then the debate should follow naturally.

JMO as always.It occurs to me the word "Profound" has baggage the old man never intended when he proposed the phrase "System of Profound Knowledge."

Too often, we are conditioned to be leery of folks who use arcane or "made up" words in explaining or describing their product, service, or philosophy because they intentionally want to attach an aura of mystery and privilege to what they do.

Folks made a similar "be leery" argument for centuries about church services held in a language different from that spoken by the general population.

Over-educated folks [like me] tend to look past the "gobblespeak" [my own made up word - "sounds like turkey gobbling and means about as much"] and dissect the thing, service, or philosophy, using their own yardsticks, not the target's. When we don't understand a word, a phrase, or even the logic, we are not afraid to admit it, ask for "enlightenment" and move on.

Unless we see a real danger to others [or society as a whole], we rarely embark on "seek and destroy" missions to hold a specious philosophy up to ridicule. We would probably just ignore anything we couldn't understand after due diligence in trying to understand it.

So, all the preceding gobblespeak should be taken into account when I say:
"Profound just means something like in-depth or combined overview and detail. Don't let the word prevent you from the concept."

WALLACE

30th January 2004, 02:03 PM

As my post title says:
Shared, Explained and Developed.
This thread is sincerely intended for those at the Cove (Regardless of their status) to be involved with dialog relating to knowledge that pertains to "A" System of Profound Knowledge.
On the way (I hope) we'll get all of the misunderstandings and possible misinterpretations out of the way.
It's interesting and entertaining to see, there are some folk who show a trend throughout their Cove involvement as being, vociferous (In the apparent extreme) to the point of being misinterpreted. I personally don't take their positioning too seriously at all yet, as I have said in previous posts, I accept the human condition.
There are many at the Cove who would and shall obviously bring much knowledge to this thread and, so I am hopeful that this thread shall take a look at Demings interpretation and allow A SoPK to emerge that may be a generic interpretation helpful to those who choose to use it.
Oh, I am aware of the forum rules, the visual that is posted in this thread as ground rules, is a mere guideline and reminder for those who need it and, we all need reminding now and then.
Wallace.

Mike S.

30th January 2004, 02:33 PM

As my post title says:
Shared, Explained and Developed.
On the way (I hope) we'll get all of the misunderstandings and possible misinterpretations out of the way.
I am hopeful that this thread shall take a look at Demings interpretation and allow A SoPK to emerge that may be a generic interpretation helpful to those who choose to use it.
Wallace.

So when does this begin?

Wes Bucey

30th January 2004, 02:41 PM

So when does this begin?No comments about the meaning of "profound"?;)

I admit I tried to read "Out of the Crisis" years ago and couldn't get through it all. And I love to read. I admit seeing lots I agreed with and some I didn't.
OK, Mike. We'll take what you say at face value. Is there anything in particular which left you more eager to endure bamboo splinters under your fingernails rather than finish Out of the Crisis?

Jimmy Olson

30th January 2004, 02:43 PM

WALLACE

30th January 2004, 03:05 PM

So when does this begin?

Hey Mike,
Have a look at posts #'s 1 & 9, the attachments are the start.
View them and make your comments.
Cheers
Wallace.

Mike S.

30th January 2004, 03:09 PM

No comments about the meaning of "profound"?;)

OK, Mike. We'll take what you say at face value. Is there anything in particular which left you more eager to endure bamboo splinters under your fingernails rather than finish Out of the Crisis?

Wes, are you trying to bait me? What does the "face value" remark mean? Are you questioning my word? C'mon, shoot straight; say what you mean. No velvet coating required.

But I will answer the question anyway.

It has been probably 6 years since I read part of OOTC. I don't remember all of the details, I just remember it seemed to me difficult to get through and I did not finish it. I read a great deal, but there are some books I just can't seem to get through. Subject is not the issue. I also have had great difficulty reading some of Teddy Roosevelt's books despite enjoying the subject matter. Maybe everyone else reads Deming cover-to-cover and loves it, I dunno. But I do know that I am unquestionably the worlds foremost authority on my opinion, and IMO it was not an enjoyable or easy read.

Mike S.

30th January 2004, 03:12 PM

Hey Mike,
Have a look at posts #'s 1 & 9, the attachments are the start.
View them and make your comments.
Cheers
Wallace.
Network problems make attachments (and almost anything on the 'net) real difficult (slooooow) for me now. And some folks can't download. Anything tthere you can post instead of require downloads on? If not, I'll have to do it another time. Gotta run now anyway...

Wes Bucey

30th January 2004, 03:22 PM

How can this be interpreted as anything but provoking???The line about "profound" had a winking smiley.
The quote about not finishing OOTC was Mike's.
I said we would take him at face value. I admit the "bamboo splinters" was meant for comic effect, but from experience, I can tell you that, for many folks, it is pretty accurate.

I was a guest instructor at someone else's ISO9k2k training session when one of the trainees threw down his workbook and shouted, "Why do we have to learn all this [stuff]? We know how to make good products already!"

I replied, "When a prospective customer sees a sample of your work, he says, 'This is good work. How do I know it wasn't just a fluke? How do I know you'll do the same quality work for me?' If you have this system which says you PLAN what you'll do, then DO it, then CHECK it, and you KEEP RECORDS of all that activity, then the prospect says, 'OK. I'll try it.' Is that a good enough reason?"

The guy had an AHA moment and said, "You mean it makes it easier to get new sales? Why didn't the bosses just say so in the beginning?"

Problem with the whole scenario is: I don't know if the bosses had a corresponding AHA moment about setting the groundwork for training.

WALLACE

30th January 2004, 03:30 PM

Anything tthere you can post instead of require downloads on? If not, I'll have to do it another time.

Mike,
The program I used to compile the SoPK visual allows me to export to Word and PowerPoint, and Image files.
If you need to view the files at another source, I would be pleased to send them to you.
I'll attempt to post the SoPK information in a Word format and paste it into the forum dialog box.
Send me a PM at mw.tait@sympatico and we'll go from there.
Wallace.

WALLACE

30th January 2004, 03:43 PM

Mike,
This is how the visual map is exported to Word. I have added numbering for clarity and possible comment referencing.
I haven't bothered at this time to alter the paragraph spacings.
Is this OK for your viewing.
Please take into consideration that, the Visual shall change and develop (Evolve) according to feedback.
Wallace.

A Visual interpretation of "A System of Profound Knowledge"

1. It is universally recognized and accepted that, a system of profound knowledge by nature continuously evolves, in relation to knowledge creation, development, usage and transfer
2. Variation
2.1 An understanding, interpretation and logical use of statistical data contained within process measurements that reveal common and special cause variation, using statistical analyses tools, for the purpose of process control and continuous improvement
2.2 Common cause variation
2.2.1 Events or actions that are revealed and known to exist as being a natural and common part of a measured process
2.2.2 It is recognized and accepted by fact that common cause variation is a natural part of any process
2.3 Special cause variation
2.3.1 Events or actions that are revealed and known to exist as being an unnatural and uncommon part of a measured process
2.3.2 It is recognized and accepted by fact that special cause variation is an unnatural part of any process
3. Systems thinking
3.1 Aim
3.1.1 The aim of a SoPK is to promote and direct vision
3.1.2 Vision motivates all components of a system.
3.1.3 System vision will mean the same to the individual as it does to the group.
3.1.4 Aim and vision correlate with core values and beliefs
3.2 An understanding that all the parts of a system of profound knowledge are related and interdependent
3.3 Adjusting and optimizing a specific part of the system, may cause the related and interdependent parts of the system to express lack of equilibrium in relation to the whole system
3.4 Adjusting and optimizing the system in a holistic manner is an approach that causes and allows natural and common evolutionary influences to act upon a SoPK
3.5 Systems thinking holds together the other interdependent and related parts of a SoPK
4. Theory of knowledge
4.1 Understanding knowledge
4.2 Recognizing knowledge as being an integral part of a SoPK
4.2.1 is progressive
4.2.2 is useful
4.2.3 Can become redundant
4.2.4 Must by nature improve within a SoPK
4.3 Knowledge creation
4.3.1 Thought processing
4.3.1.1 Tapping into thought processes
4.3.1.2 Arranging information drawn from and out of the thought tapping process
4.3.1.3 Presenting draft information that may form a knowledge base foundation
4.4 Knowledge development
4.4.1 Formation
4.4.2 Management
4.4.3 Logical arrangement and presentation
4.4.4 Elimination of redundancy
4.4.5 Improvement
4.5 Knowledge usage
4.5.1 Personal use
4.5.2 Educational facilitating
4.5.3 Professional development
4.5.4 Social accountability
4.5.5 Political agenda's
4.5.6 Systemic
4.5.7 Holistic / holistic approach
4.5.7.1 Personal
4.5.7.2 Organizational infusion
4.5.7.3 Corporate communications
4.5.7.4 Global recognition
4.6 Knowledge transfer (Communication)
4.6.1 Saved
4.6.1.1 Shared
4.6.2 Written
4.6.2.1 Distributed
4.6.3 Verbal
4.6.3.1 Transferred
4.6.4 Visual
4.6.4.1 Published
4.7 Knowledge improvement
4.7.1 Review
4.7.2 Revise
4.7.3 Renew
5. Psychology
5.1 The human condition
5.1.1 Capacity
5.1.2 Capabilities
5.1.3 Core values
5.1.4 Personal / group world view
5.1.4.1 A view of reality develops initially as a personal view or opinion, based upon current knowledge and understanding of information received, stored, understood, used and shared
5.2 L.A.B (language and behavior)
5.2.1 Tools
5.2.1.1 Analyses
5.2.1.2 Measurement
5.2.2 Techniques
5.2.2.1 Modeling
5.2.2.1.1 Previous experiences
5.2.2.1.2 Contextual examples
5.2.2.2 Theory
5.2.2.2.1 Past
5.2.2.2.2 Present
5.2.2.2.3 Possible / probable future
5.2.2.3 Experimentation
5.2.2.4 Contextual design
5.2.3 N.L.P (Neuro Linguistic Programming)
5.2.3.1 The language of influence
5.2.3.2 Spoken language
5.2.3.3 Body language
5.2.4 5 recognized levels of Motivation
5.2.4.1 Mission
5.2.4.1.1 What's my purpose?
5.2.4.1.1.1 Understanding
5.2.4.1.1.2 Aligning
5.2.4.1.2 Who else?
5.2.4.1.2.1 Group
5.2.4.1.2.2 Organizational
5.2.4.1.2.3 Corporate
5.2.4.1.2.4 Global
5.2.4.2 Identity
5.2.4.2.1 Who am I?
5.2.4.2.1.1 Personal attributes
5.2.4.2.1.2 Characteristics
5.2.4.2.1.3 Perceptions
5.2.4.2.1.4 Behavior
5.2.4.2.1.5 Commitment
5.2.4.2.1.6 Consistency
5.2.4.2.2 Who are we?
5.2.4.2.2.1 Group attributes
5.2.4.2.2.2 Characteristics
5.2.4.3 Values
5.2.4.3.1 Values define why we consistently do what we do
5.2.4.3.2 Values influence choices
5.2.4.3.3 Values can and do change
5.2.4.3.4 Values are contextual
5.2.4.3.5 Core value types
5.2.4.3.5.1 People / relating to
5.2.4.3.5.2 Places / being / belonging
5.2.4.3.5.3 Activities / doing things
5.2.4.3.5.4 Knowledge / learning / education
5.2.4.3.5.5 Things / getting / having
5.2.4.4 Beliefs
5.2.4.4.1 Define why we choose to do what we do?
5.2.4.4.1.1 Beliefs are formed over time
5.2.4.4.1.2 Beliefs can and do change
5.2.4.4.1.3 Beliefs are contextual
5.2.4.4.2 Empowering beliefs
5.2.4.4.2.1 Hopeful
5.2.4.4.2.1.1 It is possible
5.2.4.4.2.2 Belief
5.2.4.4.2.2.1 I / we can do it
5.2.4.4.2.3 Worth
5.2.4.4.2.3.1 I / we deserve it
5.2.4.4.2.4 Productive
5.2.4.4.2.4.1 I / we desire to be part of the process
5.2.4.4.2.5 Recognition
5.2.4.4.2.5.1 I / we are responsible for getting or doing it
5.2.4.4.3 Limiting beliefs
5.2.4.4.3.1 Hopeless
5.2.4.4.3.1.1 It's not possible
5.2.4.4.3.2 Helpless
5.2.4.4.3.2.1 I / we can't do it
5.2.4.4.3.3 Worthless
5.2.4.4.3.3.1 I / we don't deserve it
5.2.4.4.3.4 Useless
5.2.4.4.3.4.1 I / we don't want or desire it
5.2.4.4.3.5 Blameless
5.2.4.4.3.5.1 I'm / we're not responsible for getting or doing it
5.2.4.5 Capabilities
5.2.4.5.1 How we get things done
5.2.4.5.2 The tools that are discovered and made available for use, define capabilities
5.2.4.5.2.1 Personal
5.2.4.5.2.2 Group
5.2.4.5.2.3 Organizational
5.2.4.5.2.4 Corporate
5.2.4.5.2.5 Global
6. The PDSA / PDCA models are integral to the four interdependent parts of a SoPK

Atul Khandekar

30th January 2004, 04:34 PM

I actually think this thread can do some good and am willing to learn more about Deming's ideas and participate in it. ... Deming is not God, not perfect, not close to perfect, and he didn't have all the right answers, but that's okay as neither do any of the other folks in a multitude of disciplines (Q and others) that I look-up to -- or anyone here at the Cove.
....

I admit I tried to read "Out of the Crisis" years ago and couldn't get through it all. And I love to read. I admit seeing lots I agreed with and some I didn't.

Personally, it would help me and maybe others, if we did something like picking out one or two points at a time from the Deming philosophy and the "experts" here try to explain them from Deming's perspective in a way the average Joe can understand it. Then the debate should follow naturally.

JMO as always.

Exactly my thoughts, Mike! I wish I could copy them and sign my name below.

Though I have not studied or researched Deming, I have a basic idea of the 4 pillars of SoPK, the 14 points, the deadly sins etc. But, IMO, these are the 'Whats' and not the 'Hows'. SoPK seems to be a higher management philosophy and I would also like to learn how this can be translated into a practiceable methodology. I mean, there must be some steps to distill this from philosophy to science to technology to tools...whatever...(Does Six Sigma fit into this?) Can someone cite examples of some company or companies that are really practicing the Deming philosophy? If yes, how and what are the results? Can I hope to receive some wisdom that I can use in my own company?

Just some questions.. hopefully not very foolish!

Atul Khandekar

30th January 2004, 04:39 PM

The program I used to compile the SoPK visual allows me to export to Word and PowerPoint, and Image files.

What would be the size? The pic you posted is too large - pixels as well as bytes. And if this is going to evolve as you say - well , have a heart! I have a slooow dial up!

Mike S.

30th January 2004, 05:22 PM

Mike,
The program I used to compile the SoPK visual allows me to export to Word and PowerPoint, and Image files.
If you need to view the files at another source, I would be pleased to send them to you.
I'll attempt to post the SoPK information in a Word format and paste it into the forum dialog box.
Send me a PM at mw.tait@sympatico and we'll go from there.
Wallace.

All of my connections (home and work) right now are dial-up (~ 46K or slower) now, and on large downloads I often drop connections in-process. Smaller stuff like <100K is best for me -- but others probably laugh with their T-1, DSL, and cable access!

I appreciate your posting the visual interpretation in the post below, but it doesn't mean much to me. To me it looks like an outline for a course. Correct or off-base?

Where do we go from here?

Wes Bucey

30th January 2004, 05:50 PM

All of my connections (home and work) right now are dial-up (~ 46K or slower) now, and on large downloads I often drop connections in-process. Smaller stuff like <100K is best for me -- but others probably laugh with their T-1, DSL, and cable access!

I appreciate your posting the visual interpretation in the post below, but it doesn't mean much to me. To me it looks like an outline for a course. Correct or off-base?

Where do we go from here?There is a relatively simple way to shrink the jpeg files.
Here's a sample of a shrunken file.
If I've done the attachment correctly, it should be about half the size of Wallace's original: Wallace - email me for some ideas on this concern.

WALLACE

31st January 2004, 03:12 AM

All of my connections (home and work) right now are dial-up (~ 46K or slower) now, and on large downloads I often drop connections in-process. Smaller stuff like <100K is best for me -- but others probably laugh with their T-1, DSL, and cable access!

I appreciate your posting the visual interpretation in the post below, but it doesn't mean much to me. To me it looks like an outline for a course. Correct or off-base?

Where do we go from here?

Hey Mike,
My heart bleeds for you regarding dial-up. I changed to DSL a year ago and, I'm so glad I did. The one negetive thing about being high speed conected is that, hackers, viruses, trojans and the like tend to get into my system faster than I can deal with them.
Yeah, I agree the text outline of the visual does look awkward.
I'll discuss with Wes regarding, shrinking the images for better viewing.
Wallace.

WALLACE

31st January 2004, 02:34 PM

What would be the size? The pic you posted is too large - pixels as well as bytes. And if this is going to evolve as you say - well , have a heart! I have a slooow dial up!

Hi Atul,
I use WINZIP8.1 to zip the image files as the image files would be too large to post at the Cove due to file size limits.
I opened the files that I posted and I don't get any pixelization of the images at my end.
I'll look into posting them in another format, thanks for the feedback Atul.
Wallace.

WALLACE

31st January 2004, 07:32 PM

Attached are images that have been re-sized for better viewing (I hope).
Wallace.

WALLACE

31st January 2004, 07:33 PM

Attached psychology image.
Wallace.

Kevin Mader

31st January 2004, 09:11 PM

First, Energy, thanks for doing some research. It was a good thread and worth the revisit.

To the group:
Not to belabor the issue, but I thought that I owed Mike a response. The reason I posted the comment about dialogue was for this reason: I wanted to avoid creating an atmosphere of right and wrong so folks would freely post their thoughts without risk of personal ridicule. That’s all. To Energy’s point, it’s not a new rule, just a rule worth repeating.

With newbies (folks not too familiar with Dr. Deming’s theories), there’s plenty of risk that a statement that they make will be wrong. Case-in-point, you may not be the only one struggling with OOTC. Some folks might think that they have the right idea when they may not. Without our understanding on the chance of them being wrong (especially in front of us “experts”), they may not ask important questions. And the flipside is also true: the newbie might be right and the ‘experts’ all wrong. It's about avoiding judgment. To grow in knowledge, we have to keep sight of what’s important and reduce any pettiness that otherwise detracts from our learning. Others in this thread have stated it well, so I’ll leave it at that.

So, I will begin my thoughts with something Mike started: difficulty in reading OOTC. Mike, you are among a long list of folks who have had trouble. From what I’ve heard, read, and experienced, folks might want to begin their exploration of Dr. Deming’s theories by starting with The New Economics. It is a much easier read and discusses many of the same ideas. However, there is significantly more to OOTC than TNE in my opinion. While there is similarity between the two books, I think that they are complementary and not supplementary. I suggest that you read them both. Ultimately, as folks develop a deeper understanding of Dr. Deming’s teachings, the reading list grows. There is so much out there to read. Books, articles, papers, and forums dedicated in part or in whole to the understanding of Dr. Deming’s theories.

So where did the System of Profound Knowledge begin? Anyone?

Back to the group…

Kevin

WALLACE

1st February 2004, 02:02 AM

I can say by experience that a SoPK is unwittingly applied within the construction industry.
From Architectural and engineering planning to measurement, quantifying and distribution of all trades needed for construction, it's clear that a systematic format of management is evident.
You simply see direct evidence of systems thinking within the construction industry. Yeah, there has to be by the nature of the construction industry a management system yet, without systematic thinking of one kind or another the planning, measurement, quantifying and actual labour would display so called disruptive special causes of variation. The planning, measurement and other factors must needs be co-ordinated as a system to be stable enough to express balance and organizational realization.
I have the highest regard for those involved within the construction and building industry, they for sure have some of the best examples of a SoPK at work.
Marcs signature is correct when it states that one size does not fit all.
I believe that a SoPK can be generically explained, this is what I hope for throughout this thread and the visual attachments.
The fact is that application of a SoPK is key. The manner in which you apply your systems knowledge may not be the way that I may apply my systems knowledge, this is good and acceptable to those who choose to use the theories of a SoPK.
Wallace.

Atul Khandekar

1st February 2004, 04:31 AM

WALLACE

1st February 2004, 01:18 PM

Wallace,
Isn't construction (of a building, say) a 'Project', just like a six sigma project? To be done one project at a time and repeat the process for all other projects? So can SoPK be described simply as "Coordinated efforts towards achieving a predefined goal", or something like that?
What about Software industry?

A project is defined as: a task requiring considerable or concerted effort.
Project management expresses systems thinking, there are many aspects or functions that make up a project. When all of these aspects or functions are in place, the project can proceed as a complete system of operation. The aspects and functions of project management are indeed independent yet interdependent, this is where I view the evidence of a system in relation to a SoPK.

The considerable effort as you say and imply, can be described as "Coordinated efforts towards achieving a predefined goal".

I can't make a qualified comment regarding the software industry and systems thinking.
I can however make qualified comments regarding the construction industry and a SoPK.
Wallace.

Atul Khandekar

1st February 2004, 02:02 PM

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. By project I didn't mean just the tasks, but the entire process of planning, design, logistics, leveraging cross functional teams and specifically defined activities etc etc.. These are common aspects of all projects - construction, 6 Sigma, or Software development.. How exactly does SoPK manifests itself in construction industry?

WALLACE

1st February 2004, 05:37 PM

Wes Bucey

1st February 2004, 08:43 PM

Atul,
I'm a picture kind of communicator. Attached is an image that may give you an idea of my view.
If you look at the very rough outline of my view, you shall see that all of the factors and functions contained within the image are an in-put to the focus of the image which is construction.
My understanding and communication of systems thinking is coneyed by the interdepedence and independence of the functions contained within image branches. Take away a one or more of the functions and you would have an imbalance in the system or in-puts to the realization of your construction project.
I sometimes express it as a circle that is filled with all of the required functions for a project, remove one of the functions and you invariably cause special causees to act upon your system.
Wallace.Wallace's chart could easily be rendered as an Octopus diagram or some other graphic display. The entire point Wallace makes here is a "systematic way" of considering and arranging ALL the factors involved in a process. The graphic plan derived from a computer program could as easily (but certainly not as handsomely) been displayed as chalk or ink on a board; Post-Its (little adhesive backed notes) on a wall connected by yarn.

The point remains: we have a central goal with a pool of associated factors which have to be accomplished or solved to achieve the goal. The "system" part of the activity is to recognize relationships and chronological order for things to occur so we can achieve the goal most efficiently.

Some individuals are blessed with the ability to hold and arrange all these factors in their heads and then spew out a finished process. Many more of us need to work through the system with team members, suppliers, customers, regulators, etc. In such a case, it is nice to have a graphic to help explain the status and to plan for the future input.

As I have understood SoPK, Deming had FOUR main Knowledges (groups/aspects?) of SoPK:

Knowledge of Variation, that is, a knowledge of common cause and special variation.
Knowledge of Systems, that is, understanding that all the parts of a business are related in such a way that if you focus on optimizing one part, other parts may suffer.
Knowledge of Psychology, that is, what motivates people.
Theory of Knowledge, that is, how we learn things.
In the case of a chart like Wallace's, we can probably readily accept 2 & 4:

how the chart could help us see the relationships
how we learn things
That would still leave us an investigation into the variation we might encounter with any of the components of the system or variation created by the interworking of the components.

Most certainly, as our foray into the SoPK, we are still left with working out the psychology or what motivates people to act or refuse to act in a certain way. (I am mindful of another string which began with a tale of employees refusing to complete NC tags.)

How we tackle the tasks of creating and sustaining a SoPK within our own organizations has much to do with our own strengths and weaknesses of each of the four "knowledges" within the SoPK.
(ASQ members can check my total Profile over there, which says (in part):

My entire career has been centered on the concept ‘Quality should be involved in every aspect of a company - including executive planning, administration, marketing, purchasing, design, production, shipping, and service.'
. . .
The major emphasis is on pleasing or delighting the customer while maintaining or increasing organizational profitability.
. . .
I put more emphasis on ‘big picture’ and ‘company culture’ than on metrics. If all the members of the organization are indeed working together, metrics are a natural function of identifying areas to improve. If the organization is NOT working together, the imposition of metrics can be draconian and serve to divide the culture even more.
Do I think I know Deming or SoPK better than everyone else? No. As a matter of fact, I like to blend Deming and Crosby principles and concepts, but many purists point out I don't follow either one to the letter of his writing.

Do I think I can help someone evolve his own personal version of Profound Knowledge which works for him and his organization? Yes!

Can I teach someone who isn't ready to learn? Not a prayer!

How do we learn? Some methods work better than others. Some work with pictures and charts, some by OTJ, hands-on experience, some with combinations. We should explore other learning methods if one doesn't work for us. We should be honest when we recognize one method doesn't work for us.

Is psychology really important? Absolutely! From the CEO right down to the guy who cleans the toilets (in startup companies, that's probably the same guy), understanding our motivations is important. Some are motivated by money, others by pride, or fear, greed, etc. Managing those various motivations for the betterment of the organization is critical to survival. Our individual lives and those of our organizations are intertwined for better or worse. Individuals who are able to make a fair assessment of their own motivations are usually more successful than those who never consider the question.

David Hartman

2nd February 2004, 10:48 AM

(ASQ members can check my total Profile over there, which says (in part):

[indent][size=2][color=blue]My entire career has been centered on the concept ‘Quality should be involved in every aspect of a company - including executive planning, administration, marketing, purchasing, design, production, shipping, and service.'

[font=Arial]Is psychology really important? Absolutely! From the CEO right down to the guy who cleans the toilets (in startup companies, that's probably the same guy), understanding our motivations is important. Some are motivated by money, others by pride, or fear, greed, etc. Managing those various motivations for the betterment of the organization is critical to survival. Our individual lives and those of our organizations are intertwined for better or worse. Individuals who are able to make a fair assessment of their own motivations are usually more successful than those who never consider the question.

Wes,

Keeping in mind that phychology is really important to a SoPK, and it is important for all of the companies players to be aware of the corporate culture ("from the CEO right down to the guy who cleans the toilets"), shouldn't your central concept be:

Every aspect of the company - including executive planning, administration, marketing, purchasing, design, production, shipping, and service should be involved in quality. Don't give them food, teach them to fish.

Perhaps I'm misinterpretting your thoughts, but I just want to ensure that we all understand that Dr. Deming was not a promoter of "the Quality Department".

:bigwave:

Wes Bucey

2nd February 2004, 12:34 PM

Wes,

Keeping in mind that phychology is really important to a SoPK, and it is important for all of the companies players to be aware of the corporate culture ("from the CEO right down to the guy who cleans the toilets"), shouldn't your central concept be:

Every aspect of the company - including executive planning, administration, marketing, purchasing, design, production, shipping, and service should be involved in quality. Don't give them food, teach them to fish.

Perhaps I'm misinterpretting your thoughts, but I just want to ensure that we all understand that Dr. Deming was not a promoter of "the Quality Department".

:bigwave:Absolutely, Dave!:agree:

If I had my druthers, I'd eliminate the Quality Department (in every organization) as a separate entity and require everyone else to have a "hybrid" job which included "Quality" as a major factor.

In my experience, I have seen some Quality departments view themselves as police who earned the hatred of other employees. (Think of how Internal Affairs (IA) Departments in police forces are viewed on the average TV cop show.)

In theory, the IA dept. in police work is to assure the quality of the service. A well-meaning and fair acting IA guy is treated as an anomoly on TV shows. Do TV shows reflect the true perception within police departments? I think so - else there would be a louder outcry against such portrayal.

Is it any different in many organizations? Sometimes, the introduction of 6S techniques in organizations resurrects that "police" bugaboo: "If you don't march to the new drummer, you're out!"

How does this apply to SoPK?
Somebody in charge has to have an overall vision of the organization. If he is able to organize and systemize that vision, then he has a better chance of communicating that vision to his employees, customers, suppliers, regulators, and the public at large. Communication of that vision is an important part of inculcating the basic tenets of the organization and the subsequent processes necessary to implement the vision.

Understanding the various methods of how people learn makes it easier to use a combination of methods to reach ALL of the intended audience effectively.

Understanding the psychology of the different players (employees, customers, suppliers, etc.) helps in forming the vision in the first place and secondarily, in determining the parts of the message to get most emphasis when communicating to those parties.

The thing many of us so-called experts often lose sight of is that we are not dealing with a blank slate when we set out to "write" our message on our target audience. We have to consider and accommodate all the previous messages, biases, misinformation, etc. After 40 years in business, I'm still struggling to "stay on message." So, that's the second thing, we often lose sight of - it is a continuous process, NOT "once and done."

Kevin Mader

2nd February 2004, 02:05 PM

O.K. then, it appears that we are rolling. Wes makes a very good point that folks learn in different fashions, so we should observe that some folks may not make a lot of sense our of our visual map, at least in the start. It’s important to post some thoughts behind a visual map entry, which is pretty much what’s happened in an earlier thread.

Dr. Deming based his SoPK on Lewis’s “Mind and World Order” where Lewis outlines the three tenets of his philosophy: Appreciation for a System, Theory of Variation, and Theory of Knowledge. Deming added the Theory of Psychology (formally in 1982, I believe) to make his 4-part arrangement. Both of these men recognized that the ‘System Thinking’ was what held it all together, “the glue” as promoted by Peter Senge, but each is equally important. The trick question sometimes asked by Dr. Deming was which part was most important. Nonetheless, Dr. Deming recognized that Psychology was an important contributor to the System. How could it not have been? SoPK was the focus of his last efforts before his death.

Wes acknowledges that he isn’t a purist and has a blended theory. I’m sure many folks are this way. But you don’t have to be a purist to explore SoPK, just an interest to learn and refine one’s own theories. What I hope happens with this thread is that folks challenge their convictions, from whatever side of the fence you’re on to see if you gain deeper understanding.

So what is the Aim of the System? Any thoughts on what it might be?

Back to the group…

Kevin

Mike S.

2nd February 2004, 02:26 PM

Absolutely, Dave!:agree:

If I had my druthers, I'd eliminate the Quality Department (in every organization) as a separate entity and require everyone else to have a "hybrid" job which included "Quality" as a major factor.

In my experience, I have seen some Quality departments view themselves as police who earned the hatred of other employees. (Think of how Internal Affairs (IA) Departments in police forces are viewed on the average TV cop show.)

Wes,

Using the "eliminate the Q department" philosophy wouldn't you also then say we should eliminate the Sales Department, Finance Department, HR Department -- all departments?

I understand your thoughts about the Q Dept. being viewed as the hated "police" etc. but the same views can be (and often are) taken of other Departments as well. So what about them?

I believe to some varying degrees the popular chants that "everyone is responsible for quality" and "everyone is in Sales" but I think the same can be said of HR, Finance, Purchasing, Production, etc. So I don't advocate getting rid of areas (call them departments, sections, groups or whatever) where a certain amount of expertise and primary responsibilities reside so long as everyone understands (from a system viewpoint) that just because you are in Sales or Production doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for Quality or HR related issues and vice-versa. JMO.

Wes Bucey

2nd February 2004, 02:53 PM

Wes,

Using the "eliminate the Q department" philosophy wouldn't you also then say we should eliminate the Sales Department, Finance Department, HR Department -- all departments?

I understand your thoughts about the Q Dept. being viewed as the hated "police" etc. but the same views can be (and often are) taken of other Departments as well. So what about them?

I believe to some varying degrees the popular chants that "everyone is responsible for quality" and "everyone is in Sales" but I think the same can be said of HR, Finance, Purchasing, Production, etc. So I don't advocate getting rid of areas (call them departments, sections, groups or whatever) where a certain amount of expertise and primary responsibilities reside so long as everyone understands (from a system viewpoint) that just because you are in Sales or Production doesn't mean that you aren't responsible for Quality or HR related issues and vice-versa. JMO.These are good questions, Mike. Let's explore them as one concept - "relationship and understanding between functions."
Using the "eliminate the Q department" philosophy wouldn't you also then say we should eliminate the Sales Department, Finance Department, HR Department -- all departments?
I love hyperbole as well as the next guy. It often makes a point a pure fact can't. Dave's original line was, "Every aspect of the company - including executive planning, administration, marketing, purchasing, design, production, shipping, and service should be involved in quality. Don't give them food, teach them to fish."
My hyperbole was to reinforce the concept of "blending" the functions and removing an often misunderstood way of perceiving the quality function. To clarify, I would rather the people within the various departments of an organization have a strong understanding and appreciation of the contributions each function within an organization provides and how all those functions relate to each other for the betterment of the organization. Every operations manager can tell tales of short-sighted [in his opinion] folks from other departments who "just don't understand what we do out here."

I'm sure there are Finance guys or HR guys with similar tales. SoPK, properly implemented, would remove those veils of misunderstanding.

I think, Mike, you are closer to embodying the concepts which make up SoPK than you realize. The next step for you is to organize your ideas into a system which you can communicate easily to others. That step of communication will help you refine your ideas until you feel they can work as a SYSTEM. I pretty sure no one, least of all the Old Man Deming, himself, believes a person has to have a "cookie cutter" system exactly like some one else's.

David Hartman

2nd February 2004, 02:53 PM

How does this apply to SoPK?
Somebody in charge has to have an overall vision of the organization. If he is able to organize and systemize that vision, then he has a better chance of communicating that vision to his employees, customers, suppliers, regulators, and the public at large. Communication of that vision is an important part of inculcating the basic tenets of the organization and the subsequent processes necessary to implement the vision.

An old Chinese proverb states, "If we don't change our direction we're likely to end up where we're headed." Dr. Deming stated, "Without an aim, there is no system." Although I agree that the culture of an organization (any organization) should be set by the vision cast by the company leader (the President/CEO); I also feel that in-lieu of a formal vision being cast by this leader, the organization's culture can take on the character/vision of any charismatic within the organization.

Leadership comes in many forms (be they formal or informal) and an organization will always develop a corporate culture (although without a formal vision that culture may change over time). Dr. Rosabeth Kanter refers to these informal leaders as "Change Masters" in her book of the same title. In the visionary vacuum left by some formal corporate leaders the informal leadership structure takes over and a corporate culture is developed from within.

But one of the downsides to this type of leadership role is that every charismatic individual within the company has the ability to influence the vision/culture of the company, which can lead to mixed priorities, confusing directives/directions and an un-focused workforce.

Along the same lines many companies (especially those that have been family-owned and run by the founder for years) suffer many of the same symptoms when formal leadership changes hands. I may be from the same family and hold many of the same values, but I am an individual and my personality does differ from even my siblings. Which means that my leadership style, my vision, and my values will differ at least to some degree. Although there may be no significant changes with any immediacy, they will occur and some may even be sever. So what happened to consistency of purpose? How does this impact the system? Can a system be developed so robust, that these changes have no impact? Should it be? How do we ensure that we hold to those values that have made us successful, and yet yield to those that may even make us better?

Can any of these system establishing efforts even take place within the ranks, or are we at the mercy of the formal leadership?
:bigwave:

Wes Bucey

2nd February 2004, 03:15 PM

An old Chinese proverb states, "If we don't change our direction we're likely to end up where we're headed." Dr. Deming stated, "Without an aim, there is no system." Although I agree that the culture of an organization (any organization) should be set by the vision cast by the company leader (the President/CEO); I also feel that in-lieu of a formal vision being cast by this leader, the organization's culture can take on the character/vision of any charismatic within the organization.

Leadership comes in many forms (be they formal or informal) and an organization will always develop a corporate culture (although without a formal vision that culture may change over time). Dr. Rosabeth Kanter refers to these informal leaders as "Change Masters" in her book of the same title. In the visionary vacuum left by some formal corporate leaders the informal leadership structure takes over and a corporate culture is developed from within.

But one of the downsides to this type of leadership role is that every charismatic individual within the company has the ability to influence the vision/culture of the company, which can lead to mixed priorities, confusing directives/directions and an un-focused workforce.

Along the same lines many companies (especially those that have been family-owned and run by the founder for years) suffer many of the same symptoms when formal leadership changes hands. I may be from the same family and hold many of the same values, but I am an individual and my personality does differ from even my siblings. Which means that my leadership style, my vision, and my values will differ at least to some degree. Although there may be no significant changes with any immediacy, they will occur and some may even be sever. So what happened to consistency of purpose? How does this impact the system? Can a system be developed so robust, that these changes have no impact? Should it be? How do we ensure that we hold to those values that have made us successful, and yet yield to those that may even make us better?

Can any of these system establishing efforts even take place within the ranks, or are we at the mercy of the formal leadership?
:bigwave:Wow, Dave! This is good stuff!
You made a lot of points. Let me concentrate on this one:
Can a system be developed so robust, that these changes have no impact? Should it be? How do we ensure that we hold to those values that have made us successful, and yet yield to those that may even make us better?

Yep. I think a system can be developed so robust, the changes have no impact.
Nope. I don't think the system should be so robust as to be "bullet proof," because it tends to eliminate the "continuous improvement" aspect we all claim to aspire to. Just as evolution in nature has lots of "false starts" and "dead ends," so, too, do "organisms" or organizations created by humans.

Let's not confuse "values" with procedures and processes and systems. If a "value" is to maintain good working conditions for employees, we would expect the processes necessary to implement that value would change over time.

Sometimes, the process necessary to implement one value may conflict with the ideal process to implement another. (Customer satisfaction versus keeping all production domestic, for example.) HOW an organization resolves that conflict is a measure of whether its members are truly using SoPK, where they consider ALL options to determine the best course of action. Often, sadly, EVERYONE will not be pleased with the final decision, regardless of what it is.

From my point of view, it is crucial that the organization tries to consider the best possible outcome, rather than grabbing at the first straw which drifts by.

Wes Bucey

3rd February 2004, 12:37 PM

Although I agree that the culture of an organization (any organization) should be set by the vision cast by the company leader (the President/CEO); I also feel that in lieu of a formal vision being cast by this leader, the organization's culture can take on the character/vision of any charismatic within the organization.

Leadership comes in many forms (be they formal or informal) and an organization will always develop a corporate culture (although without a formal vision that culture may change over time). Dr. Rosabeth Kanter refers to these informal leaders as "Change Masters" in her book of the same title. In the visionary vacuum left by some formal corporate leaders the informal leadership structure takes over and a corporate culture is developed from within.

But one of the downsides to this type of leadership role is that every charismatic individual within the company has the ability to influence the vision/culture of the company, which can lead to mixed priorities, confusing directives/directions and an un-focused workforce.Let's take up this point. I think it bears exploring as part of SoPK.
As I mentioned in my "evolution" reference earlier, Nature is rife with false starts, dead ends, and new branches.

When there is a vacant niche (vacuum) in any biome, (such as a missing predator to keep populations of herd animals in check), Nature finds a way to fill that niche, with predators moving in from another area, with small predators [wolves, coyotes, humans] learning to cooperate to bring down larger prey or large predators migrating in from other areas or disease taking a toll or food for the herd animals running out, causing death by starvation.

The point is NOT that stray charismatics can influence the direction of a leaderless organization, BUT whether there is a possibility that from the seeming CHAOS which surrounds conflicting charismatics, a new and better organization might ultimately arise.

Throughout history there have been rebellions, palace coups, wars between nations. Do many people mourn the deposing of leaders like Hitler, Idi Amin, Sadaam Hussein, etc.?

First and foremost, we must accept that CHANGE, alone, is not the outcome to be feared. We must strive to understand (with Profound Knowledge?) the factors involved in change and determine whether to:

resist
go along
create our own path.
I'm sure each of us could list wonderful outcomes from examples of what seemed at the time to be intolerable CHAOS.
(plasma as a response to a need for blood to remedy wartime injuries, for one)

Kevin Mader

3rd February 2004, 01:58 PM

What's causing the change: Anxiety or Insight?

And, should a vision/aim be so easily swayed by the insurgence of a charismatic type?

Kevin

Wes Bucey

4th February 2004, 02:57 AM

What's causing the change: Anxiety or Insight?

And, should a vision/aim be so easily swayed by the insurgence of a charismatic type?

KevinJust as an aside, but pertinent to the idea of "charismatic insurgent":
Frequently organizations which have a long, stable history face the problem of an aging leader, who, through tradition or pride, chooses to remain as the titular head until his death.

Outsiders often respect the title and defer to this leader as if he were still in charge, but insiders usually insulate this leader from day-to-day oversight to mitigate damage he might cause to the organization.

Underneath a facade of respectful calm, pretenders to the throne are jockeying madly for position to become the next leader. Plots are laid to derail the heir apparent anointed by the aging leader.

Ultimately, the inevitable happens and a new leader steps forward when the old one dies. He may be a "caretaker" who keeps all the policies and plans of his predecessor. More likely, he comes in with a new broom and cleans house, eliminating all his former rivals by either outright firing or exile to some far corner of the globe to run a small, insignificant piece of the empire, far removed from his former collaborators and allies.

Are these changes "good" or "bad?" It may all depend on the SoPK the new leader does or doesn't have.

Anyone ready to take up the discussion or do you need a concrete example of such an "organization which has a long, stable history and is now facing the problem of an aging leader?"

Perhaps you'd like to propose your own candidate for discussion on a factual rather than theoretical basis.

Kevin Mader

4th February 2004, 09:34 AM

Caretaker…sounds very Crosby-like. The Absolutes of Leadership perhaps??

Jim Collins in his book, Good to Great goes at length in identifying what he terms Level 4 and Level 5 leaders. Level 4 are those out to establish their own greatness while Level 5 are out to establish the greatness of the organization. Collins states that the Level 5 leader works to determine his/her own successor, one who promotes the same vision (Collins connects this to his Hedge Hog concept). I think that this is an important contribution: to achieve and sustain ‘greatness’, the culture must be deeply rooted. While the Vision/Aim might change forms, it should remain connected on the very basic levels.

No doubt, there are those leaders that Crosby terms the “Caretakers” who are content to do things as they always have. The subordinates jockeying for his position might be leaders of a different sort: Accomplishers, Procrastinators, Destructors or Planners. The question that comes to mind is this: despite their predominant leadership style, will the vision change? Does it have to?

I think that in order to sustain long-term success, the vision/aim selected has to be very basic. It is my contention that in Systems Thinking, the aim is this: the optimization of Value in the System. What is Value from the Systems’ perspective? What is Value to the System Components? Consider what the Customer Values compared to what the Organization Values? Are they the same? Probably not, but each has a value statement nonetheless. Sometimes the value statements are at odds with each other, thus why I promote that the idea is to optimize System Value, not necessarily increase it (Entropy Theory).

So, with a Systems Thinkers perspective, does the charisma of an individual leader matter significantly? It might, especially when times are tough and you need someone to rally the troops, but in general, if we have a Level 5 leader practicing the Deming Management Method, it would probably just be ancillary.

Back to the group…

Kevin

David Hartman

4th February 2004, 11:05 AM

Anyone ready to take up the discussion or do you need a concrete example of such an "organization which has a long, stable history and is now facing the problem of an aging leader?"

Perhaps you'd like to propose your own candidate for discussion on a factual rather than theoretical basis.

Al Dyer in the 2004 Edition: The 101 Dumbest Moments in Business thread states, "102 dumbest, K-Mart is now profitable and selling like **** on the stock market!

This leads me to a real-life example of an organization which has a long, stable history and HAS faced the problem of an aging leader.

When Sam Walton was the leading force for Wal-Mart every store you entered had personnel in each department that would come to you and ask if they could be of assistance. He not only recognized the need for an intricate distribution system, but also recognized the power of providing service to the customer.

Sam once said, We let folks know we're interested in them and that they're vital to us. cause they are.

He knew the power of winning over the customer.

In-fact in our town (as in so many throughout the country) Kmart was put out of business by reacting to the loss of customers (who were reacting to the service they were receiving at Wal-Mart) by cutting employees to reduce overhead (which only aggravated the situation).

But since the passing of Sam, Wal-Mart no longer maintains that same level of service to the customer. The drive to maintain or excell as a target of excellence in the realm of distribution is still there, but they have lost sight of the "softer" people/customer oriented vision that Sam brought to the company.

Depending on how valuable this service aspect of the retail world is to today's customer, this could open the door to Kmart (or any retailer that is willing to adopt the vision that Wal-Mart has apparently lost) and beat them at their own game.

Perhaps prophetically Sam stated, There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.

Time will tell.
:bigwave:

Kevin Mader

4th February 2004, 03:05 PM

Mike S.

4th February 2004, 04:25 PM

Sam Walton was a level 5 manager. The problem was that he didn't pick a level 5 replacement. Despite the huge success of Wal Mart, Collins didn't include them as a Good to Great organization. The AIM was lost in part, or perhaps in whole, with the passing of Sam.

What is a "level 5 manager"? How many levels are there? Is this a Deming sacle, a Mader scale, or what? The term is new to me.

Wes Bucey

4th February 2004, 04:41 PM

What is a "level 5 manager"? How many levels are there? Is this a Deming sacle, a Mader scale, or what? The term is new to me.I agree, Mike, that this stuff is difficult enough to get a grip on without having to deal with arcane terminology without a glossary in hand.

Kevin, you owe the Cove a "roadmap" or glossary. I'm pretty sure I would have to scramble to my library to get a definitive answer for Mike (as well as myself.)
Jim Collins in his book, Good to Great goes at length in identifying what he terms Level 4 and Level 5 leaders. Level 4 are those out to establish their own greatness while Level 5 are out to establish the greatness of the organization. Collins states that the Level 5 leader works to determine his/her own successor, one who promotes the same vision (Collins connects this to his Hedge Hog concept). I think that this is an important contribution: to achieve and sustain ‘greatness’, the culture must be deeply rooted. While the Vision/Aim might change forms, it should remain connected on the very basic levels.
I don't remember even reading Good to Great by Collins - it wasn't on my required reading list, so I chose to watch Super Bowl half time instead!

If I had my druthers, I'd envision a Level 6 leader who works for the betterment of the organization, even if it means trashing his original vision by selecting a successor with a BETTER vision.

Kevin Mader

4th February 2004, 06:53 PM

Mike,

Jim Collins created the definitions for the 5 levels of managers. You can see them at Amazon if you preview the book there. I wouldn't make Good to Great required reading, but it did have some good points mixed in with plenty of other stuff that's been repeated in one form or another in other books.

Wes,

It looks like your Level 6 might be Collins' Level 5. Trashing a vision, when properly done, should be done judiciously, but certainly done if it is flawed. My point was that if the AIM is established through careful consideration and has demonstrated itself to be useful and timetested, then changing its basic structure is probably a bad idea. All paradigms shift.

Can I ask what was so arcane??

Wes Bucey

4th February 2004, 07:09 PM

Can I ask what was so arcane?? (Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary )
Main Entry: ar·cane
Pronunciation: <TT>är-'kAn</TT>
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin arcanus
Date: 1547
: known or knowable only to the initiate : SECRET (http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=secret) <the arcane rites of a mystery cult>; broadly : MYSTERIOUS (http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=mysterious), OBSCURE (http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=obscure) <the technical consultant's arcane explanations> We are attempting to make SoPK accessible to everyone so each can make a fair assessment of whether it is worthwhile.

I'm getting a much better sense of SoPK myself by recasting analogies and examples in more "everyday" terms.

Without a more complete description and characterization of ALL the levels in the Collins book, it is difficult to accept a partial reference as an all-encompassing definition of an individual manager.

WALLACE

5th February 2004, 03:12 AM

We are attempting to make SoPK accessible to everyone so each can make a fair assessment of whether it is worthwhile.

I'm getting a much better sense of SoPK myself by recasting analogies and examples in more "everyday" terms.

Without a more complete description and characterization of ALL the levels in the Collins book, it is difficult to accept a partial reference as an all-encompassing definition of an individual manager.

I agree Wes.
We are attempting to make A SoPK accessible to everyone who dares to view this thread.
My original title for this thread was SoPK Shared, Explained and developed, The title was changed (I guess by Marc) to the preceding thread title regarding mainly Demings SoPK. The previous thread became redundant due to a possible over emphasis by myself and others regarding terminologies and my over posting of visuals that were at the end of the day counter productive to the success of the thread.
I personally don't believe it would be productive to verbally jostle with terminologies that are obviously bordering on the esoteric, it just does no good to those who may be interested in this thread.
I don't particularly hold fast or am religiously inclined to promote Demings SoPK, I admire immensely the man's work yet, there is a tendency to almost Deify Deming when discussing his theories.
I firmly believe that the SoPK that we are attempting to share, explain and develop here within this thread should be as generic as possible with wording that has as broad a scope as possible.
If we are successful in developing a final visual draft of a SoPK explained then, our aim, I believe, is to share it more widely so as to allow people to apply it to their particular arena's.
I would be excited if folk would visit the Cove to download our final visual.
What I am more hopeful for is, to see how people, businesses and corporations apply a SoPK.
Wallace.

Mike S.

5th February 2004, 12:56 PM

Wes Bucey

5th February 2004, 04:51 PM

I have a SoPK-related question which I posted in another thread about performance indicators. It seemed equally at home there as here, but the moderators can decide where it best fits. If I did it right, the link below is the thread/post location.

http://www.elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=70645&postcount=7Here are the 14 Points. I think it's perfectly acceptable to discuss them in conjunction with SoPK. Besides, they are pretty straightforward compared to a lot of "interpretations" going around.

Deming's 14 Points
(Excerpted from Chapter Two of OUT OF THE CRISIS by W. Edwards Deming )
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.
2. Adopt the new philosophy. We are in a new economic age. Western management must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on leadership for change.
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.
4. End the practice of awarding business on the basis of price tag. Instead, minimize total cost. Move toward a single supplier for any one item, on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.
5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.
6. Institute training on the job.
7. Institute leadership The aim of supervision should be to help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job. Supervision of management is in need of overhaul as well as supervision of production workers.
8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company
9. Break down barriers between departments. People in research, design, sales, and production must work as a team, to foresee problems of production and in use that may be encountered with the product or service.
10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations, and targets for the work force asking for zero defects and new levels of productivity. Such exhortations only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality and low productivity belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force.
11a. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor. Substitute leadership.
b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.
12a. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to joy of workmanship. The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer numbers to quality.
b. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of their right to joy of workmanship. This means abolishment of the annual merit rating and of management by objective
13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.
14. Put everybody in the company to work to accomplish the transformation. The transformation is everybody's job.

Mike S.

5th February 2004, 05:05 PM

Wes Bucey

5th February 2004, 05:18 PM

Thanks for posting the 14 points.

I see "eliminate targets" and "eliminate numerical goals." That kinda stuff was the basis for my question in the performance indicators thread.

Would Deming approve of any numerical goals such as those dicsussed in that thread. Can anyone give any examples from his books, courses, quotes, etc. where he has approved of them and under what circumstances?To my knowlwdge, Deming did not approve of numerical goals and was consistent in all his writings and speeches in that regard.

Based on my own experience (without any thought of Deming), I have never witnessed any long term benefit in ANY organization from imposition of numerical goals and targets. I have witnessed lots of benefit from record keeping and benchmarking (where benchmarks were not goals or targets, but indicators of what others had achieved (history) and might reasonably be achieved by another organization.)

For the record, Deming was always very conscious of the psychological impact on customers and employees resulting from an organization's activity. In modern terms, this might even be translated to ISO14000 and how an organization's treatment of the environment impacts the perception and psychology of its customers and employees.

Wes Bucey

5th February 2004, 05:40 PM

For the record, Deming was always very conscious of the psychological impact on customers and employees resulting from an organization's activity. In modern terms, this might even be translated to ISO14000 and how an organization's treatment of the environment impacts the perception and psychology of its customers and employees.Speaking of psychology:
Let's take up "Management By Objective" (MBO) - a very common buzz term in many organizations which do NOT follow Deming or SoPK. I picked this description up somewhere recently from a company's training manual and it has been nagging at me because it seems so seductive and true at first glance. See if you can spot what Deming would be upset about. (He specifically singled out "MBO" in 12b of his 14 points.) I am pretty certain MBO advocates would agree I have a fairly accurate summary here.

Management by Objective (MBO) is used to identify the quality, quantity and timeliness of work that should be completed. Under MBO, the employee and manager periodically meet to review status of work.

Managing by Objective
Managers that are most successful at managing workers are those who establish clear objectives, communicate well and are well organized. They know how to develop performance agreements that specify deliverables. They set specific goals and timetables for each project and outline clearly the guidelines and expectations for the project. They provide frequent opportunity for feedback as the project progresses. In other words, they manage by objective.

Managing by objective is a process that helps a manager track a worker's performance and document what the worker accomplishes on a regular basis. The first step in managing by objective is to review the employee's job responsibilities. With a clear understanding of what the employee is expected to do, the next step is to establish specific objectives for what he or she should accomplish. Together, these two elements will help you to more clearly establish your expectation.
MY objective in this SoPK thread is to help others learn to think for themselves and create their own personal versions of SoPK. This is the first homework assignment.

David Hartman

5th February 2004, 08:45 PM

Speaking of psychology:
Let's take up "Management By Objective" (MBO) - a very common buzz term in many organizations which do NOT follow Deming or SoPK. I picked this description up somewhere recently from a company's training manual and it has been nagging at me because it seems so seductive and true at first glance. See if you can spot what Deming would be upset about. (He specifically singled out "MBO" in 12b of his 14 points.) I am pretty certain MBO advocates would agree I have a fairly accurate summary here.
MY objective in this SoPK thread is to help others learn to think for themselves and create their own personal versions of SoPK. This is the first homework assignment.

First I have to wonder what the psychological ramifications are with regard to quoting one's self. :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

Now addressing MBO and Deming's problems with it:

WED's Point 7 requires the implementation of "leadership" to HELP people and machines and gadgets do a better job. This does not include the form of "policing" people that is the main function of MOB.

Point 8 - Drive out fear. The "strength" of MOB for the most part comes from the fear of reprocusions that may result from NOT meeting the defined objective.

Point 10 - Slogans, exhortations, and targets (enought said).

Point 11 - Work Standards/Quotas (I think we have already addressed this).

Point 12 a&b - (Obvious)

Each of these 5 points are Taylor-based management styles (carrot and stick) that degrade workers and deprive them of the ability to take pride in their work. They only do what has to be done to meet standard (doesn't that sound familiar to all of you ISO 9000 folks). No one looks at how can I exceed (be better than) the standard. We go through life acheiving the minimum and never striving for the best.

Mike S.

6th February 2004, 10:37 AM

Atul Khandekar

6th February 2004, 10:45 AM

Is it wrong to set goals or numerical targets for a company's growth? I wonder what are the criteria to evaluate organizations that win the Deming Award.

Mike S.

6th February 2004, 10:45 AM

Each of these 5 points are Taylor-based management styles (carrot and stick) that degrade workers and deprive them of the ability to take pride in their work. They only do what has to be done to meet standard (doesn't that sound familiar to all of you ISO 9000 folks). No one looks at how can I exceed (be better than) the standard. We go through life acheiving the minimum and never striving for the best.

DD,

With all due respect, I disagree with your statement above. Why? Because I would argue that many people DO strive to exceed the standard. Just because my boss says I want you to accomplish U, V, W, and X by some certain date doesn't mean that if it is reasonable I don't try to also accomplish Y and Z. Many people I know are the same way. To suggest otherwise I think unfairly shortchanges many good workers. Yes, we all know there are definitely some who just try to eek by with the minimum -- no question. But how many of these people would do considerably more if there weren't targets set for them? Some maybe, but not all. JMO.

Craig H.

6th February 2004, 11:22 AM

David Hartman

6th February 2004, 11:39 AM

So, it seems Deming (and followers) would not approve of Roxane's list of KPI's because there are numerical goals associated with them.

I personally have used similar numerical goals for myself and others under my supervision, and most companies and managers I have known do so as well.

I am curious: How many here at the Cove do NOT use numerical goals either personally, or for their subordinates, and also how many do NOT have numerical goals given to them by their superiors? If numerical goals are not used, is it because of Deming's teachings?

Are there any well-known (or otherwise) public or private companies out there that anyone knows of that do not set numerical goals at the highest level, and if so, why?

I personally do not agree with Deming on this point. I understand that setting unreachable targets or goals can have negative results and put focus on the wrong things, but I think on this point he advocates throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There aren't many absolutes that I can go along with, and this is another I disagree with.

Mike,

Let's make sure that we're not confusing "goal setting" with "measuring and monitoring".

We cannot know if a process is statistically stable and/or capable without some form of measurement, but to set step goals towards attaining perfection limits our vision to those intermediate goals and not the real goal of going beyond.

If my goal was to send an arrow into flight and have it hit the center of the bull's eye, I would not aim at an intermediate point. I aim at the ultimate goal. The only acceptable "goal" that any organization should be attempting to aim at is that of "constantly improving forever".

How much improvement is acceptable during any one period? In a sense, I don't care. What I do care about is are they improving, and at what cost.

In another thread on the Cove a poster has made a query regarding how to "plan" for the cost necessary to move product quality from 99.05% to 99.85% acceptable (or some numbers along that line). How do you judge this in advance? Is this an acheivable goal without totally revising your process, or the entire system? At what cost do we cease committing resources to acheive these goals (at what point do we decide that the ROI is not sufficient)? Is this a goal that can be accomplished in smaller steps over an extended period of time, but would break the bank if we attempt to meet it within the next month?

In-fact, why stop at 99.85% shouldn't we really want to acheive 100% (if all of this customer's suppliers are hitting the 99.85%, wouldn't we want to be better - or even the best)? But to do so may take time and will take management working to ensure that the system is capable of obtaining our ultimate aim, by removing roadblocks and taking responsibility for the system (providing the employees with the tools to measure their processes and the product and freeing them to make changes and implement improvements as needed).

This empowering of the employee and providing them with the tools, knowledge and freedom to use them for continually improving their processes and product is exactly what the Toyota Production System is all about (with the only goal being perfection - product supremacy, process efficiency and market domination).

Wes Bucey

6th February 2004, 02:10 PM

Is it wrong to set goals or numerical targets for a company's growth? I wonder what are the criteria to evaluate organizations that win the Deming Award.Deming Prize criteria can be found here:
http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/den/deming_prize_2000.pdf
I don't know if the updates are appreciably different from these from 2000.

Basic concept of winning is adherence to TQM.

I think the Deming Prize, itself, may be :topic: to SoPK, but I'm certainly willing to consider the specific examples of past winners and whether they used tactics such as MBO which are antithetical to SoPK and TQM.

This is one aspect which could be interesting or deadly dull.

"Right or wrong" are always fraught with shades of gray. (It may be wrong to kill, but is it OK to kill to save your own life? - these kinds of questions won't further the discourse.)

If you are aiming at a target (perfection?), is it acceptable to consider plateaus or intermediate targets along the way?
(When I putt in golf, I always look for an intermediate target along the line of putt to pass over on the way to the hole. Am I a traitor to SoPK? Probably not as long as my ultimate goal is the hole. Certainly not, as long as my score depends on getting the ball into the hole, NOT on whether I pass over the corner of a tree shadow on the way.)

Laura M

6th February 2004, 02:32 PM

(When I putt in golf, I always look for an intermediate target along the line of putt to pass over on the way to the hole. Am I a traitor to SoPK? Probably not as long as my ultimate goal is the hole. Certainly not, as long as my score depends on getting the ball into the hole, NOT on whether I pass over the corner of a tree shadow on the way.)

I've enjoyed this thread. There is something profound in your statement. Deming said "b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.

He didn't say eliminate numbers, but "management by numbers."
If Wes is focussing on having a average of 1 putt, not the process of putting, he is managing by objective. By setting an intermediate target, and looking at how aiming at the intermediate target affects the average number of putts, then he is focussing on the process. Now, if Wes 'gets lucky' and drains a 50 footer, on his first attempt at using the new process of aiming at an intermediate target - does he now have profound knowledge on how to putt? So if a top dog manager congratulates his performance - "there, see, you know how to achieve the goal - do it again tomorrow" is he being set up for failure? :bigwave:

Have a goal - manage the process.

Wes Bucey

6th February 2004, 02:39 PM

I am afraid that I am one that believes the addage:

What gets measured is what gets done.

The fact that something is measured implies that it is important. Therefore, an improvement in the parameter being measured is, well, an improvement. In our competitive world, to succeed we must improve, or at the very least avoid deterioration.

Even if a goal is not explicitly stated, there is a reason for taking the measurement and that reason is the same as a de facto goal, IMHO.Maybe some managers have taken your concept and perverted it to scoring people on how well they achieve the numbers, versus on strategies to improve the numbers. (Strategies which do not involve "carrot and stick" for people who do not have input on the design of the process.)

SoPK adherents might say the reason for taking the measurements is to determine whether our strategies for improvement are working. That the numbers and the process are to be evaluated, not the people who are implementing the process.

Maybe we all need to revisit the Red Bead Experiments to gain empathy with the Willing Worker.

Craig H.

6th February 2004, 03:02 PM

the reason for taking the measurements is to determine whether our strategies for improvement are working. That the numbers and the process are to be evaluated, not the people who are implementing the process.

Wes:

YES!!

:agree:

Craig

Kevin Mader

6th February 2004, 03:04 PM

Mike,

A good question to ask.

Deming would approve of numerical goals, provided they were established with Knowledge of Variation. I have not read the thread, so I can’t comment on whether this fits with that discussion. He also discussed things he called “facts of life”. For instance, if you must cut costs by 20% to stay in business, then you’ll have to do it or suffer the consequences. Under the circumstances of closure, targets might have to be set outside the limits of what would normally be achievable in a stable and predictable process.

To the point Wes was making, setting targets outside of the upper/lower control limits leads to two dangers: the feeling of loss when targets are not attainable (psychological damage); targets are attained at cost to other areas in the business/system (system damage).

How many objectives, targets, or goals are established daily without SoPK? What kinds of damage are created because of this? Dr. Deming was never against establishing performance indicators, provided they were for the system and not for individuals. He was insistent that these be established with knowledge (SoPK).

Wes,

Interesting thing about Management by Objective, the creator of this theory hasn’t endorsed its use for nearly 25 years (Peter Drucker). He admits in his later publications that he wished he never created it as he realized that the theory was based on several false assumptions. If one takes a look into the National Archives, you’ll see that WED and Drucker corresponded often. I’m tempted to read some of these letters to see if Dr. Deming influenced Drucker to reconsider his position. Sadly, MBA programs most everywhere still promote this as part of their curriculums.

The biggest false assumption in your snippo is the assumption that the individual has significant control over the outcome. This connects well with Mike’s question with regards setting the target. If the target is set within the limits, one can hit the target without lifting a finger, and probably will. If the target is outside the limits, they may work very hard to achieve and not make it, thus failing and subject to some predetermined consequence. Then again, to avoid the consequence, one might resort to less than ethical, moral and sometimes illegal practices to get it. This may in fact be the most damaging oversight of the Six Sigma methodology. Distorting numbers to hit targets is manipulation. With distorted ‘facts’, the result is that the System is further off target than it would otherwise have been if one didn’t set a goal in the first place. Deming illustrates this well with the Funnel Experiment.

Dave does well to include the other points and their relationships (Nice going!!!)

Mike,

To your later point. Yes, before Deming, I set goals for myself and for my subordinates. I did change my view of this after 'converting'. Did I stop setting goals? No, I just changed the method of how goals were set and what the were set on (processes or people). What I elected to do was to define who had ownership for a process parameter and established SPC tracking for it. My associate would plot points and review the data daily to determine stability of the process and to determine common/special cause variables. They learned first to eliminate special causes (where they could) and how to improve the process through minimization of the affects of common causes. However, they weren't appraised on these factors.

Craig,

In the foreword for "Fourth Generation Management" (Deming's last foreword to my knowledge), he addresses the need to measure things. More specifically, he tells management that they had better manage the things that can't be measured, or their future is certainly unlikely. He often restated the comments made by Lloyd Nelson that the most important numbers are "unknown and unknowable". But he also made it clear that we need to be mindful of what these are and do our best to manage them effectively (i.e. the cost of a lost customer, the ROI on Training). If one can, read the foreward to the book above. He did a better job of explaining this than I did.

Dave/Mike/Wes,

To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Deming never endorsed the award named after him. In fact, when he was presented with the very first award, I recall reading that he did it out of respect of the Japanese. The same is true when he recieved an award presented to him by President Clinton, although I believe Cecilia in her book The World of Dr. Deming (?) has preserved the award from Clinton as one of his most coveted acknowledgements. I'm not sure which is right on the latter.

Back to the group…

Kevin

WALLACE

6th February 2004, 03:04 PM

The discussions throughout this thread are just great. I'm encouraged by the open participation of many at the Cove who would generaly stay away from this controvercial subject.
I'd like to get some feedback re-the SoPK visual that is located within post # 1. Ther visual was meant to be a guide of sorts to facilitate a SoPK dialog.
The discussions are generating lots of opinions relating to a SoPK yet, It may be beneficial to add to the SoPK visual for the sake of a good visual reference and clarity of thoughts for those who are contributing to this subject.
Attached is a Word doc that is an export from the visual.
Wallace.

Wes Bucey

6th February 2004, 03:34 PM

I've enjoyed this thread. There is something profound in your statement. Deming said "b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.

He didn't say eliminate numbers, but "management by numbers."
If Wes is focussing on having a average of 1 putt, not the process of putting, he is managing by objective. By setting an intermediate target, and looking at how aiming at the intermediate target affects the average number of putts, then he is focussing on the process. Now, if Wes 'gets lucky' and drains a 50 footer, on his first attempt at using the new process of aiming at an intermediate target - does he now have profound knowledge on how to putt? So if a top dog manager congratulates his performance - "there, see, you know how to achieve the goal - do it again tomorrow" is he being set up for failure? :bigwave:

Have a goal - manage the process.Management by objective does NOT focus on the ultimate goal, it focuses on the intermediate steps. (For a call center [most egregious users of MBO], this does not mean "satisfying the caller" - it means "handling X calls in Y minutes")

If I ONLY focused on hitting the shadow and NOT on getting the ball in the hole, I'd be guilty of MBO. If I hit the shadow and the hole consistently (after evaluating results), I might conclude that the PROCESS is effective (much the same as I might use one tool bit to turn a shaft to approximate size, then a second tool bit to achieve final dimension and finish tolerances.)

Using the "two tool" analogy is similar to pitching up onto the green with one club and putting out with a different club. The score that goes on the scorecard is the same whether I use two or three different clubs to get from tee to hole, only the total number of strokes determines whether I buy or am treated at the 19th hole. I would probably review my record to see areas for improvement - driving, short irons, or putting, to lower that ultimate number.

It's also important to remember that sometimes conditions are such (short apron grass, perhaps; or hole set very close to the edge of the green ) I might use a putter from off the green because I think I'd have better control over the final outcome. MBO would not let me use the putter except on the green.

David Hartman

6th February 2004, 04:39 PM

Management by objective does NOT focus on the ultimate goal, it focuses on the intermediate steps. (For a call center [most egregious users of MBO], this does not mean "satisfying the caller" - it means "handling X calls in Y minutes")

Real life scenario: When I started working here the metrics maintained and enforced for the call center were exactly as Wes described (handling X number of calls in Y minutes, with a goal of handling Z amount of calls in a month). The thought of feeding caller info back to Engineering, Buyers, Manufacturing, et al was not even considered.

In-lieu of putting processes in place to reduce (or eliminate) calls, this organization was using the ever increasing number of calls as rationale to increase the number of personnel necessary to "man the phones".

The dam was ready to burst and they were sticking gum in the cracks!

But I am very pleased to say that was a different era, the light has come on, and an intense effort is being made to eliminate design, manufacturing and supplier issues with immediacy while feeding that info back to the appropriate owner for root cause corrective action.

We are now looking forward to "eliminating calls" and reducing the manpower needs.
:bigwave: