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:

Rob Nix

6th February 2004, 04:46 PM

Let me ease into this discussion by stating that I highly respect the panel of experts contributing to this thread (read WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!) and have thoroughly enjoyed reading this rather lengthy thread as it developed. I have only basic familiarity with SoPK, although I’ve followed and utilized Deming’s principles for over 25 years. HOWEVER (here it comes), I feel like SoPK to Quality Control is like the Beatles’ later “transcendental” years to their earlier “I want to hold your hand”.

Is not the Deming Institute’s SoPK, like SixSigma, just a new and improved way to package and sell Deming? It is great for debate and pithy discussions, but what practical application is there? Can one of you give me an experience you had with applying the theory to your business? I really am interested. :)

Although, as Mike stated earlier, Deming is not God, I still believe many of his concepts are sound and useful (I’ve used them!). But then again, so are the ideas of many other “quality gurus” (and I include many of you contributors among them). I DO NOT believe there is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL management theory, but that each and every business has it own “personality” and we must shop all of the shelves and pick the things that work best.

I understand the 14 points - they are utilizable; but SoPK & the 4 pillars seem a bit Delphic to make work in a business.

Well that’s enough out of me. :rolleyes: Like Kevin says, back to the group…

Laura M

6th February 2004, 05:51 PM

Well here goes. I almost used this before. But lets use Education as a 'process' to compare SpPK and MBO.

NY State has a 'regents' test for each subject which ALL graduates need to score a 65 or better on to graduate. So there is an Educational Process to be measured by a test. The 'process' is determined by each individual district from curriculum design to techer delivery, HW, in class and district wide testing leading up to the big test.

Last summer almost 1/2 the students failed the test. (BIG UPROAR) So the state focussed on the test. Yes, they found 'flawed' questions. So now, what indicator of the process performance do we have. (If you think an R&R was done, remember, educational systems are WAY behind that thinking.)

So now, a new test, offered in January (new group of students) took the exam. Guess what? A bunch more passed. Are you ahead of me yet? The statements from some school officials stating "we must attribute this success to the hard work of our staff - teachers and admin......blah blah blah" A few years back we had a district goal of 85% of our students meeting a certain achievement level. One elem school had 87%. Another 84%. We had a party for the school with 87%. :bonk:

Has the process improved? Do we care if the kids have learned material to contribute to the future or if they got a 65.

I could spend another full page on other examples of how having an arbitrary 'goal' (not to mention a flawed measurement process) takes away from actual improvement. The resources spent scoring, rescoring, preparing tests, submitting and processing the data etc is huge. Personally, I think the teachers know who's getting it, and who isn't.

Wes Bucey

6th February 2004, 06:08 PM

. . .
I feel like SoPK to Quality Control is like the Beatles’ later “transcendental” years to their earlier “I want to hold your hand”.

Is not the Deming Institute’s SoPK, like SixSigma, just a new and improved way to package and sell Deming? It is great for debate and pithy discussions, but what practical application is there? Can one of you give me an experience you had with applying the theory to your business? I really am interested. :)

Deming is not God,
[although] many of his concepts are sound and useful (I’ve used them!). But then again, so are the ideas of many other “quality gurus” (and I include many of you contributors among them). I DO NOT believe there is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL management theory, but that each and every business has it own “personality” and we must shop all of the shelves and pick the things that work best.

I understand the 14 points - they are utilizable; but SoPK & the 4 pillars seem a bit Delphic to make work in a business.

Well that’s enough out of me. :rolleyes: Like Kevin says, back to the group…These are very good points, Rob. They get to the heart of many Quality discussions (i.e. Is it all right to "blend" theories from different gurus?)

IMO, it's not only all right, it's MANDATORY!
Even SoPK (as espoused by the Deming Institute) hints at this
The first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding of the system of profound knowledge. The individual, transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life, to events, to numbers, to interactions between people.

Once the individual understands the system of profound knowledge, he will apply its principles in every kind of relationship with other people. He will have a basis for judgment of his own decisions and for transformation of the organizations that he belongs to. The individual, once transformed, will:

Set an example
Be a good listener, but will not compromise
Continually teach other people
Help people to pull away from their current practice and beliefs and move into the new philosophy without a feeling of guilt about the past
The layout of profound knowledge appears here in four parts, all related to each other:

Appreciation for a system
Knowledge about variation
Theory of knowledge
Psychology
One need not be eminent in any part nor in all four parts in order to understand it and to apply it. The 14 points for management in industry, education, and government follow naturally as application of this outside knowledge, for transformation from the present style of Western management to one of optimization.

The various segments of the system of profound knowledge proposed here can not be separated. They interact with each other. Thus, knowledge of psychology is incomplete without knowledge of variation. I believe each individual (refer to "homework post" #63) has an obligation to adapt the four parts of SoPK to his own conditions, capabilities, and capacity. Especially consider the use of the term "optimization."

Laura:
Right! You "get it." The next step might be to consider what can we, as Quality Professionals, adapting SoPK and the 14 Points, do to help these "temporarily blinded" guardians of our public institutions see the light?

Laura M

6th February 2004, 07:19 PM

Wes,

In answer to your question, I'm on the local school board. However, when I make some of the statements I can make here and be understood, they unfortunately think they have a green martian on the school board.

We have a process called 'academic intervention' for students who are 'below the standard' in early year testing. Not a bad concept - but as we all know - its in the implementation. So we take all the "below the mark" kids and deliver additional instruction in a variety of ways. Kids "just above" don't get additional support. We get reports of how many students that received the intervention 'made it' to the next level during the next round of testing. Guess what we don't see - how many just above moved below the mark. When I ask - what would happen if they just re-took the test, how many would move up - I get that "you don't know what you're talking about look"

I volunteer for all this fun!

:thanx:

Jennifer Kirley

6th February 2004, 10:49 PM

Laura says, "So we take all the "below the mark" kids and deliver additional instruction in a variety of ways. Kids "just above" don't get additional support. We get reports of how many students that received the intervention 'made it' to the next level during the next round of testing. Guess what we don't see - how many just above moved below the mark. When I ask - what would happen if they just re-took the test, how many would move up - I get that 'you don't know what you're talking about look'"

I've dealt with this before when auditing a company whose workforce was required to receive yearly training. They had rosters of all the trainee names. I was supposed to stick to the essentially well-trod path while doing this auditing, but I asked the showstopping question: "How do you know who hasn't received the training?" No one had a means for noting this, as amazing as it seems. And this was a well-established company with many years of ISO certs, etc. etc. Here comes the little kid at the parade...

After that I didn't expect all that much out of systems, and I regret to say I've observed it's gotten worse, not better. I've subbed in schools this year, so I can well imagine your loneliness. I've been pretty sure they'd just fire me and have done with my outlandish ideas and requests for things like consistent discipline systems from one classroom to the next. Maybe I should try to go ingognito. :cool:

I bet I could design a single spreadsheet to capture those test scores and note how many were going one way or the other from one test to the next. It seems so simple to me. Graphs, run charts, what have you, but no wild statistics 'cause they blow my mind!

Jennifer

Wes Bucey

7th February 2004, 02:25 AM

I asked the showstopping question: "How do you know who hasn't received the training?" No one had a means for noting this, as amazing as it seems. And this was a well-established company with many years of ISO certs, etc. etc. Here comes the little kid at the parade...
. . .
Maybe I should try to go ingognito. :cool:

I bet I could design a single spreadsheet to capture those test scores and note how many were going one way or the other from one test to the next. It seems so simple to me. Graphs, run charts, what have you, but no wild statistics 'cause they blow my mind!Jennifer:bigwave: Welcome to the Cove, Jennifer. It seems you've run up against the problem most of us face at one time or another in our career:
How do we communicate with folks who "fear" statistical rigor in examining their processes?

SoPK suggests
Once the individual understands the system of profound knowledge, he will apply its principles in every kind of relationship with other people. He will have a basis for judgment of his own decisions and for transformation of the organizations that he belongs to. The individual, once transformed, will:

Set an example
Be a good listener, but will not compromise
Continually teach other people
Help people to pull away from their current practice and beliefs and move into the new philosophy without a feeling of guilt about the past
Sometimes we have to spoonfeed methods and processes to the uninformed and misinformed folks to help them see the light without humiliating them about their past missteps.

Often it as simple as saying, "Here's where we are, where do we want to be?"

Most times, though, we have to eliminate ALL the Quality jargon from our pitch and help them "discover" a Plan Do Check Act process for themselves.

:topic: Speaking of jargon, did you ever notice how "professional" educators have their own jargon? Maybe we have to learn their jargon and recast our processes in their own jargon.

Laura M

7th February 2004, 12:42 PM

I bet I could design a single spreadsheet to capture those test scores and note how many were going one way or the other from one test to the next. It seems so simple to me. Graphs, run charts, what have you, but no wild statistics 'cause they blow my mind!

Jennifer

It seems simple to me as well. The district likes to say they are 'data driven' when it comes to decision making. But they are doing the funnel experiment every time. Oops - math scores slipped this year - focus staff development on math...

As a board member I can only do so much. I know I ask alot of questions, but without understanding the theory - they don't understand the question, therefore it is a "'stupid' question being asked by someone that thinks you can use real life stuff in education."

Jennifer Kirley

7th February 2004, 02:47 PM

I agree with the quoted stes for nudging change:

"Set an example
Be a good listener, but will not compromise
Continually teach other people
Help people to pull away from their current practice and beliefs and move into the new philosophy without a feeling of guilt about the past"

I believe I would have had eventual success in doing that. I was beginning to, as I found opportunities for improvement (OFI) that a marching band of previous auditors had never noted. I was careful to defuse blamelaying attempts and was always clear in my respect for the process owners and their expertise. My contribution was simply to help make a change in a detail that I happened to be aware of, before it was discovered by an external authority.

Unfortunately the plant closed and we all lost our jobs.

It was nonetheless a valuable lesson in how to constructively point out OFI for people who are experts with their own systems. I began to see myself as a coach and not an evaluator. I'm going to be carrying on with that because coaches are better appreciated than club wielding school marms. :rolleyes:

Jennifer Kirley

7th February 2004, 03:03 PM

Laura, my hunch is that you are a member of a school board that views your contributions on the level of a vote and relatively little else.

When my daughter's school made it clear that their processes for responding to their students' input needed strengthening, I offered my help pro bono but my offer was ignored.

In the next couple of years I finished my degree in Applied Technical Education. Aha! Now I was qualified be heard, I deduced. I was an "insider." What I discovered as a substitute, and through listening to various full-time teachers over lunch tables, is that the systems are often not at this point built to sensitively respond to input from any of their stakeholders. I can only surmise that it is the result of a well-established, top-down hierarchy that will require change from within, just as in manufacturing. That's why I stand up and cheer when I see Baldrige stories like Chugach School District in Alaska.

For the rest of us, wherever possible we will just have to apply steady, gentle and maybe gradual pressure as in the wise quote:

"Set an example
Be a good listener, but will not compromise
Continually teach other people
Help people to pull away from their current practice and beliefs and move into the new philosophy without a feeling of guilt about the past"

And be ready with an alternative for the possible moment of opportunity, when catastrophic failure has opened the ears and minds of people we have been applying steady pressure to for a long time. Then they may be receptive when you say "Are you ready to try a different way?" as an esteemed colleague has been wont to say--and my husband did with his own department of Information System people.

Patience, patience, and never give up hope!

Jennifer

Karen R

9th February 2004, 12:19 PM

It was nonetheless a valuable lesson in how to constructively point out OFI for people who are experts with their own systems. I began to see myself as a coach and not an evaluator. I'm going to be carrying on with that because coaches are better appreciated than club wielding school marms. :rolleyes:

I agree! For those of you looking for a way to apply SoPK, here's a great example. My IA approached has evolved into this method and I see positive changes in our operations because of it. The Internal Audit can be a great "teachable moment." As I ask the process owner to explain the process, I can ask those "what if" questions, that will lead them to see for themselves where the weaknesses IN THE SYSTEM may be. I'll caution that it may be a bit of an art form to be able to do that tactfully. It's a bit like playing Columbo, so you have to be careful you don't follow the question with a "gotcha"!

Like a coach, yes! You can use the IA process to pat people on the back for all the things they're doing well (most of us get precious little of that!) and to find, for themselves, ways that they can help the process improve. You can help them have those AHA moments ;)

:topic: As for all the comments about the school systems, that would be why, in addition to my full-time job, I homeschool three high schoolers! At least I know there will be three new workers soon who will see it as their role to improve their corners of the world :cool:

Wes Bucey

9th February 2004, 10:50 PM

The Internal Audit can be a great "teachable moment." As I ask the process owner to explain the process, I can ask those "what if" questions, that will lead them to see for themselves where the weaknesses IN THE SYSTEM may be. I'll caution that it may be a bit of an art form to be able to do that tactfully. It's a bit like playing Columbo, so you have to be careful you don't follow the question with a "gotcha"!

Like a coach, yes! You can use the IA process to pat people on the back for all the things they're doing well (most of us get precious little of that!) and to find, for themselves, ways that they can help the process improve. You can help them have those AHA moments ;)

:topic: As for all the comments about the school systems, that would be why, in addition to my full-time job, I homeschool three high schoolers! At least I know there will be three new workers soon who will see it as their role to improve their corners of the world :cool:Wow! Karen gets it, too!
She understands that FEAR (of the audit, the auditor, the bosses) has no place in the Quality equation.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall to see how Karen applies that to home schooling. If it's a replicable process, perhaps it's ripe for promulgation among standard school curricula. I sure remember a lot of teachers who ruled with fear: "Do what I say, or I'll have your parents in to find out why not!"

If you were constantly in fear of consequences of transgressions, there weren't many opportunities for AHA moments.

Mike S.

10th February 2004, 09:45 AM

In the "key indicators" thread, Wes said, "Dr. Deming says that 97% of what matters cannot be measured."

Can any Deming experts provide a source, and possibly a context or explanation, of this quote?

Rob Nix

10th February 2004, 11:08 AM

Wes may have been blending two of Deming's concepts into one.

The most "profound" part of Deming's SoPK may be that as a statistician, highly experienced in using figures, he quotes Lloyd Nelson saying "The most important figures needed for management of any organization are unknown and unknowable" (Out of The Crisis, page 20 & 98). Deming understood three things clearly: 1) Proper use of data and statistics yields excellent opportunities for improvement, 2) Most companies improperly use data, and 3) The biggest sources for improvement cannot be accurately measured, e.g. the impact of customer loyalty, trust, teamwork, collaboration, culture, etc.

Those sources for improvement, or areas of trouble, are primarily part of the system, not the employees. This is where where Deming stated (OOTC pg. 315) that "94% [of troubles] belong to the system (responsibility of management)".

So it may have been an amalgamation of Deming's principles. In any event, it serves no purpose to nit-pick the issue to death. :argue:

Let's move on to some constuctive ideas. :whip:

Mike S.

10th February 2004, 11:45 AM

So it may have been an amalgamation of Deming's principles. In any event, it serves no purpose to nit-pick the issue to death. :argue:

Let's move on to some constuctive ideas. :whip:

Sorry if I'm boring you, Rob. And here I thought this thread was for discussion of Deming's teachings and to help people understand them better. :bonk: As I see it, if I don't understand or agree with something presented it is not destructive or "nit-picking" to question it and bring it up for discussion. Seems as though my "nit-picking" has uncovered a few nits along the way, doesn't it?

I always most respected the teachers who invited questions and discussion (or even dissent) and had the least respect for those who demanded unquestioning agreement (complete with cracking whip to keep discipline). Guess which type I learned more from? Besides, I usually found that if I had a question about something it was most likely that several others had the same question but were too embarrased or shy to ask it themselves. Sorry if I'm the dunce of the class, but as long as I have questions I'm gonna ask them until they get answered, or I give up trying, or they kick me out.

WALLACE

10th February 2004, 11:59 AM

Yup,
Just like in any other thread at the Cove or, other business forums.
We reveal our personalities to each other. take it in context though and, don't ever take it personally to heart as some kind of character assassination.
I agree with you mike if you have a question to ask, however daft you might think it may seem, just ask away. I'm certainly in a learning mode regarding further understanding of A SoPK, I have to say though, I generally overlook Demings SoPK and attempt to understand systems thinking and its implications for this century.
As I said in my mapped visual of A SoPK, by nature it develops (Or evolves) according to knowledge that is shared, extrapolated, understood and infused.
Wallace.

David Hartman

10th February 2004, 12:13 PM

OK, guys let's play nice!

Rob, As I understood the purpose of this thread it is to help educate those that are not familiar with, or do not understand SoPK. If that is the case, then I believe Mike's queries to be justified - since what may be trivial and/or a nit to me may in-fact be the one stumbling block that is preventing him from having an AHA moment.

If understanding and adopting SoPK is the life-changing experience that Dr. Deming expressed it to be, don't we owe those that haven't experienced that understanding some of our time and patience in order to help them towards enlightenment.

Mike, Nit away! If the SoPK gurus can't answer your questions then perhaps SoPK is not the revelation that it is purported to be. I for one am greatful for the opportunity to attempt to express my understanding of WED's teachings, but I must also express a lack of experience in their full application. I have made it a practice for several years now to use my understanding of his instructions as a guide as I lead my portion of the organizations that I work in/with.
:bigwave:

WALLACE

10th February 2004, 12:25 PM

I for one am greatful for the opportunity to attempt to express my understanding of WED's teachings, but I must also express a lack of experience in their full application. I have made it a practice for several years now to use my understanding of his instructions as a guide as I lead my portion of the organizations that I work in/with.

Me too :D
Wallace

Mike S.

10th February 2004, 12:40 PM

Rob Nix

10th February 2004, 12:59 PM

Wes Bucey

10th February 2004, 01:30 PM

I agree that jumping back and forth between this thread and the "key indicators" thread is getting tedious, but they are interrelated by now, and only a moderator, should they deem it appropriate, can merge them.

So, in post 29 on the key indicators thread DD might have found the genesis for the "97% quote".

In that context, can someone please give examples (Deming's or your own) of the 3% and 97% just so I'm sure I'm not confused?Mike, I accept your sincerity on this issue. I apologize for implying 97% was a direct quote. My input on the citation is in http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=70981&postcount=32

Let's leave the "nitpick" of the citation aside (for now and definitely in the other thread) and address the concept.

Is your (Mike's) primary objection to the percentage cited? (i.e. Would you accept 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?)
OR
Is your primary objection to the concept that some (or ANY) things which are important cannot be measured?

Understanding the source of your displeasure/confusion would help us focus our responses

David Hartman

10th February 2004, 02:15 PM

Mike S.

10th February 2004, 02:25 PM

Is your (Mike's) primary objection to the percentage cited? (i.e. Would you accept 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?)
OR
Is your primary objection to the concept that some (or ANY) things which are important cannot be measured?

Understanding the source of your displeasure/confusion would help us focus our responses

The percentage cited got my attention first. Then, knowing Deming wasn't a dumb guy, I wondered exactly what I might be missing -- what exactly is it that cannot be measured? I admittedly don't spend lots of time thinking philosophically about such stuff, so I thought it would be a pretty easy thing to ask for examples of the things Deming felt couldn't be measured, then I could decide if I agreed or not. I didn't expect it would be a big thing.

I'm not here with an agenda to promote or denigrate Deming or anyone else. There are certainly things he says I agree with 100%, others I agree with to varying degrees, and other things I disagree with. JMO. There are very few absolutes on any subject I will agree with, and the closer to an absolute something supposedly is the more likely I will disagree with it. I will look carefully at anything that is supposedly 97% this or that.

Craig H.

10th February 2004, 02:28 PM

David:

Thanks for the attachment, it was very interesting.

As far as the 97 (or 95) percent nonmeasurables go, I think it would settle my mind some to settle weather or not the figure is based on a (very educated) guess, or emperical study. By the nature of the beast, I would think it would have to be the former, no?

That said, I think we can agree that the exact number, or percentage, is not very important. What is important, as Dave's article alluded to, is how the things we can and can't measure will impact the health of the company over the long term.

The article points out that management is NOT science, but an art, and therefore the usefulness of numbers is limited.

Or do I just not get it?

Craig

Mike S.

10th February 2004, 02:48 PM

Mike et al,

Once again pulled from the DEN. A paper by Dr. Myron Tribus that addresses some of the "unmeasurables" that depict the health of a system (and why they should be treated as observable, but "unmeasurable").

Scanned it quickly. Interesting article.

Maybe I'm a real dummy? Maybe it is semantics? I dunno, but the writer says do not use "scoring" or "a numerical rating" for suppliers, then suggests a 4 level competence scheme "to assess at what level of competence the managers are operating". So, this is not scoring simply because a number is not used? So what if I assign a score of 1-4 for the 4 levels of competence methodology he advocates -- that ruins its validity?

At some point the rubber must meet the road -- somehow you must take the data you've generated and use it to decide if company A or B or C will be selected as best. If you do that without using a number that's okay with me -- I still see it as measuring the company. Call it "assessing" if that makes you happy, but to me that is still synonomous with measuring.

Please, what am I missing? :confused:

Jennifer Kirley

10th February 2004, 02:53 PM

I read the attached paper by Dr. Myron Tribus, and thank you for providing that. I will print it out.

It leads me to grapple with the seemingly diametrical issues of "Management by fact (Baldrige element) and "Management by feeling" (a common practice that is sometimes called "Flying by the seat of your pants").

Now I truly do appreciate the antagonism I am implying here, but I feel sure that an attempt to measure progress in these areas is important to know that progress is in fact being made, or else it's a subjective judgement that could be based on a number of factors.

How then, should we measure such "soft" kinds of progress?

I had decided that administering a questionnaire similar to the Baldrige "Are We Making Progress?" to each employee--sticking with a select group or supervisory people won't do--and graphing changes in response "strengths" might be a good idea. I had gone so far as to develop spreadsheets for entering the responses and graphing the results, broken down by shifts and groups, since answers can get statistically laundered by looking at them organization-wide. We can look at group senses that way, and measure degrees of change from one questionnaire cycle to the next.

Does that seem sensible?

This is important to me because I am looking hard at building practical techniques for small businesses outside of manufacturing to use. These businesses would need straightforward ways to know their progress if we were to succeed in making the case that organized quality efforts are worth doing.

Jennifer

Mike S.

10th February 2004, 03:15 PM

I was in a meeting and couldn't respond sooner.

Sorry, Mike, I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. I thought (mistakenly I might add) based on your original questions that you were finding fault with Wes's statements, which I thought were more generalizations that anything else. Only now do I get the sense that you were truly digging for understanding. I guess I was assuming a sarcasm that didn't exist. Anyway, I apologize again for my presumptuousness. :o

Also, I hope the references from Out of The Crisis helped.

Apology accepted. :truce:

Now, about that reference: You said:

"Deming understood three things clearly: 1) Proper use of data and statistics yields excellent opportunities for improvement, 2) Most companies improperly use data, and 3) The biggest sources for improvement cannot be accurately measured, e.g. the impact of customer loyalty, trust, teamwork, collaboration, culture, etc.

Point 3 comes as close as anyone has yet come to finally giving me an example of something important that "cannot be accurately measured". I am not sure whether I believe that they cannot be accurately measured, but I will admit that the measurement would probably not be as easy as something like yield or market share.

Wes Bucey

10th February 2004, 03:20 PM

The percentage cited got my attention first. Then, knowing Deming wasn't a dumb guy, I wondered exactly what I might be missing -- what exactly is it that cannot be measured? I admittedly don't spend lots of time thinking philosophically about such stuff, so I thought it would be a pretty easy thing to ask for examples of the things Deming felt couldn't be measured, then I could decide if I agreed or not. I didn't expect it would be a big thing.

I'm not here with an agenda to promote or denigrate Deming or anyone else. There are certainly things he says I agree with 100%, others I agree with to varying degrees, and other things I disagree with. JMO. There are very few absolutes on any subject I will agree with, and the closer to an absolute something supposedly is the more likely I will disagree with it. I will look carefully at anything that is supposedly 97% this or that.OK. This is a nice, fresh start.
I interpret both Mike and Craig to be saying, "Yeah, the certainty of a number (97%) seemed to be at variance with the whole Deming thing and it took us off track."

I personally doubt that Deming intended to be like Yogi Berra in his infamous quote:
99% of the game is half mental. Yogi Berra

Unintentionally, though, beyond the laughter, Yogi made a point similar to Deming's:
"the mental, or psychological aspect, of the game or business is infused in every part of the game or business."

Because businesses are each unique, we rarely have a Control which gets only Placebos ("sugar pills") versus "the real thing." Without a Control, it's really difficult to determine if the new process really is responsible for the improvement or whether the improvement comes about as a result of a placebo effect.

Deming and many others tried to cut through the fog. Some attributed the bulk of improvements to the increased attention the process got as a result of "measurement." That is, the "human element" was the primary impetus. Others said the important factor was "sustainability" (did the process continue at the new level or was there a "relapse"?) Think of the relapse effect like so many yo-yo dieters, who lose weight, then soon rebound to the prior weight or beyond.

Mike asks in a later post:
I still see it as measuring the company. Call it "assessing" if that makes you happy, but to me that is still synonomous with measuring.

Please, what am I missing?
The concept is not against "measuring." We measure many things and make decisions based on the measurement:

I need to transport two gallons of water - is the bucket big enough?
I need 2 million widgets a year - is the supplier capable of turning out that many and still meet my Quality expectation?
I need a rod 6.235 inches long - is it too short, too long or just right?

The biggest concern in a Demingite is whether the measurement is meaningful (as in the examples above) or nonmeaningful:

John only "handled" 200 calls today instead of his quota of 210.
(What happened in each call? - not measured. Was customer satisfied? - not measured. Did customer have to call back two or three times? - not measured.)
Mary only soldered 100 joints today instead of her quota of 150.
(Was Mary properly trained? Was the quota too high? Was the current on the soldering iron subject to a line voltage drop? Is the solder the proper quality? - Who knows? - the other items weren't considered.)

Deming's primary gripe (and mine) is that too many folks look to the numbers instead of the deeper root cause the numbers may be masking. Too frequently, the psychology of the bosses is to fire the individual instead of improve the system. Deming strove to make the workplace more efficient by directing how the numbers and measurements were ultimately used. In pursuing efficiency his way, the workplace also became more humane.

What's important to measure? What isn't? The guy who comes up with the one answer that fits every situation won't be able to answer us here - he'll be too busy spending the money he'll make.

David Hartman

10th February 2004, 03:22 PM

Scanned it quickly. Interesting article.

Maybe I'm a real dummy? Maybe it is semantics? I dunno, but the writer says do not use "scoring" or "a numerical rating" for suppliers, then suggests a 4 level competence scheme "to assess at what level of competence the managers are operating". So, this is not scoring simply because a number is not used? So what if I assign a score of 1-4 for the 4 levels of competence methodology he advocates -- that ruins its validity?

At some point the rubber must meet the road -- somehow you must take the data you've generated and use it to decide if company A or B or C will be selected as best. If you do that without using a number that's okay with me -- I still see it as measuring the company. Call it "assessing" if that makes you happy, but to me that is still synonomous with measuring.

Please, what am I missing? :confused:

Mike, The 4 level competence scheme deals with "Training Competence" only (a very small portion of the total evaluation Dr. Tribus describes - Things you See; Things you Hear; Attitudes Displayed; Topics of Discussion in meetings; Expectations of the Workforce; Priorities assigned to Customer's Desires; and the Goals of the Enterprise).

Let's walk through an example of one of these elements.

As I am walking through a supplier's facility, I make note of fact that "some" of the equipment has layers of dust on it with an appearance that it has been idle for quite some time.

Later I am at another competing supplier's, and I note "some" of the equipment with layers of dust: As much dust as the previous suppliers? Should I have measured this? As many dusty machines, or more? Could this be an important factor? Should I retune my "Supplier Questionaire" to address how much dust and/or how many machines are acceptable? And if I do, will my judgement be the same as that of the other 6 people within my organization that are visiting our suppliers?

Or, should I treat each of these incidents separately by questioning: Is the equipment broken (poor maintenance)? Has it been replaced by a newer model, and therefore is just taking up space (mis-management of space/resources)? Is it useable, but due to a slowdown in orders there has not been a call for it for sometime (Why the loss of sales)?

And if these are the questions that are really of import, how do I "score" them (especially comparing one supplier to another and possibly using more than one person doing the scoring)?

Sure I could develop a 1 - 5 (or 1 - 10) scale and provide some form of direction to the "assessors" as they rate the suppliers in these areas, but in reality am I not attempting to take a subjective matter and objectively rate it (in which I will never really eliminate the subjective bias)?

Certain aspects of life (and management) are measurable and objective, but many others are subjective (and are like round pegs in square holes when you attempt to measure them objectively) - you can fool yourself into thinking that you have eliminated the subjective bias, but it will always remain and your resultant "scores" will have a systemic variation because of it.
:bigwave:

David Hartman

10th February 2004, 03:34 PM

Jennifer Kirley

10th February 2004, 03:54 PM

Jennifer,

Yes, you can use such a questionnaire, but keep in mind such factors as:

Did the respondant have a bad day this time around -Vs- the previous time (e.g. They may have just had an aurgument with their immediate supervisor, or with a co-worker; or maybe they just woke up on the wrong side of the bed today).

These types of questionnaires can become a soapbox for the gripe of the day, or the opposite a forum for kissing up to the boss.

You will never be able to eliminate systemic variation from the process because of its subjective nature.

I agree with the variable nature of personnel responses. Understanding that this is a potentially significant source of unreliability within industries that are heavily human-process oriented, I still question how to appropriately measure progress.

So, such things are subjective but if the entire group--say, a line of 12 phone center operators--provides answers in a significant shift from the responses of the other groups, is it a measurement with value?

David Hartman

10th February 2004, 04:10 PM

Wes Bucey

10th February 2004, 04:21 PM

I agree with the variable nature of personnel responses. Understanding that this is a potentially significant source of unreliability within industries that are heavily human-process oriented, I still question how to appropriately measure progress.

So, such things are subjective but if the entire group--say, a line of 12 phone center operators--provides answers in a significant shift from the responses of the other groups, is it a measurement with value?
IMO, it has value, but value for what?
Many egregious abuses of Management by Objective are found throughout call centers.
Typically, folks in a customer service call center are constrained in the extent they may go in understanding and responding to or resolving the customer's concern.

Somehow, the MBO advocates think the answer lies in a tighter script or more "bells and whistles" in the Customer Relationship Software (CRM) they use.

They have True-False, Multiple choice, or value scale questionnaires for the customers and the call center operators to complete, but they pay more attention to the numbers from the preprogrammed questions than to the marginalia or answers scribbled in the space for "your comments."

When an operation is run in an atmosphere of fear, no employee truly believes his answers will be "anonymous." Deming and others have recognized this for a long time.

MBO advocates think they can avoid that stigma by having outside firms conduct the survey - what do the employees really think?

Many questionnaires are poorly constructed, with an aura of "we know we're good, we just need you to tell us how good."

The bottom line may be - what does the entity issuing the questionnaire intend to do with the results? If it is to crow, "9 out of 10 employees love working here!" (as opposed to what? - living under a bridge?) I'd be interested in your reaction.

If it is to develop better training, better working conditions, better reponse to customers, then I might be willing to listen to the proposal.

I guess I'd rather see an atmosphere where essay-type questions replaced multiple choice and number (and soul) crunching.

Mike S.

10th February 2004, 04:36 PM

I personally doubt that Deming intended to be like Yogi Berra in his infamous quote:
99% of the game is half mental. Yogi Berra

The biggest concern in a Demingite is whether the measurement is meaningful (as in the examples above) or nonmeaningful:

John only "handled" 200 calls today instead of his quota of 210.
(What happened in each call? - not measured. Was customer satisfied? - not measured. Did customer have to call back two or three times? - not measured.)
Mary only soldered 100 joints today instead of her quota of 150.
(Was Mary properly trained? Was the quota too high? Was the current on the soldering iron subject to a line voltage drop? Is the solder the proper quality? - Who knows? - the other items weren't considered.)

Deming's primary gripe (and mine) is that too many folks look to the numbers instead of the deeper root cause the numbers may be masking. Too frequently, the psychology of the bosses is to fire the individual instead of improve the system. Deming strove to make the workplace more efficient by directing how the numbers and measurements were ultimately used. In pursuing efficiency his way, the workplace also became more humane.

Wes,

First, on the Yogi quote. Actually, Yogi said, "Ninety percent of the game is half mental." Not meaning to nit-pick, but I had heard it often enough to know 99% was wrong and I thought maybe you set me up for that one, so I didn't want to disappoint. :truce:

The rest of your post makes some sense to me -- I agree with most of it. This makes more sense to me than saying you cannot measure most of the stuff that matters. IMO you can, but you can also get caught in the trap of measuring the wrong things, or responding inappropriately.

Mike S.

10th February 2004, 04:56 PM

Mike, The 4 level competence scheme deals with "Training Competence" only (a very small portion of the total evaluation Dr. Tribus describes - Things you See; Things you Hear; Attitudes Displayed; Topics of Discussion in meetings; Expectations of the Workforce; Priorities assigned to Customer's Desires; and the Goals of the Enterprise).

Certain aspects of life (and management) are measurable and objective, but many others are subjective (and are like round pegs in square holes when you attempt to measure them objectively) - you can fool yourself into thinking that you have eliminated the subjective bias, but it will always remain and your resultant "scores" will have a systemic variation because of it.
:bigwave:

DD,

No measurement is perfect, but some are better than others.

I think we're confusing qualitative vs. quantitative measurements. Just because we use a qualitative index doesn't mean we're not measuring.

Tribus said:

"The first thing you should observe on entering any area is the state of the housekeeping.

Are the floors clean?
Are there receptacles for trash? In use?
Are the walls and shelves clean?
Do you see evidence of things that have not
been repaired for a long time? "

To answer the first question (or 2nd or 3rd) I could say yes or no; somewhat, very, not at all, most are, most aren't, or a host of other things. Each answer is qualitative, but IMO it is still a measure.

Again, maybe it is semantics, but Tribus says we should "observe" these things (housekeeping, safety, procedures, managerial attitudes, etc.) and I say the result of the observation is a measurement. Might my analysis or actions taken as a result of my measurements be wrong? Yep, maybe.

Mike S.

10th February 2004, 05:02 PM

WALLACE

10th February 2004, 05:11 PM

Again, maybe it is semantics, but Tribus says we should "observe" these things (housekeeping, safety, procedures, managerial attitudes, etc.) and I say the result of the observation is a measurement. Might my analysis or actions taken as a result of my measurements be wrong? Yep, maybe.

Mike,
Have a look at the auditing thread attachment visual that infuses the use of the "task element process audit". http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=7678
This approach developed by Allan J Sayle was initially rejected and frowned upon by the ISO hardliners yet, now it's clear that Mr Sayle's task element process audit practice is now common place within the process and system thinking group of quality focused quality practitioners.
Measurements? yeah they should be viewed as both Qualitative and quantitive.
Wallace

Wes Bucey

10th February 2004, 05:12 PM

Wes,

First, on the Yogi quote. Actually, Yogi said, "Ninety percent of the game is half mental." Not meaning to nit-pick, but I had heard it often enough to know 99% was wrong and I thought maybe you set me up for that one, so I didn't want to disappoint. :truce:

The rest of your post makes some sense to me -- I agree with most of it. This makes more sense to me than saying you cannot measure most of the stuff that matters. IMO you can, but you can also get caught in the trap of measuring the wrong things, or responding inappropriately.:biglaugh: (Jumping for Joy) :applause: :agree1:
Great, Mike!
(I LOVE these new smilies!)
Now we have a common ground for learning. Let's agree to discuss concepts, not numbers.

How would you approach "fixing" the worst call center you ever encountered? From a SoPK point of view?
(call center as topic because most folks encounter one anytime they phone to order or trace a product or service.)

One candidate for fixing is the one that told my 84 year old mom when she called to ask what glue to use to reattach the mirror on her windshield, "Your car is out of warranty." Click [hangup sound] Boy, that employee sure made the numbers in call-handling time!

(:topic: I got my Yogi quote from the first thing that came up on the Google with ("yogi berra" +99%), because I only vaguely recalled the idea of good quotes from Yogi)

Mike S.

10th February 2004, 05:32 PM

How would you approach "fixing" the worst call center you ever encountered? From a SoPK point of view?
(call center as topic because most folks encounter one anytime they phone to order or trace a product or service.)

One candidate for fixing is the one that told my 84 year old mom when she called to ask what glue to use to reattach the mirror on her windshield, "Your car is out of warranty." Click [hangup sound] Boy, that employee sure made the numbers in call-handling time!

My fast, gotta go, answer: Call-handling (on-line) time might be a small criteria -- one of many more in my analysis. Did the customer get the answer they needed in a polite and efficient manner w/o my employee wasting their time or ours? Was it the right answer? Limited on-hold-time for caller? If problems exist, I'd get my butt down there and observe, talk to call takers, etc.

Craig H.

10th February 2004, 05:54 PM

My fast, gotta go, answer: Call-handling (on-line) time might be a small criteria -- one of many more in my analysis. Did the customer get the answer they needed in a polite and efficient manner w/o my employee wasting their time or ours? Was it the right answer? Limited on-hold-time for caller? If problems exist, I'd get my butt down there and observe, talk to call takers, etc.

Ok, let's run with this example. Mike, if I may, how would we know if there were problems? If all we were measuring was avg call time, then we could have lots of 84-year-old ladies with experiences like Wes' mom, and our metrics say we are champs. Where is the "profound knowledge" to be gained?

Call customers back just after their call experience and do a survey?

Ask the call center employees what they need to do a better job (while defining "better job" as customer satisfaction)?

How does the customer's satisfaction with the total product relate to call center use? Would better product instructions or design almost negate the need for a call center at all?

Is this what we are supposed to be looking at, then?

Craig

Wes Bucey

10th February 2004, 06:41 PM

Ok, let's run with this example. Mike, if I may, how would we know if there were problems? If all we were measuring was avg call time, then we could have lots of 84-year-old ladies with experiences like Wes' mom, and our metrics say we are champs. Where is the "profound knowledge" to be gained?

In the case of a call center, many times the problem is exacerbated by the "suit" who defines what he wants from a call center. Someone says, "we get a lot of calls and they take up our valuable time." The next guy interprets that to mean the problem is the calls take up time - ergo, the desired outcome is less time spent on calls.

From that point on, everything is downhill.

Craig asks the correct question:
How does the customer's satisfaction with the total product relate to call center use? Would better product instructions or design almost negate the need for a call center at all?

Is this what we are supposed to be looking at, then?
How do we, as Quality Professionals, help the suits in charge identify the root problem we need to solve?
SoPK hints we are on the way once we have a good understanding of the big picture and how all the parts relate to each other.

Mike S.

11th February 2004, 11:52 AM

Ok, let's run with this example. Mike, if I may, how would we know if there were problems? If all we were measuring was avg call time, then we could have lots of 84-year-old ladies with experiences like Wes' mom, and our metrics say we are champs. Where is the "profound knowledge" to be gained?

Call customers back just after their call experience and do a survey?

Ask the call center employees what they need to do a better job (while defining "better job" as customer satisfaction)?

How does the customer's satisfaction with the total product relate to call center use? Would better product instructions or design almost negate the need for a call center at all?

Is this what we are supposed to be looking at, then?

Craig

Craig,

You're on the right track IMO. Look at the total system. What do you expect from the call center? If I were suddenly in charge of the company, I'd want there to be a minimal need for the call center as you suggest, so I'd want to take the data from the call center and see how we could go about preventing the need for some of the calls in the first place. One potential issue -- you're asking the call center employees to help eliminate some of their jobs, so be prepared to face that one.

I'd want the employees to have all the tools (education, training, software, references, etc.) to be able to give the caller the right answer.

I'd want the employees to remain polite, calm and composed even when faced with the inevitable occasional rude idiot. But I'd give them the right to politely tell an abusive caller that they are terminating the call and not to call back until the caller can act civilly.

Karen R

11th February 2004, 12:05 PM

... One potential issue -- you're asking the call center employees to help eliminate some of their jobs, so be prepared to face that one...

This becomes another great training opportunity. Not everyone will be inclined to participate in the improvement activity, but as you begin to draw a talent pool of willing participants you will be able to show them the value of becoming a problem solver - as I point out to my folks on a regular basis. Our security doesn't lie in being the answer to "one problem," it comes when we learn to how to solve any problem. The "one problem" will eventually go away, but there will always be problems that need to be solved. If you become a skilled problem solver, you will always be a valued asset

Wes Bucey

11th February 2004, 02:51 PM

This becomes another great training opportunity. Not everyone will be inclined to participate in the improvement activity, but as you begin to draw a talent pool of willing participants you will be able to show them the value of becoming a problem solver - as I point out to my folks on a regular basis. Our security doesn't lie in being the answer to "one problem," it comes when we learn to how to solve any problem. The "one problem" will eventually go away, but there will always be problems that need to be solved. If you become a skilled problem solver, you will always be a valued assetThis is great!
Karen, Mike, and Craig are demonstrating they really have been "systems thinkers" all along. I think the big breakthrough here is understanding the term "SoPK" really hinges on "system." Once we help folks understand that, maybe we can help reduce the "stigma" surrounding the term "Profound Knowledge" which many perceive as elitist or "hoity toity."

WALLACE

11th February 2004, 04:01 PM

Here's some system thinking web sites.
This may give us some food for thought.
Wallace.

http://www.mycoted.com/index.htm

http://www.mapnp.org/library/systems/systems.htm

http://www.pegasuscom.com/aboutst.html

http://www.thedecalogue.com/default.htm

http://www.harehall.co.uk/systems.html

http://www.systems-thinking.org/systhink/systhink.htm

http://www.systemsthinking.co.nz/

http://www.thesystemsthinker.com/

Mike S.

11th February 2004, 06:01 PM

WALLACE

11th February 2004, 08:06 PM

Mike,
If the ideas and interpretations of Juran, Deming, Crosby and, Covers like yourself, Wes Busey, Kevin Mader "et Moi" and many others, who may be more knowledgeable contribute to this thread with all of their ideas and interpretations, contribute to "systems thinking", I'm all for it. :agree:
Wallace.

Wes Bucey

11th February 2004, 08:32 PM

One thought that hit me today as I was going about my work: Juran created a tool in his Quality Control Handbook that many Q practitioners, Industrial Engineers, Statisticians, etc. use as a reference quite often (I do). It is pretty much accepted as the "bible" of the profession. He also wrote several other books on Q subjects, one of which I read years ago (but forget the title) and has over the years been recognized as one of the greats of the field.

So, I wonder why there are no "Juranites"?-- he doesn't seem to have the rabid followers like Deming. Or am I wrong?

Can anyone summarize what, if any, major differences in philosophy there were between the two?Here's an excerpt from a review of a book on Juran which appeared in Quality Press

Juran by John Butman
. . .
A Juran biography is especially welcome because he has not, until now, been as well-known as other quality figures
. . .
One of the most fascinating aspects of biographies is the pinpointing of those fateful -- and often minor -- incidents that end up playing a major role in a person's life. Juran had many of those moments. One was his failure to aggressively pursue a role in the PBS television report that launched quality and W. Edwards Deming into the business mainstream. As a result, Juran, who played at least as large a role as Deming in the quality movement, never received the same degree of attention.

Another interesting facet of the book lies in the many hints of competitiveness and professional jealousy that exist between the lines. Even the great successes enjoyed by Juran, Deming, Crosby, Drucker and other leading thinkers do not seem large enough to overcome the petty tiffs and minor slights they suffer at each others' hands.

Juran (John Wiley & Sons, $29.95)
Full review at http://www.qualitydigest.com/oct97/html/books.htm (http://www.qualitydigest.com/oct97/html/books.htm)
Always interesting stuff. Rob Nix or Kevin Mader, of course, may have this book on their own shelves - maybe they can add some insight beyond this.

Rob Nix

12th February 2004, 08:43 AM

Good thread starter Mike! :agree1:

Two things led to Deming's rise to fame, that did not happen to Juran; 1) his success in helping Japan's industrial turn around, e.g. 1950: Japan = cheap, now: Toyota is #2 automaker ahead of Ford, and 2) his public rise to fame in 1980 with the NBC Whitepaper "If Japan Can... Why Can't We?", where he used such memorable terms as "instant pudding" and "[most problems are] unknown and unknowable".

Still Deming gave a lot of credit to Juran for his contribution to promoting Quality methods in America.

Juran's Quality [Control] Handbook HAS become THE desk reference for most Quality Managers. I still use it frequently. However, my favorite book of Juran's (when I worked in production facilities) was "Quality Planning and Analysis".

ralphsulser

12th February 2004, 09:35 AM

Good thread starter Mike! :agree1:
Juran's Quality [Control] Handbook HAS become THE desk reference for most Quality Managers. I still use it frequently. However, my favorite book of Juran's (when I worked in production facilities) was "Quality Planning and Analysis".
This is a correct observation. I started working in Quality in 1966, and taking ASQ(C) courses then also. At that time Juran was known as the "Father of Quality Control". Ths first thing we were told was to get Juran's Quality Quality Control Handbook. I still have it. I have used it extensively over the years, took it with me to the CQE exam. In 1974 I was fortunate enough to spend a week with Dr. Juran as part of a training program for all the Budd Co. quality managers. I later met again with Dr. Juran in 1994 at the ASQ convention in Las Vegas. Juran did not get or seek as much publicity as Demming, and I would not want to detract from Demming's accomplishments. At least he got the focus on much needed quality improvement efforts.

Wes Bucey

12th February 2004, 01:07 PM

This is a correct observation. I started working in Quality in 1966, and taking ASQ(C) courses then also. At that time Juran was known as the "Father of Quality Control". Ths first thing we were told was to get Juran's Quality Quality Control Handbook. I still have it. I have used it extensively over the years, took it with me to the CQE exam. In 1974 I was fortunate enough to spend a week with Dr. Juran as part of a training program for all the Budd Co. quality managers. I later met again with Dr. Juran in 1994 at the ASQ convention in Las Vegas. Juran did not get or seek as much publicity as Demming, and I would not want to detract from Demming's accomplishments. At least he got the focus on much needed quality improvement efforts.:applause: Excellent observations by Ralph and Rob.
Rightly or wrongly, I think of Deming as a "concept" guy and Juran as a "nuts and bolts" guy.

Part of the religious fervor attributed to Demingites is attributable to the feeling of Zeitgeist which permeated all his public seminars and workshops. A large part is attributable to the fact attendees "self-selected" themselves looking for some "breakthough" in their careers (lives?)

Juran folks were much more pragmatic - "OK. What do I do and how do I do it? Don't waste my time with philosophy, I have too much work to do."
(Webster's 1913 Edition)
Definition: \Zeit"geist`\, n. [G.; zeit time + geist spirit. See
{Tide}, n.; {Ghost}, n.]
The spirit of the time; the general intellectual and moral
state or temper characteristic of any period of time.

Kevin Mader

12th February 2004, 02:40 PM

Kevin Mader

12th February 2004, 02:44 PM

Wes,

This is the one book I don't have. ;-)

Kevin :D

David Hartman

12th February 2004, 02:52 PM

Dave,

I removed the PDF of Myron's paper as the DEN and Myron have explicitly asked that this not be done. However, I would encourage folks who read this thread and wonder what the link was for to visit the DEN to read it there. It is a terrific paper as most of Myron's works are. It should also be noted that those who were engaged with the links to Education, Myron has written extensively on this topic and has in fact, dedicated the remainder of his life working on this important subject.

Regards,

Kevin

Well it's nice to know that after 51 years I am still receptive to new knowledge. Thanks Kevin, I was not aware of the DEN's limits on this - and now I know.
:cool: :thanx:

I too hope that others will take an opportunity to visit the DEN, there really is a wealth of knowledge there - and more importantly some of it is actually information on the "how - to" of applying SoPK (the type of info that Mike has been requesting).

David Hartman

12th February 2004, 03:02 PM

Juran folks were much more pragmatic - "OK. What do I do and how do I do it? Don't waste my time with philosophy, I have too much work to do."

I discovered many years ago that my learning style is such that learning the "how to do it" information is not nearly as important for me as learning the "why it works that way".

Although you really can't use the "why" information without knowing and understanding the "how" information (which is where Mike is coming from with his queries for examples of Deming's philosophies in use).

I too believe that a pairing of Deming and Juran (perhaps with a sprinkle of Crosby - after all I was an ITT employee for quite a few years :rolleyes: ) seems to cover the bases quite well.

Kevin Mader

13th February 2004, 12:53 PM

I think that there is an important blend with Deming's philosophies and Juran's applications. I agree with you folks here that the influences of both men and other contemporaries is important. I started with Fiegenbaum, moved to Juran, and settled with Deming. Nonetheless, all have had a profound affect on me and I use their guidance in an intertwined effort.

Again in the National Archives, these men exchanged many letters and recognized each others contributions, personally and professionally just as Drucker and Deming had.

Kevin

Mike S.

13th February 2004, 02:27 PM

Dave,

I removed the PDF of Myron's paper as the DEN and Myron have explicitly asked that this not be done. However, I would encourage folks who read this thread and wonder what the link was for to visit the DEN to read it there. Regards,

Kevin

Okay, help a dummy here. What's the DEN? And why can't a paper from there be posted here if credit is given?

Mike S.

13th February 2004, 04:15 PM

Okay, help a dummy here. What's the DEN? And why can't a paper from there be posted here if credit is given?

Never mind -- I found it.

So I did a quick scan through a few pages and found this:

The following is excerpted from Chapter 4 of The New Economics, second edition by W. Edwards Deming.

The first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding of the system of profound knowledge. The individual, transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life, to events, to numbers, to interactions between people.

A manager of people needs to understand that all people are different. This is not ranking people. He needs to understand that the performance of anyone is governed largely by the system that he works in, the responsibility of management. A psychologist that possesses even a crude understanding of variation as will be learned in the experiment with the Red Beads (Ch. 7) could no longer participate in refinement of a plan for ranking people.

Thr first quote almost sounds like it could have come from a new-age guru espousing a new religion. Or is it just me?

The second quote is just too broad and absolute for my taste. Or, maybe not... Hey, I'm as good a home-run hitter as Sammy Sosa, it's just that I've been in a bad system! And I'm as brilliant as Stephen Hawking -- it's just that I've been in a bad system! Okay, so I'm being a bit sarcastic. But how many folks here really believe that in their daily lives that they DO NOT work and interact with people who are better than others at a given task outside of any differences in the system they work in? In other words, the differences between Jane's ability to make 50 widgets in an hour vs. Joe's ability to make 30 in an hour means there is always a systemic fault, not differences between their internal talents, abilities, and motivations? To believe Deming's assertion goes aganist a lifetime of real-life experiences. One thing for sure, I don't want Deming as my advisor on draft-day for my favorite sports team -- but I'd be okay if he worked for the Yankees! :lol:

Craig H.

13th February 2004, 04:53 PM

Never mind -- I found it.

So I did a quick scan through a few pages and found this:

The following is excerpted from Chapter 4 of The New Economics, second edition by W. Edwards Deming.

The first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding of the system of profound knowledge. The individual, transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life, to events, to numbers, to interactions between people.

A manager of people needs to understand that all people are different. This is not ranking people. He needs to understand that the performance of anyone is governed largely by the system that he works in, the responsibility of management. A psychologist that possesses even a crude understanding of variation as will be learned in the experiment with the Red Beads (Ch. 7) could no longer participate in refinement of a plan for ranking people.

But how many folks here really believe that in their daily lives that they DO NOT work and interact with people who are better than others at a given task outside of any differences in the system they work in? In other words, the differences between Jane's ability to make 50 widgets in an hour vs. Joe's ability to make 30 in an hour means there is always a systemic fault, not differences between their internal talents, abilities, and motivations? To believe Deming's assertion goes aganist a lifetime of real-life experiences. One thing for sure, I don't want Deming as my advisor on draft-day for my favorite sports team -- but I'd be okay if he worked for the Yankees! :lol:

Ok, Mike, I see your point. One thing that I don't recall seeing much in Q literature, or business literature for that matter, is just what you do with the""Joes" of the world. To take your sports analogy a little further, what makes a great coach?

Well, I would say that motivation is an obvious factor, but even when motivating all of the players to do their best there will be variation. IMO, one of the least talked about abilities of good coaches is how they can look at the abilities (and lack thereof) of each of the players, and match the game plan to the players ' abilities. In a way, this is true in business as well. We all have strengths and weaknesses. A good manager will work to play to their employees' strengths and protect them from their weaknesses.

I don't know that Deming ever really put it quite like this (he may have even thought it was so much drivel), but maybe the strategy I mentioned above could be part of "the system"?

Craig

WALLACE

13th February 2004, 05:37 PM

Thr first quote almost sounds like it could have come from a new-age guru espousing a new religion. Or is it just me?

Nope, It's not just you,
It does sound rather evangelistic to me too.
Deming was a deeply religious man and, it's my guess that he aligned much of his understandings and interpretations of profound knowledge on his cultural and religious beliefs. I'm certainly not trying to throw bricks at this possibility yet, when Deming was in Japan assisting in their so called economical recovery, profound knowledge was spoken of, interpreted and focused more so as systems thinking and building.
Wallace.

Wes Bucey

13th February 2004, 06:25 PM

The first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding of the system of profound knowledge. The individual, transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life, to events, to numbers, to interactions between people.

A manager of people needs to understand that all people are different. This is not ranking people. He needs to understand that the performance of anyone is governed largely by the system that he works in, the responsibility of management. A psychologist that possesses even a crude understanding of variation as will be learned in the experiment with the Red Beads (Ch. 7) could no longer participate in refinement of a plan for ranking people.
For the ones who did not have the perspicacity to look up the Deming Electonic Network (http://deming.eng.clemson.edu/pub/den/)

Paragraph 1: "transformed, etc." Yeah! For some, the realization is like an Epiphany (a meeting with the Creator.) Does that mean it will happen for everyone? Nope. Does the fact 'everyone will NOT be transformed' invalidate the concept of System of Profound Knowledge? Nope. If you, personally, do NOT get transformed, does that make you a bad person? Nope. Just different. Which goes to the heart of - - -

Paragraph 2: "variation . . . Red Beads . . . no longer . . . ranking people."
Some real life examples of changing systems to accommodate variation in people:
all vehicle drivers are not equally adept at shifting gears - organization gets vehicles with automatic transmissions
all employees are not right-handed - organization adjusts work layout to accommodate either-handedness
In other words, the differences between Jane's ability to make 50 widgets in an hour vs. Joe's ability to make 30 in an hour means there is always a systemic fault, not differences between their internal talents, abilities, and motivations? Is there some factor in the system which favors Jane over Joe? What if there are more Joes than Janes in the employment pool? Does it make sense to create a system to make uniform high rate of widgets, despite individual variation among employees? Is the end goal to have a pool of Janes or to get widgets out the door?
:topic: Did you ever witness or participate in the Red Bead experiment, Mike?

Kevin Mader

15th February 2004, 06:49 PM

Wes Bucey

16th February 2004, 06:33 PM

Is 50 more than 30? Sort of a trick question when asking a statistician, which Dr. Deming was. If both numbers are within the upper and lower control limits of a stable process, the answer is no. Wes is right: The Red Bead Experiment demonstrates why this is.

Back to the group...It occurs to me that old timers, most especially Demingites, assume "everyone" knows about the Red Bead Experiment.

Is anyone curious enough to make it worthwhile to start a new thread to talk about it and its implications for SoPK and Systems Thinking in general?

An ASQ stalwart, Steve Prevette, spoken of several times here in the Cove, offers a free script so an organization can try the experiment on its own.

A couple of years ago, the Cove listed a website with a photo showing Steve overseeing the Experiment:
http://www.hanford.gov/safety/vpp/redbeadreach.pdf

Kevin Mader

16th February 2004, 07:05 PM

Steve also has a one hour video of him doing the experiment that was available for a minimal charge (not sure if this is still the case). I think that when I tried to buy it though, the receptionist didn't have a way to charge me. I've since purchased the Deming Library, which has the experiment along with the Funnel, so that base is already covered. These tapes, though, run around $500, so Steve's version is quite the bargain.

Kevin

Jennifer Kirley

16th February 2004, 08:48 PM

I found a web site that features Stever Prevette's script in Word format. I looked it over, and in my view it's a treasure!

http://curiouscat.com/management/redbeadexperiment.cfm

Do we need permission to use this script in a presentation?

Jennifer

Wes Bucey

16th February 2004, 09:51 PM

I found a web site that features Steven Prevette's script in Word format. I looked it over, and in my view it's a treasure!

http://curiouscat.com/management/redbeadexperiment.cfm

Do we need permission to use this script in a presentation?

JenniferI don't think so, but I'll ask him in an email tomorrow and post his reply. I hope he's flattered by the nice comment you've made.

note: even if Steve does grant permission, protocol always demands you give him full written and verbal credit at each presentation.

Jennifer Kirley

17th February 2004, 02:24 AM

Wes: "note: even if Steve does grant permission, protocol always demands you give him full written and verbal credit at each presentation."

Exactly so. And thank you for asking him.

Jennifer

Mike S.

17th February 2004, 10:10 AM

Wes,

Was it really necessary to use the word "perspicacity"? :bonk:

Yeah, I participated in a red bead experiment years back -- and I "get it". But not everything about variation between people's performance is explained by that concept, IMO.

Another simple example: Sammy Sosa has been a major leaguer for 15 years. Over the last 5 years he hit 63, 50, 64, 49, and 40 homers -- hitting a maximum of 66 in a year inhis career. Mike Bordick has been in the majors for 14 years and during the last 5 years he hit 5, 8, 7, 20, and 16 homers -- never hitting more than 20 in a season. What can explain the differences between their homer-hitting ability? Is 66 more than 20? Can it be that irrespective of the "system" they are/were in that Sosa is just a better home-run hitter than Bordick? Does the red bead experiment explain this, or the difference in intelligence between me and Stephen Hawking?

Jennifer Kirley

17th February 2004, 12:02 PM

Wes Bucey

17th February 2004, 12:03 PM

Wes,

Was it really necessary to use the word "perspicacity"? :bonk:

Another simple example: Sammy Sosa has been a major leaguer for 15 years. Over the last 5 years he hit 63, 50, 64, 49, and 40 homers -- hitting a maximum of 66 in a year inhis career. Mike Bordick has been in the majors for 14 years and during the last 5 years he hit 5, 8, 7, 20, and 16 homers -- never hitting more than 20 in a season. What can explain the differences between their homer-hitting ability? Is 66 more than 20? Can it be that irrespective of the "system" they are/were in that Sosa is just a better home-run hitter than Bordick? Does the red bead experiment explain this, or the difference in intelligence between me and Stephen Hawking?
Give me a break, Mike! "Perspicacity" is the way I talk in real life. I never made any secret of the fact I'm overeducated.

What comment would you have (based on the statistics you quote) on Mike apparently getting better as he ages, while Sammy seems to be going downhill?

Variation extends to the salary difference between Mike and Sammy, too. I'm pretty sure Sammy gets paid about 15 times more than Mike.

I think Mike plays for one of the Canadian teams, now, doesn't he? I never thought of Mike as a bad player. If I recall, years ago he had a .300 season in the majors - I barely made that in high school ball. Today, I embarrass myself with my grandchildren at the automatic pitching machine in our Sports Center.

Re: Hawking
I bet there are times he'd trade the brains for being able to embarrass himself at the batting cage in front of his grandchildren.

Bottom line:
If you inherit an organization with Mike Bordick, Sammy Sosa, and Stephen Hawking, do you fire Sammy because he's not as smart as Stephen? Do you fire Stephen because he can't hit like Sammy? My guess is you would try to find a use for the talents they do have. Management of an organization works best when it uses knowledge to accommodate variation rather than try to avoid it.

Wes Bucey

17th February 2004, 12:12 PM

I don't think so, but I'll ask him in an email tomorrow and post his reply. I hope he's flattered by the nice comment you've made.

note: even if Steve does grant permission, protocol always demands you give him full written and verbal credit at each presentation.Steve was kind enough to send this reply:
This is the standard set of files that I send out upon request. To my knowledge, the video is still available. Granted, I think they will only
take personal checks. These files were developed to support the US
Department of Energy's Integrated Safety Management System, and are
available for anyone to use. I would assume people will customize it to
their own use. Yes, I would appreciate it if they acknowledged the source
during their presentation.

I am doing this presentation myself in May in Portland OR, at the Region X
OSHA Voluntary Protection Program Participants Association conference.

Steve Prevette
Occupational Safety and Health
Fluor Hanford, A Fluor Government Group Project
ASQ Certified Quality Engineer
steven_s_prevette@rl.gov (steven_s_prevette@rl.gov)
509-373-9371

Here are the files he sent:

Jennifer Kirley

17th February 2004, 12:41 PM

Thanks for getting Steve Prevette's answer through, Wes!

I think it is important not to deviate too much from the original; by re-inventing the script and teaching aids I might invite innovation that results in a loss of effectiveness.

Mike S.

17th February 2004, 12:44 PM

I agree that the Experiment does not exlain everything about performance variation in people. IMO, we should be cautious about assigning too much responsibility to it.

My understanding is that the Experiment is useful as a parable to explain management's response to variation, not the cause of variation; it explains that variation occurs for reasons beyond the typical error reduction approach. The Experiment's moral is to urge management to pursue and methodically tend to the variation's true cause versus the Blind Man's Bluff approach to improvement.

The Experiment's beauty is doing this with a visual (most people are visual learners, I've been told), practical example that teaches without being perceived as a threat to ego or leadership position.

Bingo! Anyone who won't admit there are capability differences between people that are not "system" related is fooling themselves, IMO.

Wes,

Regarding your "bottom line": If you hire someone with your own money do you not try to rank them? If you get 10 aplications for a job opening in your company, (or to fix your roof) and all 10 meet the basic requirements you specified, do you randomly pick one of the 10 people instead of wasting time interviewing them?

Steve Prevette

17th February 2004, 01:59 PM

And I'm here. Wes roped me into signing up.

- Steve Prevette

Wes Bucey

17th February 2004, 02:06 PM

And I'm here. Wes roped me into signing up.

- Steve Prevette:bighug: Welcome back, Steve!
You may recall it was your comments several years ago which got me to look at the Cove the first time. I am certain your experience and expertise will be a valuable addition to the Cove.:applause: (Aren't smilies fun?)

Kevin Mader

17th February 2004, 07:02 PM

Mike,

Dr. Deming was aware that there are folks outside of the System, on both sides. What he advocated was that if we were to rank/rate folks, we would need years of data to support our positions. Most folks don't get years, and in the case of baseball, the tampering within the system make data population comparisons suspect at best (strike zone changes, corked bats, juiced balls, different leagues, day or night games, pitchers faced). Clearly there are superstars where data appears to be unnecessary. Dr. Deming wrote that most kids in a classroom already know who will 'ace' the test, and who will not. He also warned folks about things like the Pygmalion Effect which defy logic. Perhaps Sammy's great salary has more to do with the fact he brings folks to the ballpark more so than Mike Bordick than the true overall contribution of each player to their respective teams. Without the magnifying glasses placed upon players by sportsnews agencies, I wonder how wide the gap is between the superstars and the rest of the lot really is. And to that point, how important is this distinction anyway? Dr. Deming thought that this wasn't all that useful.

Regards,

Kevin

Steve Prevette

17th February 2004, 07:14 PM

Certainly there is variation amongst workers. I would say that Dr. Deming suggested that we understand that variation, and separate it into common cause and special cause variation. I would assume that most professional sports team players are above the three standard deviation UCL for their specialties.

If my workforce is within three standard deviations, and not showing any long run trends (7 points in a row above average), then ranking workers within that noise accomplishes nothing. And in the Red Beads the only way to be outside 3 standard deviations is to be extremely lucky, or cheat.

But as we move into business (and this is still true in sports) we may need more the ability for the workers (players) to work together, to be interdependent. :agree: Dr. Deming used the example of the level of interdependence between bowling team members, versus that of an orchestra.

I'm new here, so I am just going to have to use the cracking whip face :whip: as the alternative.

Mike S.

18th February 2004, 12:53 PM

Mike,

Dr. Deming was aware that there are folks outside of the System, on both sides. What he advocated was that if we were to rank/rate folks, we would need years of data to support our positions.

With all due respect to both you and Dr. Deming, IMO this is pure hogwash.

IMO Deming philosophies sometimes oversimplify and sometimes make things harder than they are. Or maybe the advocates do, I dunno.

IMO the red beads experiment is both valid and valuable -- to a point. But the real world most of us work in is a bit more complicated than the red beads experiment and to give this single exercise too much importance is analogous to giving a trite expression like "haste makes waste" too much importance (what about "he who hesitates is lost?).

Similarly, to suggest that to properly rank people is next to impossible without years of statistical data is overcomplicating things. Yep, no measure is perfect, and no ranking is perfect all the time, but I would bet that most people do not believe this Deming idea and that many (not all) of those who say they believe it in practice often rank people or things without years of data anyway. In their real life, how many alleged 'believers" really walk this talk? IMO, few.

This is one reason I'd like to have seen Deming run his own business and hire lots (hundreds) of employees. I'd like to see how he selected his employees, especially for lower-level positions where "years of data" was not available.

Again, I'm not a Deming-hater. I agree with lots of Deming ideas, but sometimes he goes too far IMO.

Steve Prevette

18th February 2004, 01:02 PM

Hmmm.:blowup: (I love these toys, I was repressed on the ASQ discussion board)

Not much I can say in reply but I believe I have accurately portrayed Dr. Deming's position.

And ask you a personal question - has knowing where you are ranked with your fellow co-workers helped you personally do a better job? Have you ever been ranked in the "lower half" in your career or schooling? How did it feel? Did it motivate you?

- Steve

Mike S.

18th February 2004, 02:07 PM

And ask you a personal question - has knowing where you are ranked with your fellow co-workers helped you personally do a better job? Have you ever been ranked in the "lower half" in your career or schooling? How did it feel? Did it motivate you?

- Steve
Q1: Well, it has helped me get more money and professional advancement. It has helped motivate me when I wasn't where I wanted to be, or to stat there if I was happy.

Q2: Lower half? Sure, many times! Doesn't feel great now, didn't then. Sometimes it didn't/doesn't matter much to me if I didn't/don't care about the issue too much; in other cases it motivated/motivates me to try harder, do more, work harder to improve. If I am in the lower-half on something I care about and I cannot do any better, I have to learn to live with it. Nobody gets to be everything they want to be.

Related topic: I understand in Nashville schools they are not using the honor roll any longer in public schools because those who did not make the honor roll feel bad or get depressed; nor are they hanging examples of excellent work on the bulletin boards, again because those who do not do excellent work feel bad. I wonder what's next, anyone who wants to be on the football team or in the band can be a member because someone's feelings might get hurt if they are not selected based on ability? Gimme a break. :mad: Wait till these kids hit the real world.

Craig H.

18th February 2004, 02:43 PM

I am getting confused, I think.

OK, Dr. Deming's 11th point "Eliminate numerical quotas for the work force and numerical goals for management" seems pretty straightforward to me, and is pretty specific about what types of measurement we should avoid. This is consistent, IMO, with his approach to processes themselves - that is they can "talk" to us via statistics. The types of measurements named in point 11 then could be seen as a form of tampering.

Now, I am no expert on the teachings of the good Doctor, but where are the prohibitions concerning the other types of measurement discussed here, and please be a little more specific concerning his reasoning. It seems to me that the minute we first meet someone we start forming an opinion about them, good or bad (and right or wrong). This is a (very complex) form of measurement and is human nature. Our opinions about individuals are used, to their betterment or detriment, to make decisions concerning their intent and abilities.

Again, how does a manager best use their people without making judgements (using the aforementioned "measurements") concerning their attitudes and abilities? Without determining what motivates each individual, how can a manager even make a decent attempt at keeping the workers happy?

Craig

Rob Nix

18th February 2004, 03:15 PM

David Hartman

18th February 2004, 04:16 PM

Related topic: I understand in Nashville schools they are not using the honor roll any longer in public schools because those who did not make the honor roll feel bad or get depressed; nor are they hanging examples of excellent work on the bulletin boards, again because those who do not do excellent work feel bad. I wonder what's next, anyone who wants to be on the football team or in the band can be a member because someone's feelings might get hurt if they are not selected based on ability? Gimme a break. :mad: Wait till these kids hit the real world.

I believe that Dr. Deming would not have had a problem with teachers working with individual students, checking/testing them for where they are in their understanding of a subject, and then defining what steps they (the teacher) would take to help the student achieve the maximum level of competence within their capability.

It is when we provide general testing to a population that is not specific enough for determining the individual student's areas of need, and then rank the population based on this arbitrary testing, that belittles those that have the capacity but perhaps not the ability to pick it up as quickly as some within the population. Students begin working to achieve an A, B, or C instead of striving to learn.

Additionally, those that have the ability to learn through hearing or reading are at an immediate advantage over those that learn best through experience/hands-on or through visual stimulation.

I work with adult students several times a week teaching them to read; and I can tell you that many of the mentally handicapped (that the public school system left behind) have the capacity to learn - if you are willing to accept their limitations, take the time to understand their needs and find a method that will stimulate their learning. And yes, I measure their accompishments - but I don't "test" them (it's not pass/fail - it helps me to determine what areas I need to concentrate on).

Wes Bucey

18th February 2004, 04:38 PM

Deming was not against MEASURING anything! His points #10 and #11 were regarding arbitrary targets, quotas, and goals! This is not in any way associated with an employee's capabilities. It MAY be, if some respects, associated with an employee's performance...

...What Deming objected to was telling an employee that he had to meet some objective (perhaps a number of daily parts assembled) and then not providing him the tools and wherewithal to accomplish it, he is being set up for the fall. Give him what he needs and he'll do better (albeit not all employees at the same leve)l.

Even Deming likely hired people for his consulting firm that he felt were best qualified. This is not rocket surgery. :nope:Even mixing metaphors of rocket science and brain surgery helps bring home the point SoPK is based on looking at the ENTIRE picture regarding an organization, not isolated points alone, but in how they relate to the REAL big picture.

Frequently, Management By Objective folks think that by applying ARBITRARY yardsticks to employee performance they are advancing the organization. Sometimes the yardsticks are just "wrong."

:caution: slightly demogogic material here:
Would an MBO have been at the bottom of efficient and effective genocide movements throughout history? Would an MBO have been at the bottom of efficient fishing techniques that have exterminated entire populations of fish? I'm pretty sure MBO had a hand in the slaughter of Great Auks, American Bison, and Passenger Pigeons by introducing more efficient killing techniques.

If folks had adopted SoPK techniques, they would have looked beyond the temporary efficacy of their policies and work techniques to the Big Picture in relationship to investors, employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, neighbors, and Nature.

So, were those previous MBO folk necessarily bad people? In my opinion, they were just unenlightened. Can such depradations on our human populations and on Nature happen again? Adopting a short-sighted MBO practically guarantees they will.

Steve Prevette

18th February 2004, 04:58 PM

Again, how does a manager best use their people without making judgements (using the aforementioned "measurements") concerning their attitudes and abilities? Without determining what motivates each individual, how can a manager even make a decent attempt at keeping the workers happy?

Craig

Is it useful to make judgements about attitudes? Let's say I create an "attitude meter". You are a 3, Sam is a 5, I am a 4. What do you do with it? I once was asked by a work group to help them measure work attitude. I soon realized they had not a clue as to what they would do with the measurement if they had it.

In reality, we do not have an attitude meter. I only know my own attitude. I may be able to infer your attitude by watching your behaviors, working with you, or gathering certain data that I can infer your attitude from (a worker survey, sick day records). Dr. Deming stated the most important data are unknown and unknowable. But I can use information on hand. Dr. Deming interviewed workers, and reviewed sick day records. With that information, he could pretty well "peg" the culture of the company. Might not be a number, but he could certainly describe it.

To me, what a number is is not as important as what I do with the number.

Certainly on abilities I should understand who are outliers above and below the pack. Learn lessons from them. What makes them high or low? Inate ability? Tools / equipment they have? They're lucky? Right place at the right time? Breaking "the rules"? Perhaps a worker is a poor worker due to they need eyeglasses. Maybe they need training.

But the theory is that rating and ranking folks within the pack accomplishes little.

And I'm not too sure that a manager's job is to make the workers happy :biglaugh: . But I would say it is to remove barriers that prevent good work, that are in the way of workers accomplishing what they want to accomplish, and what they need to accomplish for their employer.

Mike S.

18th February 2004, 05:08 PM

:caution: slightly demogogic material here:
Would an MBO have been at the bottom of efficient and effective genocide movements throughout history? Would an MBO have been at the bottom of efficient fishing techniques that have exterminated entire populations of fish? I'm pretty sure MBO had a hand in the slaughter of Great Auks, American Bison, and Passenger Pigeons by introducing more efficient killing techniques.

If folks had adopted SoPK techniques, they would have looked beyond the temporary efficacy of their policies and work techniques to the Big Picture in relationship to investors, employees, customers, suppliers, competitors, neighbors, and Nature.

So, were those previous MBO folk necessarily bad people? In my opinion, they were just unenlightened. Can such depradations on our human populations and on Nature happen again? Adopting a short-sighted MBO practically guarantees they will.

Holey moley! Next we'll hear from Wes that Deming is up for sainthood! :rolleyes: Deming followers could very well use his teachings to achieve bad objectives (i.e. depredations on humans or nature) in a more efficient way. That means the objectives are bad, not Deming or his methods. Same with MBO.

Steve Prevette

18th February 2004, 05:32 PM

Holey moley! Next we'll hear from Wes that Deming is up for sainthood! :rolleyes: Deming followers could very well use his teachings to achieve bad objectives (i.e. depredations on humans or nature) in a more efficient way. That means the objectives are bad, not Deming or his methods. Same with MBO.

One thing to be said, since this is a string on SOPK, is that the System Of Profound Knowledge is a theory. It is a theory that has worked very well for me personally and professionally (http://in2in.org/bios/prevette_bio.shtml). It well explains a number of phenomenon I have experienced and seen.

I am certainly happy to participate in any discussion with any one who would like to learn more about the theory.

Laura M

18th February 2004, 05:55 PM

Steve,

How far into "Mind and the World Order" did you get? Did you already have a philosophy background, or need to explore that as well to get through it?

Laura

Steve Prevette

18th February 2004, 08:00 PM

I have not read any of Lewis directly. I have been exposed to it on the DEN. I am a hard core hard side background (nuclear submarines, engineering degree) and am working to become more conversant on the philosophy side. Nice thing about SOPK is it is a balanced blend of both "sides" and Deming did base a lot of his work on Lewis.

Do you recommend the book?

Laura M

18th February 2004, 10:18 PM

Wes Bucey

18th February 2004, 10:38 PM

SoPK is: (copied from earlier post)

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.

I see a big focus on red beads - knowledge of variation, and knowledge of psychology so far. I do not see alot of discussion on Theory of Knowledge. The subtitle of Lewis' book is "outline of a Theory of Knowledge." Not sure how we can discuss SoPK without all the elements.OK! I think the following may be good groundwork for the discussion. The concept of examining people for their knowledge on any particular topic is usually based on "Bloom's Taxonomy."
Six Levels of Cognition
based on Bloom's Taxonomy (1956)

In addition to content specifics, the subtext detail also indicates the intended complexity level of the test questions for that topic. These levels are based on "Levels of Cognition" (from Bloom's Taxonomy, 1956) and are presented below in rank order, from least complex to most complex.

Knowledge Level
(Also commonly referred to as recognition, recall, or rote knowledge.) Being able to remember or recognize terminology, definitions, facts, ideas, materials, patterns, sequences, methodologies, principles, etc.

Comprehension Level
Being able to read and understand descriptions, communications, reports, tables, diagrams, directions, regulations, etc.

Application Level
Being able to apply ideas, procedures, methods, formulas, principles, theories, etc. in job-related situations

Analysis
Being able to break down information into its constituent parts and recognize the parts; relationship to one another and how they are organized; identify sublevel factors or salient data from a complex scenario

Synthesis
Being able to put parts or elements together in such a way as to show a pattern or structure not clearly there before; identify which data or information from a complex set is appropriate to examine further or from which supported conclusions can be drawn

Evaluation
Able to make judgments regarding the value of proposed ideas, solutions, methodologies, etc., by using appropriate criteria or standards to estimate accuracy, effectiveness, economic benefits, etc.
Where do we want to go from here?

Laura M

18th February 2004, 10:53 PM

I think before studying "Mind and the World Order" I was somewhere between the Analysis and the Synthesis of understanding SoPK.

Wes Bucey

19th February 2004, 01:15 AM

I think before studying "Mind and the World Order" I was somewhere between the Analysis and the Synthesis of understanding SoPK.So!
Did MWO move you forward or backward in the taxonomy?

Despite what Mike S. may think, I got through a few chapters of C. I. Lewis's book only with the help of two big dictionaries (including the miniaturized edition of OED) and never did finish it.

Deming seems like a Dick and Jane book in comparison.

Laura M

19th February 2004, 10:22 AM

Why forward of course! However, I wouldn't recommend anyone just "reading" the book. We asked a local philosophy department to educate us on it, and ended up in a longer session of the beginnings of philosophy (I think therefore I am) and the study of logic which was very interesting. Unfortunately, as these things go, it took a budget hit the next year, and we never finished what we wanted to accomplish. Excellent foundation, but I'm sorry it didn't go further.

Steve Prevette

19th February 2004, 04:51 PM

SoPK is: (copied from earlier post)
The subtitle of Lewis' book is "outline of a Theory of Knowledge." Not sure how we can discuss SoPK without all the elements.

Then kick in some quotes or thoughts and get us hard-siders cogitating. :agree1:

I am trying to hang out in more circles with psychology, organizational development, and other "soft side types". Hanging out with ISTJ statisticians can be pretty boring!

But the good part of being a statistician is no one else wants your job.

Rob Nix

19th February 2004, 05:02 PM

Steve,

Come on now; NO one wants a statistician's job??? Don't you mean that you are 95% confident that your hypothesis (no one wants a statistician's job) will be accepted??? :biglaugh:

Laura M

19th February 2004, 05:09 PM

Steve Prevette

19th February 2004, 05:21 PM

Here is the "statistician's" perspective to the question of there is no learning without theory:

There is a very real danger in statistics when someone collects a pot of data, then tries to "prove" stuff with it. Commonly this is called the "agriculture parable". Agriculture studies usually have hundreds of test fields which have received different levels of rainfall, different fertilizers, you name it. If I conduct "hypothesis testing" on all these different combinations, say at a 5% significance levels, one out of every 20 combinations will have a "significant" result. I then publish that and make a fool of myself. By the way, this is one of many reasons why Dr. Deming was against "hypothesis testing" at least the traditional statisical version of it with "levels of significance".

Here is why having a theory is important. If I want to increase the yield of an agricultural product I should have a theory, such as "more rain is good". Going in with the theory, and some good understanding that I have a rational cause and effect theory, I then collect data designed to prove or disprove the theory. Now I have less chance of simply "discovering" something that is random noise in the data. :read:

And it was pointed out I can never "prove" a theory - I can only disprove it. No amount of examples provides a theory.

Wes Bucey

19th February 2004, 05:23 PM

Well, our conversation started with trying to understand exactly what HE meant by "Experience without theory teaches nothing." or said differently in one of the 4 day seminars "Without theory there would be no knowledge."
Granted Dr. Deming didn't invent this statement, it came from Lewis, but how does it fit with the the knowledge of variation, and use of control charts? Why did he repeat it so often - and did the majority of 4-day attendees understand?The beauty of SoPK is that if only one of the attendees "understood" and then went on to practice - that person could make a difference in himself, his organization, his community. As Kermit the Frog and Ralph Nader frequently said, "It isn't easy being Green!" However, that didn't stop either of them from trying their best, even though they were in the minority.

IMO, the few who did understand enough to practice what they learned do not become naysayers as soon as they encounter an obstacle. They look for a way to surmount or circumvent the obstacle. They certainly do NOT backslide into counterproductive habits.

Steve Prevette

19th February 2004, 05:26 PM

Steve,

Come on now; NO one wants a statistician's job??? Don't you mean that you are 95% confident that your hypothesis (no one wants a statistician's job) will be accepted??? :biglaugh:

OK, so I am 95% confident that no more than 5% of the US population wants to be a statistician. :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

I do teach evening classes in statistics to business majors. It is a challenge, both for me and the students.

Kevin Mader

19th February 2004, 07:19 PM

Hey Steve,

What was it Dr. Deming said? Something like, "It only takes one failure to prove a theory wrong."

Group,

Dr. Deming said that folks should start with Chapter 7 of MWO and then go back to read 1-6 after they've read the book. I struggled with reading it, finding that having papers written on the book helped to break it down for me so I could understand it better.

"Without theory, there's nothing to modify or learn", WED

Regards,

Kevin

Jennifer Kirley

19th February 2004, 08:10 PM

The beauty of SoPK is that if only one of the attendees "understood" and then went on to practice - that person could make a difference in himself, his organization, his community. As Kermit the Frog and Ralph Nader frequently said, "It isn't easy being Green!" However, that didn't stop either of them from trying their best, even though they were in the minority.

IMO, the few who did understand enough to practice what they learned do not become naysayers as soon as they encounter an obstacle. They look for a way to surmount or circumvent the obstacle. They certainly do NOT backslide into counterproductive habits.

I have found the challenge of doing this is in feeling green, trying not to act like I feel green, and trying to apply SoPK in an environment where such a person is treated in a range between amused tolerance and suspicion. I have been certain that my enthusiasm for SoPK has seeped out in job interviews and convinced them to hire someone else.

I have dealt with this ever since I left the Navy in 95. I can't say for sure that they practice SoPK in the military but I have felt like I'm walking in glue ever since. I can say they (Navy quality programs) essentially operate like they have a plan...

I guess that's why I advocate "stealth quality"-- feeling almost as though I should go incognito. Certainly I haver decided I must call it something else, because in a society that thinks quality is a hot hamburger I must adapt my message to get through. I haven't yet settled on just what appealing form that message will take.

Jennifer

Steve Prevette

19th February 2004, 08:20 PM

I guess that's why I advocate "stealth quality"-- feeling almost as though I should go incognito. Certainly I haver decided I must call it something else, because in a society that thinks quality is a hot hamburger I must adapt my message to get through. I haven't yet settled on just what appealing form that message will take.

Jennifer

Much better to do it out in the open. One manager told me - Steve we hate your control charts, we hate your control limits. But when it comes to getting charts and good data, you're the only game in town.

Another quote - Steve you have the amazing ability to p*** :mg: in person's wheaties bowl and they won't figure it out for an hour, and when they do, there is nothing they can do about it.

I often say that if I had done what I was told to do :bonk: , I would have been laid off as useless a long time ago.

I am talking about this and other things in a presentation named "Pushing the Envelope from Within". I have a power point file for it that I will send upon request, but I should respect the conference and not send it to wide distribution until after the conference.

Jennifer Kirley

19th February 2004, 08:31 PM

Much better to do it out in the open. One manager told me - Steve we hate your control charts, we hate your control limits. But when it comes to getting charts and good data, you're the only game in town.

Another quote - Steve you have the amazing ability to p*** :mg: in person's wheaties bowl and they won't figure it out for an hour, and when they do, there is nothing they can do about it.

I often say that if I had done what I was told to do :bonk: , I would have been laid off as useless a long time ago.

I am talking about this and other things in a presentation named "Pushing the Envelope from Within". I have a power point file for it that I will send upon request, but I should respect the conference and not send it to wide distribution until after the conference.

I was dealing with an outfit that wouldn't do material identification, never mind control charts. I outgrew that company.

I think the difference between your situation and mine is that in yours, you have a program in which your place is established.

Here, in so many places (bigger proportions with manufacturing shrinkage) they really believe quality is an attribute. A hot hamburger. How to get there is a pretty loosely performed (and not necessarily well planned) set of endeavors.

I will find a way but I will have to simplify my message and make it understandable to the person on the street. I look forward to seeing the presentation as soon as you feel it is appropriate. Many thanks in advance!

Greg B

19th February 2004, 09:14 PM

One thing to be said, since this is a string on SOPK, is that the System Of Profound Knowledge is a theory. It is a theory that has worked very well for me personally and professionally (http://in2in.org/bios/prevette_bio.shtml). It well explains a number of phenomenon I have experienced and seen.

I am certainly happy to participate in any discussion with any one who would like to learn more about the theory.

From the Bio: He supports performance indicators in a broad spectrum of subjects, including safety, environment, operations, maintenance, and quality. Steve provides his organization 1525 charts and analyses per month. Yes, Steve has a control chart of the number of charts made each month.
Steve,

The Bio is impressive and this is not supposed to be Smart 'a**ed' but what do you do with 1525 charts per month????. I worked out that this would be 83 charts per day. Working on a 220 working day year in Australia. I am flat out getting management to read the monthly status report of CARs and Improvement suggestions let alone the 'Temperature variations of the Shaft Kilns on Wednesdays' (or whatever). Grant it, your 'Business' is a tad more reliant on up to date (critical) information (if my business blows up it will take out the street and yours will probably take out the your City - forever). I possibly answered my own question with my last sentence.. You see I can have insight :bonk:

Greg B

Wes Bucey

20th February 2004, 12:03 AM

From the Bio:
Steve,

The Bio is impressive and this is not supposed to be Smart 'a**ed' but what do you do with 1525 charts per month????. I worked out that this would be 83 charts per day. Working on a 220 working day year in Australia. I am flat out getting management to read the monthly status report of CARs and Improvement suggestions let alone the 'Temperature variations of the Shaft Kilns on Wednesdays' (or whatever). Grant it, your 'Business' is a tad more reliant on up to date (critical) information (if my business blows up it will take out the street and yours will probably take out the your City - forever). I possibly answered my own question with my last sentence.. You see I can have insight :bonk:

Greg B
Steve made a telling explanation of this incredible number of charts a year or so ago in the ASQ Forums. I hope he'll give a capsule version here - it's an eye opener!

Steve Prevette

20th February 2004, 11:12 AM

what do you do with 1525 charts per month????.

The Hanford site is larger than the state of Rhode Island. OK, that's not saying much, but there are 4,500 people working for Fluor Hanford and its subcontractors. There are at least 25 major facilities and organizations.

If we only look at injury statistics - here is the standard package I provide:
Control charts of First Aid Cases, OSHA Recordable Cases, Restricted Workday Cases, Days Away from Work Cases, and a Cost Index. Pareto charts are provided of injuries by body part, cause, injury type, and worker occupations. This is nine charts, times 25 organizations, already puts me at 225 charts. Within each organization, you can bet at the minimum there is a safety professional who checks those charts monthly. The beauty of the control charts is that if nothing has changed, you keep doing what you have already committed to (that is, improving if you had decided your rates were too high, remaining stable if your rates are okay).

A good thing is that I have Visual Basic programs that automatically extract from the injury database all the information needed with one button push, and with another button push, the data tables for all 225 charts are automatically made. Then it is a quick copy and paste from Access to Excel, and insert a row on the chart. It takes about 15 seconds per chart. My work is generally done within 7 working days for each month. Then I get to sit back and play on the Elsmar Cove. :bigwave:

Similar packages exist for Corrective Action Management, Employee Surveys, Occurrence Reporting, and Radioactive Exposures to name a few. You get to 1525 pretty fast.

David Hartman

20th February 2004, 12:19 PM

So in the little research that I have performed on C.I. Lewis over the past couple days I gather that at least some of his work would lead one to understand the development of knowledge as a process similar to the following example:

As a baby I am covered with a warm item (blanket) that provides me with comfort, addtionally I am provided a red item (toy) to pacify me and I learn that warm items provide comfort and items that are red are pleasurable.

Then as I get to an age when I am more able to rely upon my own motor skills for mobility, I see a red item on top of the kitchen stove and reach out to take it (based on my theory that red items are pleasurable) resulting in pain. I then modify my theory to allow that some red items (that also provide light) can be painful and adding to that the fact that some warm items can induce pain as well.

Later I am faced with a red LED that I cautiously touch (with my new found theory that red items that provide light can be painful) and learn that some red items providing light are not even warm to the touch.

This process continues ad infintum with me continuously adding to, or modifying my theories for the rest of my life.

I realize this is a gross simplification, but is the gist of it?

Kevin Mader

20th February 2004, 01:54 PM

Looks good, Dave.

Dr. Deming wrote that experience answers a question. But where do questions come from? A question comes from having a theory. Questions are used to refine our theories, or validate them.

Regards,

Kevin

Steve Prevette

20th February 2004, 02:03 PM

But where do questions come from? A question comes from having a theory. Questions are used to refine our theories, or validate them.

I always know that I have achieved something when someone looks at a chart I have provided them and says "That can't be". :jawdrop:

Then you know that some ingrained, perhaps unconscious, theories are being tested.

Steve Prevette

2nd March 2004, 03:51 PM

It's been kind of quiet. Personally, I would like to see if we can get a little more discussion of CI Lewis and how his works were incorporated into SOPK. That is one of my weaker areas. :read:

Wes Bucey

2nd March 2004, 04:22 PM

It's been kind of quiet. Personally, I would like to see if we can get a little more discussion of CI Lewis and how his works were incorporated into SOPK. That is one of my weaker areas. :read:I may or may not be able to contribute meaningfully to the specific point of Deming's adaptation of Lewis thinking into SoPK, but I can contribute one resource:
An extensive bibliography of C. I. Lewis writings is found here:
http://www.pragmatism.org/genealogy/lewis.htm

David Hartman

3rd March 2004, 01:21 PM

It's been kind of quiet. Personally, I would like to see if we can get a little more discussion of CI Lewis and how his works were incorporated into SOPK. That is one of my weaker areas. :read:

I am currently working my way through Mind and the World Order (only on page 5, so please bear with me) and have developed a few thoughts/questions.

1. His thoughts that the principles of categories precedes experience sounds a little like the "chicken and the egg" to me. Example: I begin my experience path as an infant, have experience categories been developed prior to my first experience? But on the other hand, without my pre-defined categories how do I process the first experience? Obviously this processing of the experience will take place reflectively, but do I develop the categories as I'm processing the experience, or have I developed them prior to the experience?
:confused:

2. His definition of our developing a "common understanding / common world" I believe is one of the keys to SoPK, in that unless we strive to develop this common understanding (language, interpretation/understanding of data, vision of the system, etc.) we are not going to be able to convince others that our view of "the world"/system is the correct view (which will inhibit our attempts to gain support for change).

I know that I will have even more questions and comments as I attempt to glean more from this text.
:eek:

David Hartman

3rd March 2004, 02:00 PM

1. His thoughts that the principles of categories precedes experience sounds a little like the "chicken and the egg" to me. Example: I begin my experience path as an infant, have experience categories been developed prior to my first experience? But on the other hand, without my pre-defined categories how do I process the first experience? Obviously this processing of the experience will take place reflectively, but do I develop the categories as I'm processing the experience, or have I developed them prior to the experience?
:confused:

Just got to thinking about this a bit. I guess that the categories are already in place from birth. We are typically blessed with 5 senses when we enter this world, and with those senses we are quite capable of discerning whether something tastes good or bad, smells good or bad, looks pleasant or not, feels comfortable or painful, is loud or quiet and a with vast range between extremes.

With these 5 forms of input, we should be able to quickly begin the categorization of experiences.

Rob Nix

3rd March 2004, 02:05 PM

But there was some single moment when each sense arrived by itself. Hmmm.

Experience must precede categorization. If you have only one experience you put it in one bucket, one category – which is all you have. As more experiences are, er… um… experienced, then categories are developed to organize them.

It is much like creating an affinity diagram. Numerous ideas (or experiences) are generated without regard to categories, since none have been created yet. In fact, we are told to purposely repress categorization until all “experiences” are generated. THEN we label the categories and place the “experiences” within them. It seems in life that categories are spontaneously developed as experiences dictate the need.

For instance, right now you have just picked a category to place me in. :lol:

But since I know little of Lewis and less of "Mind And The World Order", I should not speak of (or categorize) that which I have not experienced. :rolleyes:

Wes Bucey

3rd March 2004, 04:33 PM

For instance, right now you have just picked a category to place me in. :lol: Given that, Rob, I guess I belong in the third category referred to in your signature lineThere are three kinds of people in the world; those who can count, and those who cannot. :biglaugh:

Steve Prevette

15th March 2004, 07:34 PM

I found a good discussion of CI Lewis and relation to Shewhart's and Deming's work at

http://deming.ces.clemson.edu/pub/den/deming_peterson_03.pdf

- Steve

WALLACE

21st March 2004, 12:54 PM

Attached is an overview guide to Deming's 14 points for management, for the convenience of standardized discussions and sharing of views.
There are two types of media attachments available for your convenience: PDF and zip file containing a jpeg.
The information is verbatim form a publication called "Fundamentals of Quality Control and Improvement (Second edition) by Amitava Mitra ISBN 0-13-645086-5
I'll map out overviews of Crosby's and Juran's points as well, if you wish? Maybe someone else with the appropriate software might want to tackle Crosby and Juran interpretations?
Wallace.

Steve Prevette

26th May 2004, 05:30 PM

I am currently working my way through Mind and the World Order (only on page 5, so please bear with me)

I managed to purchase an original printing (copyright 1929) of Mind and the World-Order at Powell's Books in Portland OR for $25. Great place for finding odd books by the way. So now I too will try to wade my way through it. There are a bunch of penciled notes in the margins, so it will be interesting to see what the previous owner was thinking . . .

Wes Bucey

26th May 2004, 05:37 PM

I managed to purchase an original printing (copyright 1929) of Mind and the World-Order at Powell's Books in Portland OR for $25. Great place for finding odd books by the way. So now I too will try to wade my way through it. There are a bunch of penciled notes in the margins, so it will be interesting to see what the previous owner was thinking . . .I echo your thoughts about Powell's.
The juxtaposition of new and used books makes it a fantastic place.
I went in one morning about 10 am and the next thing I knew, it was 6 pm. Not only did I browse books, I got into conversations and debates with fellow patrons. A great atmosphere!

Good luck on your find, Steve!

Laura M

26th May 2004, 09:51 PM

Wow - great find Steve. The notes do make it extra special. Keep us posted.

Laura

Steve Prevette

16th June 2004, 12:57 PM

It's slow going, but I'm 2 chapters into it (Mind and the World Order). I can definitely see the beginnings of two of Dr. Deming's principles - "there is no knowledge without theory" and "the job of management is prediction".

The prediction piece is brought forth with a discussion of a "fountain pen" (yes, you can tell it was written in 1929). The point is that the use of the word "pen" for representing this object also contains a prediction of its use - I will likely intend to write lines on a piece of paper. If instead I called the object a "cylinder", I am predicting I may use it in a geometry lesson. And a baby may think of it as a "toy" or "an object for chewing" as they have not formed the experiences with the object nor are yet able to make the prediction that the object can be used for writing.

:magic:

Wes Bucey

16th June 2004, 01:04 PM

Steve Prevette

16th June 2004, 01:27 PM

How interesting that "suddenly" we can see the world through someone else's eyes (Deming, in this case) and say, "Of course! It's so simple!"

Anyone have ideas on how to hone (sharpen) the "predictive mind" so it can manage better? (tools? exercises? slaps upside the head?):confused:
Another great book (which by the way was a much easier read) is The Six Thinking Hats by Edward De Bono. The book categorizes thinking into six types of thinking, each represented by a different color hat. (my word, I find myself incorporating CI Lewis-isms into that sentence). His website gives some periphery information at http://www.edwdebono.com/ but you really need to read the book.

White - logic, pure data
Red - emotion
Black - pessimism, what if negative impacts, precautions
Yellow - optimistic, what if positive impacts, possibilities
Green - creative, out of the box
Blue - integrating, contemplative

"By mentally donning and switching 'Hats' you easily focus or re-direct your thought"

Wes Bucey

16th June 2004, 02:45 PM

Another great book (which by the way was a much easier read) is The Six Thinking Hats by Edward De Bono. The book categorizes thinking into six types of thinking, each represented by a different color hat. (my word, I find myself incorporating CI Lewis-isms into that sentence). His website gives some periphery information at http://www.edwdebono.com/ but you really need to read the book.

White - logic, pure data
Red - emotion
Black - pessimism, what if negative impacts, precautions
Yellow - optimistic, what if positive impacts, possibilities
Green - creative, out of the box
Blue - integrating, contemplative

"By mentally donning and switching 'Hats' you easily focus or re-direct your thought"I once was in a brainstorming session with the use of such hats (we had construction paper "dunce" caps.) The most enlightening part to my mind was connecting the pronouncements made by a hat wearer and being able to recognize "where the speaker was coming from."

The scariest part was how easily we were able to switch focus and viewpoint as we switched hats throughout the day.

Kevin Mader

16th June 2004, 08:51 PM

Hey Wes,

On the Predictive Mind question, I think that Lewis proposed we use Theory of Variation. It seems to me that a good way to improve your predictive powers as a manager may be, in part, through the application of simple SPC charts. Steve's efforts at Hanford are a good example, but I'm sure many here in the Cove are using the tool, albeit on a much smaller scale.

I think that as folks become more familiar with SPC charting and begin to apply the tool to nontraditional setting, the individual (i.e. manager) begins to understand systems and system interrelationships on a different level. The more practice, the more intuitive the mind and the matter of prediction.

Just some thoughts from an old friend...

Regards,

Kevin :bigwave:

Wes Bucey

22nd August 2004, 12:33 AM

Deming was brought to mind today by two posts. One from a fellow at a company aiming to "challenge" the Deming Prize. The second from a fellow who has a school assignment and is thinking of "TQM" as his topic. TQM, of course, is closely associated with the Deming Prize. I also happened to come across the June issue of Quality Digest where the editor was reminiscing about the big part interviews with Juran had played in his career and the big thrill he got from being invited to the 100th birthday celebration of Juran (it was held in May, about 6 months early.)

Both Deming and Juran had little use for managers who weren't 100% committed to providing an atmosphere where Quality could thrive. Oddly, both Deming and Juran presaged 6S by putting their focus on the profit, but somehow 6S folk don't seem to give them credit for that insight.

I think I'm going to try and "re-tackle" Lewis. The old masters seem to look better and better every day in my opinion.

Mike S.

30th August 2004, 05:30 PM

Did Deming really say, "Experience teaches nothing without theory"? If so, can a Demingite please explain that one to me? :confused:

Wes Bucey

30th August 2004, 06:06 PM

Did Deming really say, "Experience teaches nothing without theory"? If so, can a Demingite please explain that one to me? :confused:This answer may seem a little "homespun," My explanation is an attempt to show the error of inferring a universal truth from a few observations in the absence of a "theory" against which to test the positive and negative possibilities.

BIG WORDS - hah! Here's the homespun part:

Consider my dad and his TV (I've used him as an example in other posts.)
Twenty or thirty years ago, my dad's TV started to have fuzzy reception. After fiddling with all the adjustment knobs with no improvement, he whacked the TV with the flat of his hand in frustration. Miraculously, the TV went back into focus. Thereafter, whenever the TV went out of focus, my dad's first action was to give it a good whack (or a dozen whacks!)

My dad in relation to Deming's "Experience teaches nothing without theory."
My dad had created a "myth" based on his experience, The myth being that TVs got fixed by whacking them. Repeated instances of not working after the first successful "fluke" were not enough to dissuade dad from his myth. He merely picked up new ones along the way [how to hold the remote and press the button precisely for sure and swift channel changing was one.]

If my dad had stopped and put together a theory after his first experience, he would have gone through something like the "scientific method" or root cause to determine "Why" whacking the TV worked. He might have determined the first instance was a fluke because of a loose connection or a corroded connection which had some of the corrosion dislodged by the whack. Alternately, he may have discovered the original source of the poor reception was a special cause which had no relationship to his whacking whatever (a truck with a fouled ignition system idling in the street OR a citizen's band radio operating nearby OR my mom running a food mixer in the kitchen.)

Without a theory to test against, his experience gave him no knowledge.

His remote situation was really one of a failing battery which made the infrared signal faint and therefore it had to be aimed precisely to trigger the sensor. I changed the battery and explained what the original problem was, but dad still continued to hold the remote in a certain way ever after, even though the remote would work by bouncing the signal off the wall opposite the TV once the new battery was in place.

Does this homespun anecdote give more clarity to Deming's "Experience teaches nothing without theory"?

Laura M

30th August 2004, 06:20 PM

Hi Mike,

You may find this discussed earlier in this thread, and I can probably best explain it with an example. He was big on using stats to understand a process. If you see a trend in a control chart, you need a theory to understand why its trending. For example - experience would be Monday - Friday a 'value' always increases. Therefore the cause is Monday - Friday and you can't control it? Can't make everyday a Monday, right! That's just the experience. Obviously with a Theory, it could be machine temp, humidity, tools wear (tools changed on the weekend?) Of course this is simplistic, but I think its the point. Like in DOE class, you were always testing a Hypothesis, not just running a test.

Any other takers. Look earlier in the thread - the question was posed, but I'm not sure if we answered.

Laura

Bill Pflanz

30th August 2004, 09:22 PM

Did Deming really say, "Experience teaches nothing without theory"? If so, can a Demingite please explain that one to me? :confused:

Mike,

On page 317 of Out of the Crisis (1986 printing), Deming said "Experience without theory teaches nothing." so yes he did really say it. He explains the concept in a few different places in his book and here is the basic concept.

1. If experience alone could be a teacher than management would know how to improve quality and their competitive position.
2. Experience will answer a question, and a question comes from theory.
3. The theory may only be a hunch or a statement of principles and may even be wrong. A hunch, right or wrong, is sufficient theory to lead to a useful observation.
4. Experience can be catalogued and put to use by application of statistical theory.

Here is an example from my personal experience. The problem was too many lost time injuries. The theory was that workers were not properly trained, were inexperienced, too young, too old, size of plant and a number of other brainstorming ideas.

The safety department kept detailed records (a catalogue of experience) on the type of injury and the person injured. I created histograms and control charts from the the data (application of statistical theory) to study the brainstorming ideas (hunches).

There was a definite pattern of injuries for workers with less than 1 year of job experience. Possible causes were improper or no training. There was also a pattern of injuries if less than 25 years old but also if older than 40. The older than 40 could have forgot their training but also had different injuries - more back injuries since proper lifting was more important since they could not do the same things as when they were 25.

I also control charted the injury rate and was able to predict the future rate if no changes in the system were made. I did not find a correlation between training and "sustainable" reduction in injury. The training became part of the process and was predictable.

Experiences were combined with theory and statistical techniques were used to prove or disprove the theory.

Bill Pflanz

Mike S.

31st August 2004, 10:22 AM

Okay guys, thanks. I understand all your points and examples, and could add some of my own similar stories in support.

I guess though that I hold guys like Deming, Juran, etc. to a higher standard and tend to nitpick at their statements more than the average guy. It was stated as an absolute and in that respect I strongly disagree with it. I'm sure early man did not understand how clouds produced rain -- they may eve have had the wrong theory (the Gods were crying or something) -- but they knew they could expect rain when the heavy clouds rolled in. I am sure each of us could provide many examples of where we knew certain things to be true but we did not understand the theory.

I would have stated the concept this way: "Experience without theory can be misleading."

Laura M

31st August 2004, 06:19 PM

MMmmmm - Mike, I need to give this some thought, because I remembered thinking the same as you, and had my mind changed through some deep philosophical thinking.

I think the theory in your case is "When the sky get cloudy it will rain." (Which is actually not true, because it could be cloudy and not rain) Because without that theory, they wouldn't anticipate the rain next time. Seems simplistic, but I believe his "absolute" was based on philosophy - and the "How do you know what you know" as my signature line indicates.

Some of the basics of Theory of knowledge go back to how a baby learns. I remember my son as a 5 year old arguing that Lake Erie was an Ocean because he couldn't see the other side. His previous experience with lakes were much smaller. So he had a theory. Even though wrong, he wouldn't have learned by just looking at bodies of water and determining whether he could see the other side or not.

Deep eh?

Steve Prevette

31st August 2004, 06:39 PM

Speaking of clouds, I like the story used by DeBono in "I am Right, You are Wrong" about confusing cause and effect.

The statement is that airplanes must be working to make clouds and make it rain. You only see aircraft contrails in the sky when it is not cloudy, not raining.

Bill Pflanz

31st August 2004, 09:19 PM

I would have stated the concept this way: "Experience without theory can be misleading."

Mike,

Now that you have provided some additional comments, I can understand your question better. Experience and theory is the classic chicken and the egg problem. If you have a theory, you can use experience to prove or not. Or, if you have experience, then you could develop a theory around it.

I believe Deming was trying to show that data gathering and statistical techniques can be used to prove a theory that could be applied to future efforts. Management has a tendency to look at recent history and then make decisions rather than taking a more scientific approach, thus his comment that experience without theory teaches nothing. It is only misleading if you assume that all theory must be right. Deming looked at the data to determine if the theory was correct.

:applause: :applause: Good discussion that makes you think. Exactly want I expect and want from the Cove. If you need to think more, what about his quote "There is no substitute for knowledge".

Bill Pflanz

Mike S.

1st September 2004, 11:11 AM

If you need to think more, what about his quote "There is no substitute for knowledge".

Bill Pflanz

I guess I might sound crotchety if I say I could disagree with that one, too. Better leave that one alone lest I be labeled a Deming-basher. :D

Faramir

7th September 2004, 04:44 PM

Did Deming really say, "Experience teaches nothing without theory"? If so, can a Demingite please explain that one to me?

Another way to look at this is to consider operant conditioning.

Experience commonly leads to reinforcements of thoughts or behavior through association (not necessarily cause and effect). Skinner in the 1950's was busy showing how behavior could be UNCONSCIOUSLY shaped by repeated events. The classic would be, a worker gets good parts (a reinforcement) a number of times when he bends over to tie his shoe, so he starts always to do so to get good parts. (or the 'lucky pen" or "lucky bat" or etc.)

Superstitious behavior is the name for it.

So, Deming was also active in the 1950's and while he does not credit Skinner that I know of (help here Demingites) his "experience without theory" pronouncement is the analog of the process of developing superstitious behavior as documented by Skinner.

If you have a THEORY then you have thought about your conclusions and behaviors and are much less likely to be thinking or behaving superstitiously having been shaped by experiences that are not causes.

Also, THEORY can be tested to determine is it is superstitious or confirmed by controlled conditions.

"No substitute for knowledge" is similar in concept, since if it ain't knowledge (and Deming points out you should not think you understand anything if you don't understand its variation, at the instant, and over time, and causes (5 whys or more)) it is superstition.

Comments anyone?

Steve Prevette

7th September 2004, 06:15 PM

Did Deming really say, "Experience teaches nothing without theory"? If so, can a Demingite please explain that one to me?
Comments anyone?

As I take out my copy of Out of The Crisis, I look in the index at the back and find the following entry:

"Experience without theory teaches nothing, 19, 317, 403, 404".

So he even found it important enough to index it.

Page 19: "Experience alone, without theory, teaches management nothing about what to do to improve quality and competitive position, nor how to do it. If experience alone would be a teacher, then one may well ask why are we in this predicament? Experience will answer a question, and a question comes from theory. The theory in hand need not be elaborate. It may only be a hunch, or a statement of principles"

Page 317: " 'We rely on our experience' This is the answer that came from the manager of quality in a large company recently, when I enquired how he distinguishes between the two kinds of trouble [common and special causes - SSP] and on what principles. The answer is self-incriminating: it is a guarantee that this company will continue to pile up about the same amount of trouble as in the past. Why should it change?
Experience without theory teaches nothing. In fact, experience can not even be recorded unless there is some theory, however crude, that leads to a hypothesis and a system by which to catalog observations [footnote to CI Lewis, Mind and the World-Order].

- my fingers are cramping up, so enough typing for now.


	Web Elsmar.com