Philip Crosby vs. The Deming Philosophy

[Don Winton]

I thought the following was interesting.

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

From: Hakan Sodersved
To: DEN Disc List
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 13:07:32 +0100
Subj: Going Crosby vrs Going Deming

I see Crosby as a natural 1st step to quality from the curriculums that trade and technical universities had during the 60:ies and 70:ies, with some exceptions.

At the Technical University I spent my 5 years in 1966 to 1971 we had a thin 0.7 cm book called The Psychology of Worklife, and we disliked that subject and correspondingly the lecturer. This was the only touch of Profound Knowledge/psychology we were offered. I wonder how many youngsters 18-25 are interested in that type of psychological learning. It sure was much different from the method of Mt. Edgcumbe School in Sitka, Alaska in the 90:ies.

The knowledge given in economics was not far better at the technical university. Even at the end of the 80:ies in my industrial career I was regarded a specialist being able to calculate costs of products in mass production. Cost of quality was not included then either, it could not simply be measured due lack of quality cost data and inaccuracy and bias of sampling in the economical systems. A natural step would have been to go for Crosby, because more and more people were interested in economical figures of their products and processes. But due to a strong central quality institute, Deming was dominating.

To introduce something in a large organisation you must have broad support for the new thing. It is easier for a broad mass with the Crosby concept than the Deming philosophy. But the journey will take a longer time.

But for me personally, when I "detected Deming" in 1989, it was an excellent timing. It was far more offensive and complete than the fresh ISO9000. It gave light to all my questions about the Japanese mystery of success. It also gave support for many results of my personal research "on the production floor". My big problem in the beginning of the 80:ies was a dramatic unacceptable increase in production costs, year by year. This kind of "dynamite knowledge" is difficult to deploy if you have an offside position in an organisation. It is a rare chance for an internal person with appropriate authority and profound knowledge to get the opportunity to gather facts and data like Dr. Deming has been able to during his trips.

The Deming philosophy deals with senses of the whole brain - not just logistics and economics. You include ethics, empathy, feelings, beliefs, values, logic, system frequencies of interaction. The Symphony Orchestra is a very good socio-physical-technical model (I exclude the musical styles and preferences). Crosby also has a lot of ethical values in his approach and he often speaks the language of the top.

I always recommend Deming-what else-but I try to understand why the Crosby step might be a necessary as an intermediate step. The two routes may have orders of difference in quality magnitude. Who could measure?

http://www.expira.se

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

Thoughts, Anyone?

Regards,
Don

[Marc]

The Deming philosophy deals with senses of the whole brain - not just logistics and economics. You include ethics, empathy, feelings, beliefs, values, logic, system frequencies of interaction. The Symphony Orchestra is a very good socio-physical-technical model (I exclude the musical styles and preferences). Crosby also has a lot of ethical values in his approach and he often speaks the language of the top.

I think this is the important part of Deming - which is part why I hate the Quality word. The approach has to be holistic and it has to be appropriate for the type of company and processes.

[Kevin Mader]

Don,

Good posting. No secret here, I'm a Deming disciple!

[Kevin Mader]

Good posting Don! I could hear Deming's coarse monotone voice uttering the words "highway down the tubes". Deming's focus was on controling the inputs for system optimization. I guess Zero Defect output could be considered an ancillary benefit and not the goal. The goal is to reduce system variation for system optimization.

[Don Winton]

Deming's focus was on controlling the inputs for system optimization. I guess Zero Defect output could be considered an ancillary benefit and not the goal. The goal is to reduce system variation for system optimization.

That is the element lost on some folks. Spending your time on the outputs is not the key. Controlling inputs, through continuous monitoring and improvement is the key to process improvement.

Regards,
Don


[This message has been edited by Don Winton (edited 01-15-99).]

[Don Winton]

Marc,

Agreed.

More

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

In a message dated 1/14/99 5:00:03 AM, info@expira.se wrote:

"I always recommend Deming-what else-but I try to understand why the Crosby step might be a necessary as an intermediate step. The two routes may have orders of difference in quality magnitude. Who could measure?"

Deming could and did *measure* when he called the Crosby concept of Zero Defects a *highway down the tubes*. At first I thought he was kidding, but he assured me he wasn't. It was Zero-Variation-of-the-System-Operating-Components we should be after, not Zero Defects I learned.

By the way, when I was General Manager at FPL QualTec, many of our clients were Crosby followers who had hit the wall, had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars pursuing quality improvement, and were floundering. For them, the Deming method definitely proved to be the better way.

Frank Voehl (FVoehl@aol.com)

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

Regards,
Don

[This message has been edited by Don Winton (edited 01-15-99).]

[Kevin Mader]

So much focus on the bottom line. When the bottom line isn't what we 'expect', then we begin to look into 'why' that is so. How did we get here?

A quick review of a process may show that a predicted output (most likely arbitrarily selected and w/o statistical significance) did not meet our expectations. Should there be any surprise? A quick review of the inputs may show that the process was never capable of delivering the arbitrary target selected. There should be no surprise. Everyday, demands are placed on systems everywhere that are not capable of delivering the goods. Does this stop us? No, but this can lead to frustration, confusion, or worse. Have we done this? I am personally guilty. Deming's philosopy on system optimization teaches us to avoid these pitfalls. He did not sell you that you would produce zero defects, he sold you that you could. Understand the process inputs, control the output and achieve predictability.

For me, I feel Crosby's 'Zero Defects' concept uses zero defects as a starting point. This creates the arbitrary target in my mind. No plan on how to get there, just get there. Dangerous in my opinion. I know some out there will point out that this is not what Crosby means. I would agree with this. Still, 'Zero Defects' connotes to me a 'suggestion without a plan' and not a solution. No right or wrong about it.

But when I hear 'System Optimization', this denotes to me exactly what must be done. P-D-C-A using real data and using this to predict system output. Refine the system under continuous improvement and approach zero defect output as an end point.

Back to the group...

[Don Winton]

Kevin,

Good points all around to which I have no arguments.

A quick review of a process may show that a predicted output (most likely arbitrarily selected and w/o statistical significance) did not meet our expectations. A quick review of the inputs may show that the process was never capable of delivering the arbitrary target selected.

This is a point I try to drive home over and over again. Outputs (far end) are not important. It is the inputs (near end) that are critical. Using available data, resources and tools control the inputs. When the inputs are controlled, the path to systems improvement (Low nonconformances) is paved with gold. The outputs should be monitored for progress, but eventually it will be found, through proper techniques, that the outputs will be predictable with changes to the inputs. A particular company I know spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on inspection and test (automation, computer controlled, etc.). State of the art? Yes. Impressive for visiting dignitaries? Yes. Useful? Who Knows. A visit to the fabrication facility revealed a complete lack of control of the inputs. Zero control on oven times. Zero control on sealing methodologies. Virtually zero control on any of the key input variables. When I asked about this, I was reminded of deer caught in headlights. They did not have a clue.

Regards,
Don