Systems Approach or Process Approach? Micro level of managing

[James Gutherson]

OK I did a bit of reading and learning and realised that the covering, taping, tarping etc is actually Muda (see James learn), and that if the paint application process were optimal, then these functions would not be required

(I still think the stirring is necessary, but I guess you could find a supplier that pre-mixed some magic paint that didn't separate and need mixing, OR if the supplier produced and supplied the paint JIT then it wouldn't have time to separate)

OK back to the observing.

[Greg B]

In Reply to Parent Post by htanaka

systems_thinker, you say "Toyota is one of the few companies that "gets it", i.e., understands how to manage their business as a system. Most managers do not even know what the ultimate goal of their business system is, let alone know how to influence the behaviour of the system to achieve it"

Isn't this then a failure of 'systems thinkers' (people that 'get it' but are not able to communicate it to managers)?

Are all 'systems thinkers' just academics?

htanaka,

IMO, I think you are partly right. If the 'Systems Thinkers' cannot communicate the message then there is a failure (and all you have is an academic) but most 'Systems Thinkers', 'Process Aficionados' or 'Quality Professionals' should strive to be good coaches or mentors. I hope that we do not fall into the category of 'those that can - do and those that can't - teach' .
I don't understand half of the stuff that is said in this thread but I am willing to learn. The Cove is a wonderful treasure chest of information. I don't agree with some of it but then again people don't always agree with me. I always thought systems and processes were the same thing.

Greg B

[Kevin Mader]

I have seen it posted several times in several threads that the fault is with how the message of Systems Thinking is being communicated by those having the theory (academics, but not restricted to them). Keep in mind that there are three parts to communication and the failure to communicate effectively can have it's roots in any of these three parts.

Is it the inability of the academic to adequately explain?
Was there too much noise when communicating?
Is it the inability of the recipient to assimilate the message (paradigm paralysis)?

Too often, I think that folks in Quality get a bad rap when communication fails. I often see levels of self flagellation in posts and worse yet, articles or papers placing the blame squarely on Quality folks. In my estimation, the reason for failure in communicating a new model is the trouble with abandoning the old model (paradigm paralysis). Those in Leadership tend to be at the root cause.

Kevin

[David Hartman]

In Reply to Parent Post by Kevin Mader

Keep in mind that there are three parts to communication and the failure to communicate effectively can have it's roots in any of these three parts.

Is it the inability of the academic to adequately explain?
Was there too much noise when communicating?
Is it the inability of the recipient to assimilate the message (paradigm paralysis)?

Kevin,

I believe that many times we are really running into complications do to "too much noise when communicating", especially if you view "noise" as body language, the thoughts and feelings of both the academic and the learner/recipient of the message, and the approach taken in delivering the message/sage advice.

As an example: Look to my first response to S_T's initial posts in this thread. My reaction was based on his initial "negative" approach, and altough I later took the time to understand what he was trying to say, I was NOT receptive to his initial message because of the "noise" caused by my rustled feathers.

Many times in my youth I found myself taking a forceful stand on what I viewed as the right thing to do (or the right way to do it), stepping on as many toes as I could, and making as much noise as possible. And the noise heard by my co-workers and managers was deafening (i.e. they weren't hearing a word that I said, because of my approach). But once I matured and developed a better understanding of how to "Win friends and enfluence people" I chose (and continue to choose) to approach others (at all levels) in a coaching/teaching manner.

Choosing the correct timing (NOT in the time of crisis, or in the midst of a heated disagreement); selecting the correct words - defining the meaning of words or phrases that may be "new" to the individual I'm trying to communicate with (e.g. "Systems Thinking"); and using the right approach (respecting the other person and their beliefs, and definitely NOT in a demeaning manner) opens the lines of commication far more effectively that merely making more noise.

I come back to one of my points in my first response to S_T's initial postings on this thread: many of us are doing all that we can to communicate to senior management the right things to do in a fashion that hopefully is convincing (at least to some degree) and yet keeps us employed. And if that means that we can convince them to go for ISO 9001 certification implementing a process approach, we at least have them accepting change - and once change begins kinetic energy takes over.

[Kevin Mader]

Dave,

Nice observation of the 'noise'. I have a comment or two on that in my delayed response to the group. It is amazing how much noise changes the true nature of things!

Folks,

Sorry for the delayed responses. There has been lots of great thought and dialogue presented in this thread. It has been engaging. Beware: lots of opinion to follow.

I’d like to jump in on the thoughts regarding our spheres of influence. I suppose that Mike has got it right: we do our best. It appears that this group needs no explanation on the hypocrisy of this statement, we feel trapped. The cost of immediate job loss keeps us from operating with reckless abandon. Yet, while the immediacy of job loss from not ‘playing by the rules’ may be true, is it any less true that by ‘playing by the rules’ results in the same eventual negative effect? Might ‘playing by the rules’ yield a more negative effect overall? And if the effects are not to be seen for another 10-20 years, should we concern ourselves today with changing the rules, perhaps to our own detriment and personal sacrifice? I think that these are important questions needing important answers.

Joel Arthur Barker coined the phrase “Paradigm Paralysis”, the inability to change (the rules and boundaries). But he asserts that this is precisely the thing to do. The trouble is that it generally takes an emergency to make change happen. The better way for a Paradigm Shift to occur is through a breakthrough in understanding (insight). I think that this is why quality professionals struggle with selling the new Paradigm of Management, Systems Thinking. Senior management just ain’t buying it! It is the wrong approach. Senior managers need to ‘pursue’ understanding of Systems Thinking, not buy into it. Through their own insight, they ‘sell’ themselves that this is the right thing to do. The trouble as I see it is that they aren’t in a buying mood, even from themselves. To change paradigms will take courage to accept an unpopular position and to abandon a paradigm that for most, have brought them the success and prestige they now command. Most lack the courage. Most won’t take this kind of risk. Most will opt for status quo. Most do. Communication fails not because Quality professionals cannot articulate a position, nor because senior managers are incapable of understanding. It fails because of the noise (paradigm paralysis) through the reinforcement of a dying, but prevailing, paradigm of management.

A few (I hate to use the term ‘enlightened’) organizations will adopt Systems Thinking as part of a new management paradigm. A few more will transition after the “Pioneers” have blazed a trail and removed some of the hazards. The majority, however, will attempt to emerge through “Emergency”, and most will fail. The question is what organization will we be working for when this happens (maybe it is safer to say that we will all probably be long be dead when the Transformation becomes dominant)?

So returning to the thread topic, does ISO9000 look to support a promising future, or an eventual collapse? From my standpoint, applying ISO9000 to its fullest will ultimately cause the organization to fail, especially in the absence of Profound Knowledge (to Dave's point, having ISO might be a step in the right direction so I don't want to paint ISO to be all bad). It is mostly widely applied as a fractured approach. This tool must be guided by theory and that theory must be supplied by us. There is good and bad theory, so results will surely vary.

Well, enough of my babble…

Regards,

Kevin

[systems_thinker]

In Reply to Parent Post by Kevin Mader

Dave,

Nice observation of the 'noise'. I have a comment or two on that in my delayed response to the group. It is amazing how much noise changes the true nature of things!

Folks,

Sorry for the delayed responses. There has been lots of great thought and dialogue presented in this thread. It has been engaging. Beware: lots of opinion to follow.

I’d like to jump in on the thoughts regarding our spheres of influence. I suppose that Mike has got it right: we do our best. It appears that this group needs no explanation on the hypocrisy of this statement, we feel trapped. The cost of immediate job loss keeps us from operating with reckless abandon. Yet, while the immediacy of job loss from not ‘playing by the rules’ may be true, is it any less true that by ‘playing by the rules’ results in the same eventual negative effect? Might ‘playing by the rules’ yield a more negative effect overall? And if the effects are not to be seen for another 10-20 years, should we concern ourselves today with changing the rules, perhaps to our own detriment and personal sacrifice? I think that these are important questions needing important answers.

Joel Arthur Barker coined the phrase “Paradigm Paralysis”, the inability to change (the rules and boundaries). But he asserts that this is precisely the thing to do. The trouble is that it generally takes an emergency to make change happen. The better way for a Paradigm Shift to occur is through a breakthrough in understanding (insight). I think that this is why quality professionals struggle with selling the new Paradigm of Management, Systems Thinking. Senior management just ain’t buying it! It is the wrong approach. Senior managers need to ‘pursue’ understanding of Systems Thinking, not buy into it. Through their own insight, they ‘sell’ themselves that this is the right thing to do. The trouble as I see it is that they aren’t in a buying mood, even from themselves. To change paradigms will take courage to accept an unpopular position and to abandon a paradigm that for most, have brought them the success and prestige they now command. Most lack the courage. Most won’t take this kind of risk. Most will opt for status quo. Most do. Communication fails not because Quality professionals cannot articulate a position, nor because senior managers are incapable of understanding. It fails because of the noise (paradigm paralysis) through the reinforcement of a dying, but prevailing, paradigm of management.

A few (I hate to use the term ‘enlightened’) organizations will adopt Systems Thinking as part of a new management paradigm. A few more will transition after the “Pioneers” have blazed a trail and removed some of the hazards. The majority, however, will attempt to emerge through “Emergency”, and most will fail. The question is what organization will we be working for when this happens (maybe it is safer to say that we will all probably be long be dead when the Transformation becomes dominant)?

So returning to the thread topic, does ISO9000 look to support a promising future, or an eventual collapse? From my standpoint, applying ISO9000 to its fullest will ultimately cause the organization to fail, especially in the absence of Profound Knowledge (to Dave's point, having ISO might be a step in the right direction so I don't want to paint ISO to be all bad). It is mostly widely applied as a fractured approach. This tool must be guided by theory and that theory must be supplied by us. There is good and bad theory, so results will surely vary.

Well, enough of my babble…

Regards,

Kevin

Kevin, let me throw out a question arising from your assertion that "applying ISO to its fullest will ultimately cause the organization to fail, especially in the absence of Profound Knowledge". As I understand it, by the phrase "profound knowledge", Deming meant acquiring an understanding of the impact that actions have on a system. This approach encourages the study of effects in order to search for the root causes which determined them. Acquiring profound knowledge allows us to do the what Deming considered the very essence of management - predict the future behaviour of the system.

What blocks our ability predict more than anything else is the presence of variation. If we agree that high quality is the result of minimum variation in the processes which make up a system, might not ISO have role to play in identifying and eliminating the root causes of variation, thus helping us to acquire profound knowledge?

My own answer to this question is not yet fully formulated, but I am certain that if ISO has a role to play it is under a different model than the widely adopted certification scheme.

Cheers,

s_t

[Randy Stewart]

I am certain that if ISO has a role to play it is under a different model than the widely adopted certification scheme.

And right you are. Too many companies take ISO, QS etc. to the letter. It could be caused by the auditor, a lack of understanding of the requirements or a lack of "system" knowledge. On top of that "Executive" management sits through a 1 day "Executive Overview" and comes out thinking that it is easy to adopt.

The short comings of ISO have been discussed at length in numerous threads here. The one point that has come up over and over is that if you are using ISO for just the cert, it is not going to be worth it.

All to often you see a company that is just fragmented with initiatives. Mainly due to no one knowing how they interrelate. Which comes down to a systems knowledge or lack thereof.

OK I did a bit of reading and learning and realised that the covering, taping, tarping etc is actually Muda (see James learn), and that if the paint application process were optimal, then these functions would not be required

Now you're getting it. It's like inspection, if our mfg processes were optimal inspection could be eliminated (perfect world).
Just like your comment on stirring. We must look at the necessary evils in our process (reality) and minimize them. IMO you can't do this successfully without a real understanding of the system as a whole.

[systems_thinker]

In Reply to Parent Post by Randy Stewart

And right you are. Too many companies take ISO, QS etc. to the letter. It could be caused by the auditor, a lack of understanding of the requirements or a lack of "system" knowledge. On top of that "Executive" management sits through a 1 day "Executive Overview" and comes out thinking that it is easy to adopt.

The short comings of ISO have been discussed at length in numerous threads here. The one point that has come up over and over is that if you are using ISO for just the cert, it is not going to be worth it.

All to often you see a company that is just fragmented with initiatives. Mainly due to no one knowing how they interrelate. Which comes down to a systems knowledge or lack thereof.


Now you're getting it. It's like inspection, if our mfg processes were optimal inspection could be eliminated (perfect world).
Just like your comment on stirring. We must look at the necessary evils in our process (reality) and minimize them. IMO you can't do this successfully without a real understanding of the system as a whole.

Well, when it comes to muda is not certification by a third-party itself muda? What value does that add to the final product/service delivered to the customer. After all, what is certification? It is merely the verification of conformity to requirements. What value in and of itself can that offer?

Carrying this a step further, might not some aspects related to the requirements of ISO 9001:2000 also be considered wasteful? For example, consider the internal audit burden imposed by the standard. A systems approach would stress configuring the system so that it is self-checking and, as much as possible, with processes themselves notifying workers when problems or non-standard operating conditions develop. This is the notion behind the Lean concepts of Visual Control and Jidoka - build or program the internal auditing function into the process or system and eliminate the waste of inspection or audit.

Deming advocated ceasing a reliance on inspection as a means of achieving quality. Inspection, and audit, actually encourages the waste of defects by providing a mechanism to catch problems and then correct them. While a certain amount of audit is necessary to find out what you are doing (i.e., obtaining process data for control charts), as much as possible this should be programmed into the system via the job duties of the worker responsible for the process - which raises another point of Deming's: take the responsibility for quality out of the hands of specialists and give it to those most directly responsible for ensuring it, the workers.

Cheers,

s_t