Another Look at Objectives

[ccochran]

Howdy, all:

Here's a new article of mine entitled "Another Look at Objectives." It is a follow-up to one I wrote for the November, 2000, issue of Quality Digest, just before ISO 9001:2000 was published. The current article is scheduled to be published in next month's issue of QD, so this an exclusive preview. I'd love to hear what you think about it. The article includes some thoughts on Deming and my angle on his support for the correct use of objectives. I expect (hope) to generate some interesting responses.

Talk to you soon,
Craig

[Rachel]

Craig,
As always - your stuff reads like (insert something smooth here). Great read - I really enjoyed it. I'm going to print it off and save it for a rainy day (or until I've been here long enough to pass stuff like this around without everyone saying "who the heck does she think she is?!?!?!").
(My only criticism - give it a quick read for grammar and such - there are some unnecessary words in between - but hey, I'm anal like that.)
Cheers,
-R.

[ccochran]

Rachel,

Thanks a lot. Yes, I have a grammar problem in general that I refuse to address. Wes Bucey tried to help me with it, but my head is very hard. Hopefully the editors at QD will scour the article for problems before it goes to press.

This article has interesting history. I had been trying to get my leadership article published for over a year, to no avail. Quality Digest had asked me to write a piece on continual improvement, so I sent them the leadership article. They responded last Friday with, "Uh, this isn't exactly what we were looking for." I said I'd write something different and get it to them by Monday if they'd finally publish the leadership piece. They accepted the bargain. So, I wrote this article over the weekend as a ransom of sorts. The deal is that the leadership article will run in October and this one will run in September.

Hope you're doing well in Ontario.

Craig

[Steve Prevette]

Of course, since you have invoked Dr. Deming's name I must reply. I will state my interpretation was that Dr. Deming was against ALL numerical targets (get 3 red beads!) whether or not the means is stated. So I was all set to rant and rave, but as I read the rest of the paper, there was no specific use of numerical targets. So yes, of course I believe in objectives (or aim, as the good Doctor preferred). And I can even tie an objective to a quantitative measure, such as "achieve a statistically significant improvement in . . ."

Good paper.

[Greg B]

Hi All,

I have just lifted myself off the floor....Steve has agreed on the Deming Issue

Seriuosly: Craig ,yet again, you have written an excellent piece. Your summary says it all. You know I am a fan so please keep the fantastic and informative work coming.

Greg B

[ccochran]

Steve & Greg,

Here's the truth: I put the mention of Deming in the message body as bait, hoping it would entice Steve to take a look at the article. It worked! I'm very proud that you don't want to chase me with a pitchfork, Steve. Thank you and Greg both for your kind remarks. That book "Out of the Crisis" is a source of much inspiration and occasional bedevilment for me. If you look at a book for long enough, you can always find something that backs up your way of thinking.

Craig

[J Oliphant]

I disagree with a statement in your article

"When Deming demonized the philosophy of Management by Objectives, he was really criticizing the use of objectives without a plan to achieve them. "

I think Deming is criticizing is the use of blind measures to indicate the attainment or failure to reach objectives. blind measures are those where statistically significant improvement/degradation is NOT separated from random predictable fluctuation.

though nothing in your text is precisely instructing the company to use and be accountable for simple numeric target, nothing in your text WARNS us companies not to hold us accountable to such metrics.

Steve P's paper lays the problem very clear. say the bar chart information he portrays is some measure of whether a strategic objective has been obtained (and high results are bad). then we must assume poor lauren would be posting the frown face card three months in a row and management would be bracing to hold people responseable.

what is so important about the data though is at the very end. It is Generated from a random number generator. The rising trend Means Nothing! The numbers are from a random number generator and the differences are 'statistically insignificant'

I really hate to be critical craig, but MBO as practiced above is practiced widely here (in my company). It is someones problem when the process does randomly bad and someone's brownie point when the process randomly improves.

In every forum, where we touch upon the subject we should point out the danger of this approach. Though your article does not precisely set up a negative Management by Objective system, the simplest approach using what you have written would almost certain be a negative Management by objective system. The scorecard approach could create a numeric target (with no recognition of common cause variation), a work quota, a meaningless target for production groups,and lastly a source of fear as individuals are held accountable for the measures of objectives, which are more based upon the way the system is set up and random fluctuation.

To summarize I think the world is full of businesses with "objectives and a clear plan to achieve them" and nevertheless have very negative, harmful managerial system.

I mostly think your article is incomplete. many of the details a right-- improve processes, have plans, even measureable objectives (as opposed to plattitudes), involve everyone. all this is right. but you forgot to preach against a system that translates this to numeric goals and doesn't separate random fluctuation from positive or negative changes to the process.

feedback would be interesting. Did I misread your article? Do others disagree with what I think Deming opposed? Do you disagree with my opinion??

[J Oliphant]

BTW, I am in no way trying to create a Steve P versus C Cochrain discussion. the point here has very little to do with a comparison of each paper. The point is that Craigs paper could support a negative MBO system, and in which as Steve shows in his paper, random variation could cause fear and accountability when in fact no statistically valid changes are occurring.