Deming's SoPK (System of Profound Knowledge) Discussion

[Greg B]

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

Greg B

 

[Wes Bucey]

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

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]

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.

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]

Understanding C.I. Lewis

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]

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]

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".

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

 

[Steve Prevette]

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.

 

[Wes Bucey]

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.

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]

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.

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?
  
  
  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.

 

[David Hartman]

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?

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.