Subject: Re: Quality - Piecerate schemes From: "Bob" Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 02:54:49 -0500 Steve, The most important experts in the area of quality have long held that piecerate systems are antithetical to quality. To quote W. Edwards Deming, whom I consider to be the most important thinker in the area of quality in the 20th century, "Piecework is man's lowest degradation."(p. 6., in Walton, Mary. 1986. The Deming Management Method. The Putnam Publishing Group, NY.). Get a copy of Deming's seminal book, "Out of the Crisis." It was reissued in paperback in 2000 by the MIT Press. It has an entire discussion of piecerate (quota) systems and their negative effect on quality (pp. 70 -75; p. 160; pp. 399-400). Simple logic demonstrates why this is so. In a piecerate system, the worker is paid according to quantity. So immediately, there is a conflict of interest with quality. The employee is always going to try to maximize his or her income by cranking out as much product as possible. If quality suffers--and it will--so be it. SteveB wrote in message news:fQig6.8589$ts2.201505@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com... > Hi, > > I have been asked by my company, a heavy user of piecerate incentive > schemes, to produce a report on the relationship between such schemes and > quality. I have trawled the internet for some ideas but as yet have found > nothing. Can anyone out there give me a hint as to where I might find > anything? > > Regards > Steve From: "Jim Stewart" Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality Subject: Re: Quality - Piecerate schemes Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 13:00:26 -0600 Organization: Northern Illinois University Bob wrote in message news:965ggu$olr$1@bob.news.rcn.net... > Steve, > > The most important experts in the area of quality have long held that > piecerate systems are antithetical to quality. To quote W. Edwards Deming, > whom I consider to be the most important thinker in the area of quality in > the 20th century, "Piecework is man's lowest degradation."(p. 6., in Walton, > Mary. 1986. The Deming Management Method. The Putnam Publishing Group, > NY.). > > Get a copy of Deming's seminal book, "Out of the Crisis." It was reissued > in paperback in 2000 by the MIT Press. It has an entire discussion of > piecerate (quota) systems and their negative effect on quality (pp. 70 -75; > p. 160; pp. 399-400). > > Simple logic demonstrates why this is so. In a piecerate system, the worker > is paid according to quantity. So immediately, there is a conflict of > interest with quality. The employee is always going to try to maximize his > or her income by cranking out as much product as possible. If quality > suffers--and it will--so be it. This is the same fallacy that Taylor is attributed to have. That man works only for economic award. The study of Maslaw and others show that there is a very complex social interaction occurring in the workplace. On several occasions, De Deming was challenged with facts and figures disputing his opinion. Perhaps the last, before each man died, was by Marvin Mundel in Industrial Engineering. In order to fully accept Dr Deming's thesis, one must assume that competition is bad within an organization. I am not ready to make this assumption. I teach both work measurement (including the role of incentives and work measurement) and the Deming Management method. I separate the philosophies and expect my students to realize that the two are incompatible. You, Bob, are correct in your interpretation of Deming. However, just as there has never been an organization which fully followed the principles of Taylor, there are none who have successfully implemented the Deming Management system. Among the brilliant ideas Dr Deming had, there are a few which are problematic to society. For lack of better theory, these are perpetuated. For example, Dr Deming gave all his students A's. One simply kept going until you got it his way. Some students took five or more years. I suspect that there are far deeper problems within the modern organization that the use of or lack of an incentive system. The concepts of lean manufacturing starts to approach these. Bob, simple logic again does not work. There has never been a case where slowing down the production of a skilled worker has improved quality. The key to modern hand production is 85% controlled by the method. This has been understood for over 100 years since the original Gilbreth studies. Try to tell Frank or Lillian that the MIT library was not quality work. It is, as far as I remember, still standing. Quality is maintained by having an organization that practices and rewards quality. The piecerate is for quality production. If the methods required to produce quality are incorporated into process, than quality will occur. His does not mean enforcement by inspector 13. We know what that brings. If an appropriate piecerate system that employees buy into is added to this, then the workers can share in the quality and improved output of the company. Steve, this will not be answered some place on the internet. It's success or failure depends on the relationship of the managers in your plant. I would approach this by looking at your quality goals and seeing if they are enhanced or hindered by employee behavior and attitudes toward the incentive system. Force field analysis would be a useful tool. Without being presumptuous, I would suggest that such a study may be beyond the capabilities of most quality or engineering managers. The question being asked requires another Deming idea: Profound Knowledge. Jim Stewart Reply-To: "Jacques D. Vandersleyen" From: "Jacques D. Vandersleyen" Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality Subject: Re: Quality - Piecerate schemes Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:19:50 GMT Organization: Sympatico Jim Stewart a écrit dans le message : 966oe0$2ju$1@husk.cso.niu.edu... > economic award. The study of Maslaw and others show that there is a very > complex social interaction occurring in the workplace. (...) Maslow theory is may be one of the most criticized for its results. It depends largely of subjective aspects on which you based the study. There is no distinct line between the Needs of Esteem and Self-Actualisation. The frontier between Physiological and Safety is not clear as well. May be the reason why most prefers Alderfer and his 3 points theory: Existence; Relatedness and Growth. A theory which «fit» more on the subject as Quality. More easy, but not enough to promote motivation among a crew. Both of theory are based more on individuality and leadership My opinion is that the studies of Herzberg and his Hygiene Factors explain much more better why the employee join the objective of Quality management, simply because they are part of the procedure which improve their feeling into the enterprise: achievement, recognition, growth / advancement and interest in the job. More on the subject: http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/ Best regards... and sorry for my poor English -- Jacques Vandersleyen ----------------------------------- Courriel: jvds@3web.net From: "Jim Stewart" Newsgroups: misc.industry.quality Subject: Re: Quality - Piecerate schemes Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 22:03:48 -0600 Organization: Northern Illinois University Jacques D. Vandersleyen wrote in message news:aLHh6.230579$JT5.8324435@news20.bellglobal.com... > > Jim Stewart a écrit dans le message : > 966oe0$2ju$1@husk.cso.niu.edu... > > economic award. The study of Maslaw and others show that there is a very > > complex social interaction occurring in the workplace. > (...) > > Maslow theory is may be one of the most criticized for its results. It > depends largely of subjective aspects on which you based the study. There is > no distinct line between the Needs of Esteem and Self-Actualisation. The > frontier between Physiological and Safety is not clear as well. May be the > reason why most prefers Alderfer and his 3 points theory: Existence; > Relatedness and Growth. A theory which «fit» more on the subject as Quality. > More easy, but not enough to promote motivation among a crew. Both of theory > are based more on individuality and leadership > My opinion is that the studies of Herzberg and his Hygiene Factors explain > much more better why the employee join the objective of Quality management, > simply because they are part of the procedure which improve their feeling > into the enterprise: achievement, recognition, growth / advancement and > interest in the job. > > More on the subject: > http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/ > Best regards... and sorry for my poor English > > -- > Jacques Vandersleyen > ----------------------------------- > Courriel: > jvds@3web.net No, Jacques, your advice is certainly correct and pertainent. It is well formulated. If I tried to put the same in my poor Friench, it would come out either that my cat has the mange or that psychologests have mad cow. I used Maslaw as an examole because ASQ uses it on both the CQE and the CQM. Alderfer is not at all popular here. The "triangle" is what most students remember. I did say "and others". I do not see you disagreeing with my main point, which is that there is a complex social interaction and that can not be controlled either with financial rewards or with slogans and exortations to do better quality. Deming's work with the systems people support this concept. I happen to like the work of the organizational theorists, such as Mayo, for providing good insight if bad experiments. Frankly, I am not certain that there as a workable theory of social interaction at this point, which leads to my advice to understand the particular environment and the players. The way most companies handle employee relations today, it is surprising that any employee has a feeling of self worth and achievement. Only the particular job itself seems to hold any challange, as long as the company finds keeping that department from redundancy. In my mind, it is the treatment of the worker as a replacible commodity in reengineering schemes that are a hinderance to quality efforts, not the presence pr lack of a piecerate system. In some cases, granted, the incentive system could be a symptom of such an attitude toward the worker. In the case of the individual questioner, I sense/hope it is not since the company is asking the right question. Jim Stewart