posted 14 January 1999 09:48 AM               

-------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?

hakan.sodersved@expira.se
http://www.expira.se

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

Thoughts, Anyone?

posted 14 January 1999 02:33 PM               

quote:

---

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.

---

posted 15 January 1999 12:51 PM               

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

posted 15 January 1999 06:40 PM               

quote:

---

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

posted 21 January 1999 01:04 PM               

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.

posted 23 January 1999 08:08 AM               

Good points all around to which I have no arguments.

quote:

---

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.

posted 25 January 1999 11:36 AM               

I agree with the blank stares statement you made. All to often the case.

What do you mean? I spent thousands of dollars on inspection devices! My quality is good! Right?

To borrow a line from Deming; "Wrong!". To borrow another line from Deming "How could they know?" is a classic case of pointing out that we embrace the wrong idea. We are sold that Quality is inspection. Case in point, several suppliers have Quality Manuals that reflect nothing more than an inspection program. When submitted for review, I ask if they have plans to document the Quality System. The blank stares and the "what do you mean?" statements are common. They had believed that they had done so with their Quality Manual. They do not know the concept of systems to prevent nonconformance, they practice systems to detect nonconformance. This is because they have adopted the existing philosophy (the Western Management Philosophy) and the 'Caretaker role' (they may have even borrowed someone else's QM to copy). What worked in the past, or for others, will work us in the future. Right? Folks select these ideas because they are taught them from the start (a monopolistic idea). No other solutions are taught so we continue to stumble along. What is worse is that we accept mediocre results, sometimes even wave them about as achievements. Is anyone to blame? Pointless I think. I feel we were advancing along in the industrial age and just became to comfortable (we forgot to keep growing). Now our slackness in forward progress is catching up with us. Enough with the spilt milk, let's clean up and move ahead (no finger pointing)! (did you notice that I worked Deming's and Crosby's ideas into the post?)

posted 30 January 1999 08:10 AM               

http://tql-navy.org/tqlpub/experts.pdf

I had forgotten about this paper. It is an interesting read.

posted 30 January 1999 10:10 AM               

I recently had a quality issue at a customer( heaven forbid, but it happened). This happened at an international customer site. We happen to have a subsidiary plant of ours, about two miles away..we sent personnel from there to investigate. As it turned out, there was a small amount of product that had been assemble incorrectly. Long story short, the design guy at our plant there, got a lecture form the manufacturing engineers at the customer, on the IMPORTANCE of inspection at the end of our assembly lines. He relayed this information to me.......which launched me on a tirade of pro-deming, anti-inspection philosophy. I basically have cut the inspection processes (and the costs associated with it), by about 75% since my arrival at my current job. We have re-directed those energies, (and funds) into poka-yoke techniques in design and manufacture. Anyway, I ended my spiel by challenging to compare our costs of inspection, vs. customer rejects, (before my arrival), to the costs of prevention, and the subsequent reduction of customer problems, (after my arrival). By the way, the particular product which was a problem, had NO poka-yoke in the process, which was a failure of the system.

Deming???? You bet. Works for me. Prevention is the only thing that makes sense. It is disheartening to see, (again) that the old Taylor stuff is still alive and well in our midst.

posted 01 February 1999 07:20 PM               

quote:

---

the design guy at our plant there, got a lecture from the manufacturing engineers at the customer, on the IMPORTANCE of inspection at the end of our assembly lines.

---

I get this all the time. When it becomes totally irritating, I usually give the ãgiddy girlä test. You know, a story where you count the ãgâsä with those being ãdefects.ä After completion, usually most only get about 85% correct. Then I drop this:

If your inspection techniques are 85% effective, that is normally considered normal, right? Most replies, ãYea, but it could be better.ä Then I ask, ãWell, what is acceptable?ä I then get something to the effect that 90-95% (any 100% answers are dismissed for reasons I have covered in other threads) would be considered acceptable. Then I drop this:

OK. We have decided that 95% effectiveness is acceptable. Under the assumption that 1000 items are inspected at 95% effectiveness, what is the probability that a product may ship with a defect? Blank stares. Then I demonstrate:

0.95^1000 = 5.29e-23. In other words, in 1000 opportunities, it is a virtual certainty that some product will ship with some nonconformity.

I readily admit that the devil is in the details. The above is not precisely correct, but it makes an impression.

quote:

---

Prevention is the only thing that makes sense.

---

Agreed. By implementing prevention, it raises the probability through redundancy. When effective prevention is implemented, effective inspection is not required.

posted 02 February 1999 04:03 PM               

quote:

---

Inspection has it points, but catching product at the end of the line is "too late"!

---

Yea, Deming put is something like this: "Evacuating the hotel after the fire has started is not improvement." I am probably paraphrasing, but the point is still there. The hotel still burns.

quote:

---

Nice discovery learning techniques applied (giddy girl).

---

You would be surprised (maybe not) at the frustration managers exhibit when given this test. Especially when I am screaming over their shoulder "why ain't you done yet!" and interupting every few minutes asking what is the status of so-and-so project. (simulating a typical production environment).

posted 07 February 1999 11:23 AM               

May I propose a favorite tool of mine that identifies INPUTS and facilitates control of causes - the FMEA. If I was to identify my biggest hurdle in managing quality, it would be bringing folks on board regarding the differences between causes and effects. A well done FMEA can help in this effort. Until a couple of years ago, we brought on new projects using FMEA development - flow diagram first, inputs/outputs, sources of variation, CAUSES and effects - as the most important single method of identifying potential and then "controlling" (eliminating when possible) causes. We also used past FMEA's as a tool in continuous improvement / problem solving efforts. We always started out with the idea that defects were unacceptable.

posted 07 February 1999 05:18 PM               

quote:

---

May I propose a favorite tool of mine that identifies INPUTS and facilitates control of causes - the FMEA.

---

Agreed, but there are other methods, Slaterâs book, Integrated Process Management, identifies these. That is not to say whether one is better or superior over the other, just there is an alternative to the standard FMEA method. Your method of identifying INPUTS rather than OUTPUTS is an excellent method of systems improvement.

quote:

---

Can someone email me the "giddy girl" thing?

---

I have a Word 6.0 copy at work. Will send Monday. BTW, I have other versions of this test that I will attach as well. Some are more effective that others when getting the point across.

I particularly like interrupting the test takers asking ãlook into thisä or ãwhat is the status ofä type of stuff while test taking. Simulates what inspectors experience and gives MANAGERS what they are expecting of their inspectors.

posted 08 February 1999 09:04 AM               

I have always enjoyed the discovery based learning approach. The realizations that are achieved outperform the* mere teacher-desk-pupil paradigm of learning (at least for me). The interuptions you insert into your practical learning methods epitomize real case settings. This test illustrates the paradigm of "Zero Defects" very well.

Batman,

posted 13 February 1999 08:27 AM               

quote:

---

I have always enjoyed the discovery based learning approach.

---

Yea, you should see the stuff I get when I do the ÎMatchâ test. The concept is communication. I ask the class to instruct me, without any prior knowledge whatsoever, to instruct me, in a written instruction, how to light a match. If you have any other examples, do share.

quote:

---

...lesser known in the Medical Device world...

---

Kevin, if you have experience in the Medical Device arena, do share. I am currently doing the same thing at my current employer (see Medical Device forum) and your inputs would be valuable.

For those interested, a variation on the Îgiddy girlâ test:

Fallacy Of 100% Inspection

Exercise:
¼ Count the letter ãEä in the three paragraphs inside the frame
¼ Total and record the number
¼ You have 5 minutes to complete the exercise

SUPPLY OF OXYGEN AND REMOVAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE RARELY ARE CONSTRAINTS FOR AIR VOLUME; THE MOST COMMON CONSTRAINTS ARE ODOR REMOVAL OR TEMPERATURE CONTROL. THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HEATING, REFRIGERATION, AND AIR CONDITIONING ENGINEERSâ (ASHRAE) STANDARDS ARE GIVEN IN AIR VOLUME PER PERSON-MIN. TO ALLOW FOR VARYING OCCUPANCIES DURING A 24 HR PERIOD. AREAS WITH SMOKING REQUIRE MORE AIR CHANGES.

IT IS EXPENSIVE TO BRING SUPPLY AIR TO DESIRED TEMPERATURE, HUMIDITY, AND QUALITY; MOVE IT THROUGH A SPACE; AND THEN THROW IT AWAY. VENTILATION MAY USE AS MUCH AS 50% OF THE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS OF AN OFFICE BUILDING. REUSE THE AIR. THE RECYCLED AIR, PROCESSED TO REMOVE POLLUTANTS AND ODORS, THEN IS MIXED WITH OUTSIDE AIR (FORMALLY CALLED FRESH AIR) AND BROUGHT TO THE DESIRED VALUES OF TEMPERATURE AND HUMIDITY. FOR INFORMATION ON AIR QUALITY, SEE CHAPTER 6.13.

FILTERS AND PRECIPITATORS ARE USED TO REMOVE CONTAMINANTS AND ODORS. REMOVE CONTAMINANTS LOCALLY (SUCH AS THROUGHT EXHAUST HOODS) RATHER THAN LETTING THEM SPREAD AND THEN HAVING TO PROCESS MANY TIMES THE VOLUME OF AIR WITH GENERAL VENTILATION PROCEDURES. BE SURE THE WORKERâS BREATHING ZONE IS NOT POSITIONED BETWEEN THE FUME SOURCE AND THE HOOD. EXHAUST AIR FROM ãCLEANä AREAS (SUCH AS OFFICES) CAN BE USED WITHOUT PROCESSING AS INPUT FOR LESS CRITICAL AREAS (SUCH AS PAINT BOOTHS, STORAGE). WARM AIR, WHEN RUN THROUGH HEAT EXCHANGERS, CAN PREVENT INPUT AIR AND THUS REDUCE HEATING LOADS. HEATED AIR NORMALLY WILL BE TRAPPED (STRATIFIED) NEAR THE CEILING. IN WINTER, USE A HEAT INVERTER (FAN AT THE TOP OF A VERTICAL DUCT) TO BRING THIS WARM AIR DOWN TO THE LEVEL OF THE PEOPLE. IN SUMMER, LET THE HEATED AIR REMAIN IN A STAGNANT UPPER LAYER AND KEEP THE AIR CONDITIONING DOWN AT THE LEVEL OF THE PEOPLE.

posted 21 March 1999 09:29 PM               

Never mind - re-read and it's 85%. Excuse me!

But - since I'm EDITING, I'll also say this:

I wonder what the definition of QUALITY was back centuries ago when - well, take the Aztecs or folks 5,000 years ago (language is such a wonderful thing!). I wonder how they defined QUALITY or what their equivalent 'word' was. The concept had to come to exist at some point in time. Wonder when....

posted 22 March 1999 01:56 PM               

quote:

---

I wonder what the definition of QUALITY was back centuries ago when·

---

I am not certain a Îdefinitionâ existed, but Îqualityâ was, IMHO, considered.

Funny you should mention this. In some of the training sessions I give, I ask a similar question. It goes something like this:

Prior to modern manufacturing techniques, by what standard do you think quality was judged? After discussion, it usually boils down to: form, fit and function.

For example, when the transition from bronze to iron was occurring, it is safe to assume that both cultures co-existed for some period of time. A tribe had made the transition from bronze to iron, whilst his neighbors to the north (or south, either can be used as an example) were still trying to implement the new method (iron). Under the assumption that tribal warfare existed, during battle, the tribe with iron swords would have higher Îqualityâ weapons than the tribe with bronze. Not sharper, just better, using form, fit and function as the criteria. When the scales were leveled (both cultures made the transition to iron), the outcome depended more so upon other factors, such as Îqualityâ of commanders, Îqualityâ of manpower, Îqualityâ of tactics, etc. The same could be said when Europeans started trading goods with Native Americans. The tribes with the European steel weapons were superior in war to those tribes still using stone weapons. The steel knives were higher Îqualityâ because they better satisfied the form, fit and function criteria.

As artisans and craftsmen were used as a source of goods, the craftsman knew that if his goods did not meet the buyerâs expectations, his livelihood was threatened. Going back to the sword example, if a particular craftsmanâs sword failed in battle (broken, too short, dull or whatever), he knew that one, he had lost a customer (dead) and two, if word spread that his swords were not dependable in battle, he would not be getting new customers. After all, who would use a sword of questionable Îqualityâ when his life literally depended on it. The same could be said for housing, furniture or food.

In a war based culture, the artisan that developed superior (higher Îqualityâ) weapons, his reputation was hailed. When his work was inferior, he was beheaded, or some other sort of example setting. This particular aspect of form, fit and function exists even to this day (more bang for the buck is the common expression used). Case in point: Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy at the heart of the US-USSR arms race. Therefore, the artisan took great care in assuring his product was superior to his competitor, through probably what we consider benchmarking, inspection and testing.

I know there are examples of Îqualityâ as it related to measurement and specifications. After all, the pyramids and such were not built as they were through serendipity. There had to have been measurements taken and if the measurements were not within a range (tolerance), they were redone. I do not have specific examples to share, just logic REQUIRES that it had to be.