posted 01 May 2001 02:13 PM               

I believe that a good many western managers fail to see the benefits of statistical thinking for several reasons: (please realize that these are broad generalizations - and not indicative of all managers)

1) Apathy - they cannot be bothered to learn the tools and methods of quality management.

2) Misunderstanding - they remember (or don't remember) statistics from either high school or college as being proofs, postulates and theorums, determining what the odds are a quarter will come up "heads" if flipped 20 times, etc., with little practical business application.

3) Fear - they are afraid that they won't understand the theories and tools of quality management and may end up looking foolish. Also, there is the fear of the unknown and fear of potential failure.

4) Culture - corporate culture tends to breed managers who are all too eager to grab at the low hanging fruit, but are unable or unwilling to set goals to try and attain that which may be slightly out of their grasp.

5) Short Sighted - By-and-large, western managers are very short sighted. They focus on the short-term rather than the long-term. This is very apparent in quarterly sales figures and bottom line or ROI management. Unfortunately, many quality projects are long-term in nature and require a long-term view to realize the major benefits of a quality system.

6) Bad press - many of the older managers remember the fiasco of the earlier attempts to implement "pieces" of a quality management system like quality circles, etc., without having a solid groundwork for those pieces to flourish as part of a whole quality system.

7) Instant gratification - it is not uncommon for managers to say, "I don't care how you do it, I just want it NOW!" This is not systems or process thinking.

8) Fear (part 2) - fear of change. Unfortunately, the saying goes, "if it isn't broken, don't fix it". However, a truly functioning quality program focuses on continuous improvement which requires constant change.

Ultimately, I believe that our business schools are not teaching enough in both the undergraduate and graduate levels with respects to the principles of quality management and systems thinking.

These are my thoughts.... anyone else care to join the fray?

Cheers!!!

posted 07 May 2001 02:49 PM               

Well stated.

I think that a professional gambler has a better grasp of statistics than do most managers in business today. Their livelihood depends on this knowledge. Still, management is more an art than it is a science. Only by using statistical analysis do we gain the opportunity to change aspects of a managerâs work from an art to a science. By using statistics, we learn about the processes that make up a system, learn what reactions in the process produce the outcomes (common cause/assignable cause). Only under a stable process do we have the ability to make predictions about the outcomes. Unfortunately, the tools used in the Western Management philosophy are based on NUMBERS and not Statistical Data. The two are very different.

posted 08 May 2001 09:16 AM               

Unfortunately, you are too right with respect to management being an art rather than a science.

What really irritates me is the lack of desire on the part of upper management to even learn the basic tools. They feel that if they have a QA Manager, he/she should be feeding them the answers to the problems. Oh sure, they say, "show me your data", but they don't understand what the data is telling them. More over, if they don't understand the problem, they certainly won't understand the proposed solution.

What is even more frustrating is the lack of simple statistical analysis on the shop floor. Production managers don't want to "burden" their people with things like data collection (let alone simple interpretation). Yet, how can they begin to understand the whole system (capability, capacity, constraints, bottle necks, etc.) if they don't have any data with which to refer? It is management by gut instinct...

Whew... sorry for the rant... I'm sure I'm not alone in my frustrations.

Cheers!!!

posted 08 May 2001 09:32 AM               

Imagine the power an organization would find if they did use simple statistical analysis? Refining and art into a science would lead to insights about their processes and potentially to tremendous gains. Sadly, this is mostly in our dreams.

We, the Quality Function, are frustrated. No doubt about it. It is hard to watch an organization die of cancer as we may potentially hold the cure for it in our very hands. The fear of taking the cure, right now, out ways the fear of dieing from cancer. Change comes mostly from becoming uncomfortable with things as they are. Sadly, when they realize that they might need the cure (become uncomfortable), it is often too late.

As such, the Quality Function must educate top management about the benefits of Statistical Thinking. They must try to create change before it becomes to late for the potential cure to do its best. But it is important to note that it will take more than just statistics: it will also require profound knowledge.

Regards,

posted 08 May 2001 10:51 AM               

We, the Quality Function, are frustrated. No doubt about it. It is hard to watch an organization die of cancer as we may potentially hold the cure for it in our very hands.

As such, the Quality Function must educate top management about the benefits of Statistical Thinking. But it is important to note that it will take more than just statistics: it will also require profound knowledge.

Kevin,
Just thought I'd drop in to see what goes on in this topic. I must say it is like something out of Alice in Wonderland. Like, educating the Queen of Hearts on "Statistical Thinking" and imparting "profound knowledge" could cost you your head. And the witnessing of cancer spreading through an organization while you hold the cure in your hands, must be very frustrating. Time to visit the Cheshire Cat and his little bag pipe full of happy stuff. My condolences.
energy

posted 09 May 2001 10:33 AM               

You both have valid points... unfortuantely in many of today's organizations, Energy's comment about "costing your head" is all too true. Too many VP's, etc., cannot or will not believe that us "underlings" know what we are talking about, even though we may have years of experience and/or education with which to draw from.

To understand the system of profound knowledge, one must study (notice I didn't say read) Deming's works. [Yep - I'm a Deming guy... got the 4 pillars of profound knowledge and the 14 points posted on my wall - ] Yet - western leaders won't take the time to study many, if any, of the works of Quality Management like they study their balance sheets.

I look at it this way... I promote the tools of Quality Management quietly, yet constantly and consistently... hoping the message is like water... over time it will eventually wear away at even the most stubborn resistance. If I continue to be correct, have my data correctly prepared and statistics correctly interpreted, I believe I will eventually get through to them. I may be overly optimistic.

I try to follow the philosophy of Personal Mastery outlined by Peter Senge in "The Fifth Discipline". If I can be an example, perhaps others will start to see that these tools really do work.

Cheers!!!

posted 09 May 2001 11:10 AM               

ãHow could they know?ä

I am sure you are familiar with this phrase. Yes, the process does take a long time. I have been at it for almost 6 years. Progress is slow, but it is being made. Converting VPs and Presidents is not a simple undertaking. This is repeated over and over again by Deming, Demingâs Disciples, and Senge. The Transformation will take years, most likely decades, and as Senge has pointed out, perhaps even longer (if the art becomes a Science, he suggests perhaps 200-300 years for full recognition). How many Senior Executives can wait beyond one month? Not many. This is why Demingâs SoPK is not very popular to Executives who use the Western Management Philosophy.

Perhaps the single biggest draw back for me with programs like Six Sigma is that the focus is on the short-term profit in relation to the dividend. This has great appeal to the Senior Executives who are eager to please the Stockholder. The Stockholder is a Supplier, nothing more. Who is in business to satisfy the Supplier and not the Customer (primarily anyway)? Six Sigma organizations. As of the information I have gathered, programs like Six Sigma ãonly dig deeper the pit we are in!ä

I applaud your diligence to the process of transforming your organization. It is especially nice for me to have you at the Cove helping to spread the late Doctorâs message.

Regards,

posted 10 May 2001 02:42 PM               

"How could they know?" Whew.... without trying to sound cliche... You can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink... Does that mean the horse doesn't know about water? I know - that is somewhat of a stretch for an analogy, but, these are the men/women who are responsible for the health/wellbeing of the company. If that responsiblity was on my shoulders, I most certainly would be looking for the most effective way(s) to keep my company effectively/efficiently operating in the long-run to the benefit of all stakeholders concerned.

I agree with the problem of 6-sigma... very short-term oriented the way it is currently used. However, I'm afraid I'm a little confused... how is a stockholder a supplier? By supplying capital to the company?

And now I just heard of a new buzz word... "Lean Sigma". Holy smokes... what next?

Cheers!!!

posted 10 May 2001 03:25 PM               

Precisely correct! The stockholder supplies capital. In return, he gets a dividend (payment). Still, as a stockholder, his Vision must be the same as the Organizationâs (a very difficult sell in my estimation). In todayâs society, the stockholder sees himself at the center of the universe. As such, Senior Managers are forced to set ãStretch Goalsä to meet this need. As such, this leads the Organization to Stretch in favor of the Supplier, not towards the Customer. The Customer/Organization relationship is the most important relationship between Organization/Stakeholders in the SYSTEM. As you point out, all relationships are important. All efforts should be made to optimize the relationships, but done so with consideration to the WHOLE SYSTEM. As Dr. Deming pointed out, some components in a System might work for a loss to contribute to the success of the System.

But which component in a System will work for a loss? The Organization? The Customer? The Stockholder? The Community? How about the Environment? Sadly, the Environment is the component most abused! Also sad, the Customer is often place third behind the Stockholder Dividend and the Organizational Profit (two major flaws with 6 Sigma programs). It is a difficult thing to do, no doubt about it. Balancing in proportion to contributions to the System is hard work. It is also constantly evolving (the System redesigned, expanded, or contracting). Some years, some components will work to a profit, some times a loss (hence, Stock fluctuation).

But 6 Sigma works to another disadvantage using SPC to a 6 sigma level. ãPrecise optimization is not desirable. It would be too costly!ä, WED. Other than in areas of high risk (life or limb), running to 6 sigma levels would be too costly to the System. It isnât necessarily hard to achieve 6 sigma, especially with effective methods to discount what a defect is, expanding the tolerance zone, or allowing for a 1.5 sigma shift by default. But at what cost to the Whole? Because these costs are not necessarily measured, it is easy to say that they donât exist when they do. Manipulation for the sake of achieving 6 Sigma, is not 6 sigma. And even if this is achieved by honest means, have all risks to the Whole been clearly understood and accounted for?

The answers to problems exist in the process, not the result. Continuous Improvement does not require that a 6 sigma level be achieved. Use of SPC to understand the voice of the process combined with other tools such as Lean Manufacturing and a Management Philosophy may lead to Profound Results.

Regards,