Deming's SoPK (System of Profound Knowledge) Discussion

L

Laura M

Wes Bucey said:
(When I putt in golf, I always look for an intermediate target along the line of putt to pass over on the way to the hole. Am I a traitor to SoPK? Probably not as long as my ultimate goal is the hole. Certainly not, as long as my score depends on getting the ball into the hole, NOT on whether I pass over the corner of a tree shadow on the way.)

I've enjoyed this thread. There is something profound in your statement. Deming said "b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.

He didn't say eliminate numbers, but "management by numbers."
If Wes is focussing on having a average of 1 putt, not the process of putting, he is managing by objective. By setting an intermediate target, and looking at how aiming at the intermediate target affects the average number of putts, then he is focussing on the process. Now, if Wes 'gets lucky' and drains a 50 footer, on his first attempt at using the new process of aiming at an intermediate target - does he now have profound knowledge on how to putt? So if a top dog manager congratulates his performance - "there, see, you know how to achieve the goal - do it again tomorrow" is he being set up for failure? :bigwave:

Have a goal - manage the process.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
Craig H. said:
I am afraid that I am one that believes the addage:

What gets measured is what gets done.

The fact that something is measured implies that it is important. Therefore, an improvement in the parameter being measured is, well, an improvement. In our competitive world, to succeed we must improve, or at the very least avoid deterioration.

Even if a goal is not explicitly stated, there is a reason for taking the measurement and that reason is the same as a de facto goal, IMHO.
Maybe some managers have taken your concept and perverted it to scoring people on how well they achieve the numbers, versus on strategies to improve the numbers. (Strategies which do not involve "carrot and stick" for people who do not have input on the design of the process.)

SoPK adherents might say the reason for taking the measurements is to determine whether our strategies for improvement are working. That the numbers and the process are to be evaluated, not the people who are implementing the process.

Maybe we all need to revisit the Red Bead Experiments to gain empathy with the Willing Worker.
 
C

Craig H.

Wes Bucey said:
the reason for taking the measurements is to determine whether our strategies for improvement are working. That the numbers and the process are to be evaluated, not the people who are implementing the process.


Wes:

YES!!

:agree:

Craig
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Leader
Admin
Mike,

A good question to ask.

Deming would approve of numerical goals, provided they were established with Knowledge of Variation. I have not read the thread, so I can’t comment on whether this fits with that discussion. He also discussed things he called “facts of life”. For instance, if you must cut costs by 20% to stay in business, then you’ll have to do it or suffer the consequences. Under the circumstances of closure, targets might have to be set outside the limits of what would normally be achievable in a stable and predictable process.

To the point Wes was making, setting targets outside of the upper/lower control limits leads to two dangers: the feeling of loss when targets are not attainable (psychological damage); targets are attained at cost to other areas in the business/system (system damage).

How many objectives, targets, or goals are established daily without SoPK? What kinds of damage are created because of this? Dr. Deming was never against establishing performance indicators, provided they were for the system and not for individuals. He was insistent that these be established with knowledge (SoPK).

Wes,

Interesting thing about Management by Objective, the creator of this theory hasn’t endorsed its use for nearly 25 years (Peter Drucker). He admits in his later publications that he wished he never created it as he realized that the theory was based on several false assumptions. If one takes a look into the National Archives, you’ll see that WED and Drucker corresponded often. I’m tempted to read some of these letters to see if Dr. Deming influenced Drucker to reconsider his position. Sadly, MBA programs most everywhere still promote this as part of their curriculums.

The biggest false assumption in your snippo is the assumption that the individual has significant control over the outcome. This connects well with Mike’s question with regards setting the target. If the target is set within the limits, one can hit the target without lifting a finger, and probably will. If the target is outside the limits, they may work very hard to achieve and not make it, thus failing and subject to some predetermined consequence. Then again, to avoid the consequence, one might resort to less than ethical, moral and sometimes illegal practices to get it. This may in fact be the most damaging oversight of the Six Sigma methodology. Distorting numbers to hit targets is manipulation. With distorted ‘facts’, the result is that the System is further off target than it would otherwise have been if one didn’t set a goal in the first place. Deming illustrates this well with the Funnel Experiment.

Dave does well to include the other points and their relationships (Nice going!!!)

Mike,

To your later point. Yes, before Deming, I set goals for myself and for my subordinates. I did change my view of this after 'converting'. Did I stop setting goals? No, I just changed the method of how goals were set and what the were set on (processes or people). What I elected to do was to define who had ownership for a process parameter and established SPC tracking for it. My associate would plot points and review the data daily to determine stability of the process and to determine common/special cause variables. They learned first to eliminate special causes (where they could) and how to improve the process through minimization of the affects of common causes. However, they weren't appraised on these factors.

Craig,

In the foreword for "Fourth Generation Management" (Deming's last foreword to my knowledge), he addresses the need to measure things. More specifically, he tells management that they had better manage the things that can't be measured, or their future is certainly unlikely. He often restated the comments made by Lloyd Nelson that the most important numbers are "unknown and unknowable". But he also made it clear that we need to be mindful of what these are and do our best to manage them effectively (i.e. the cost of a lost customer, the ROI on Training). If one can, read the foreward to the book above. He did a better job of explaining this than I did.

Dave/Mike/Wes,

To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Deming never endorsed the award named after him. In fact, when he was presented with the very first award, I recall reading that he did it out of respect of the Japanese. The same is true when he recieved an award presented to him by President Clinton, although I believe Cecilia in her book The World of Dr. Deming (?) has preserved the award from Clinton as one of his most coveted acknowledgements. I'm not sure which is right on the latter.

Back to the group…

Kevin
 
W

WALLACE

Revisit post # 1

The discussions throughout this thread are just great. I'm encouraged by the open participation of many at the Cove who would generaly stay away from this controvercial subject.
I'd like to get some feedback re-the SoPK visual that is located within post # 1. Ther visual was meant to be a guide of sorts to facilitate a SoPK dialog.
The discussions are generating lots of opinions relating to a SoPK yet, It may be beneficial to add to the SoPK visual for the sake of a good visual reference and clarity of thoughts for those who are contributing to this subject.
Attached is a Word doc that is an export from the visual.
Wallace.
 

Attachments

  • A Visual interpretation of.doc
    48.5 KB · Views: 711

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
Laura M said:
I've enjoyed this thread. There is something profound in your statement. Deming said "b. Eliminate management by objective. Eliminate management by numbers, numerical goals. Substitute leadership.

He didn't say eliminate numbers, but "management by numbers."
If Wes is focussing on having a average of 1 putt, not the process of putting, he is managing by objective. By setting an intermediate target, and looking at how aiming at the intermediate target affects the average number of putts, then he is focussing on the process. Now, if Wes 'gets lucky' and drains a 50 footer, on his first attempt at using the new process of aiming at an intermediate target - does he now have profound knowledge on how to putt? So if a top dog manager congratulates his performance - "there, see, you know how to achieve the goal - do it again tomorrow" is he being set up for failure? :bigwave:

Have a goal - manage the process.
Management by objective does NOT focus on the ultimate goal, it focuses on the intermediate steps. (For a call center [most egregious users of MBO], this does not mean "satisfying the caller" - it means "handling X calls in Y minutes")

If I ONLY focused on hitting the shadow and NOT on getting the ball in the hole, I'd be guilty of MBO. If I hit the shadow and the hole consistently (after evaluating results), I might conclude that the PROCESS is effective (much the same as I might use one tool bit to turn a shaft to approximate size, then a second tool bit to achieve final dimension and finish tolerances.)

Using the "two tool" analogy is similar to pitching up onto the green with one club and putting out with a different club. The score that goes on the scorecard is the same whether I use two or three different clubs to get from tee to hole, only the total number of strokes determines whether I buy or am treated at the 19th hole. I would probably review my record to see areas for improvement - driving, short irons, or putting, to lower that ultimate number.

It's also important to remember that sometimes conditions are such (short apron grass, perhaps; or hole set very close to the edge of the green ) I might use a putter from off the green because I think I'd have better control over the final outcome. MBO would not let me use the putter except on the green.
 
D

David Hartman

Wes Bucey said:
Management by objective does NOT focus on the ultimate goal, it focuses on the intermediate steps. (For a call center [most egregious users of MBO], this does not mean "satisfying the caller" - it means "handling X calls in Y minutes")

Real life scenario: When I started working here the metrics maintained and enforced for the call center were exactly as Wes described (handling X number of calls in Y minutes, with a goal of handling Z amount of calls in a month). The thought of feeding caller info back to Engineering, Buyers, Manufacturing, et al was not even considered.

In-lieu of putting processes in place to reduce (or eliminate) calls, this organization was using the ever increasing number of calls as rationale to increase the number of personnel necessary to "man the phones".

The dam was ready to burst and they were sticking gum in the cracks!

But I am very pleased to say that was a different era, the light has come on, and an intense effort is being made to eliminate design, manufacturing and supplier issues with immediacy while feeding that info back to the appropriate owner for root cause corrective action.

We are now looking forward to "eliminating calls" and reducing the manpower needs.
:bigwave:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
R

Rob Nix

Let me ease into this discussion by stating that I highly respect the panel of experts contributing to this thread (read WARNING! WARNING! WARNING!) and have thoroughly enjoyed reading this rather lengthy thread as it developed. I have only basic familiarity with SoPK, although I’ve followed and utilized Deming’s principles for over 25 years. HOWEVER (here it comes), I feel like SoPK to Quality Control is like the Beatles’ later “transcendental” years to their earlier “I want to hold your hand”.

Is not the Deming Institute’s SoPK, like SixSigma, just a new and improved way to package and sell Deming? It is great for debate and pithy discussions, but what practical application is there? Can one of you give me an experience you had with applying the theory to your business? I really am interested. :)

Although, as Mike stated earlier, Deming is not God, I still believe many of his concepts are sound and useful (I’ve used them!). But then again, so are the ideas of many other “quality gurus” (and I include many of you contributors among them). I DO NOT believe there is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL management theory, but that each and every business has it own “personality” and we must shop all of the shelves and pick the things that work best.

I understand the 14 points - they are utilizable; but SoPK & the 4 pillars seem a bit Delphic to make work in a business.

Well that’s enough out of me. :rolleyes: Like Kevin says, back to the group…
 
L

Laura M

Education and SoPK

Well here goes. I almost used this before. But lets use Education as a 'process' to compare SpPK and MBO.

NY State has a 'regents' test for each subject which ALL graduates need to score a 65 or better on to graduate. So there is an Educational Process to be measured by a test. The 'process' is determined by each individual district from curriculum design to techer delivery, HW, in class and district wide testing leading up to the big test.

Last summer almost 1/2 the students failed the test. (BIG UPROAR) So the state focussed on the test. Yes, they found 'flawed' questions. So now, what indicator of the process performance do we have. (If you think an R&R was done, remember, educational systems are WAY behind that thinking.)

So now, a new test, offered in January (new group of students) took the exam. Guess what? A bunch more passed. Are you ahead of me yet? The statements from some school officials stating "we must attribute this success to the hard work of our staff - teachers and admin......blah blah blah" A few years back we had a district goal of 85% of our students meeting a certain achievement level. One elem school had 87%. Another 84%. We had a party for the school with 87%. :bonk:

Has the process improved? Do we care if the kids have learned material to contribute to the future or if they got a 65.

I could spend another full page on other examples of how having an arbitrary 'goal' (not to mention a flawed measurement process) takes away from actual improvement. The resources spent scoring, rescoring, preparing tests, submitting and processing the data etc is huge. Personally, I think the teachers know who's getting it, and who isn't.
 

Wes Bucey

Prophet of Profit
Excellent points

Rob Nix said:
. . .
I feel like SoPK to Quality Control is like the Beatles’ later “transcendental” years to their earlier “I want to hold your hand”.

Is not the Deming Institute’s SoPK, like SixSigma, just a new and improved way to package and sell Deming? It is great for debate and pithy discussions, but what practical application is there? Can one of you give me an experience you had with applying the theory to your business? I really am interested. :)

Deming is not God,
[although] many of his concepts are sound and useful (I’ve used them!). But then again, so are the ideas of many other “quality gurus” (and I include many of you contributors among them). I DO NOT believe there is a ONE SIZE FITS ALL management theory, but that each and every business has it own “personality” and we must shop all of the shelves and pick the things that work best.

I understand the 14 points - they are utilizable; but SoPK & the 4 pillars seem a bit Delphic to make work in a business.

Well that’s enough out of me. :rolleyes: Like Kevin says, back to the group…
These are very good points, Rob. They get to the heart of many Quality discussions (i.e. Is it all right to "blend" theories from different gurus?)

IMO, it's not only all right, it's MANDATORY!
Even SoPK (as espoused by the Deming Institute) hints at this
The first step is transformation of the individual. This transformation is discontinuous. It comes from understanding of the system of profound knowledge. The individual, transformed, will perceive new meaning to his life, to events, to numbers, to interactions between people.

Once the individual understands the system of profound knowledge, he will apply its principles in every kind of relationship with other people. He will have a basis for judgment of his own decisions and for transformation of the organizations that he belongs to. The individual, once transformed, will:

  • Set an example
  • Be a good listener, but will not compromise
  • Continually teach other people
  • Help people to pull away from their current practice and beliefs and move into the new philosophy without a feeling of guilt about the past
The layout of profound knowledge appears here in four parts, all related to each other:
  • Appreciation for a system
  • Knowledge about variation
  • Theory of knowledge
  • Psychology
One need not be eminent in any part nor in all four parts in order to understand it and to apply it. The 14 points for management in industry, education, and government follow naturally as application of this outside knowledge, for transformation from the present style of Western management to one of optimization.

The various segments of the system of profound knowledge proposed here can not be separated. They interact with each other. Thus, knowledge of psychology is incomplete without knowledge of variation.
I believe each individual (refer to "homework post" #63) has an obligation to adapt the four parts of SoPK to his own conditions, capabilities, and capacity. Especially consider the use of the term "optimization."

Laura:
Right! You "get it." The next step might be to consider what can we, as Quality Professionals, adapting SoPK and the 14 Points, do to help these "temporarily blinded" guardians of our public institutions see the light?
 
Top Bottom