Are we alone? (When no one knows who Deming is).
- Thread starter Jane Austen
- Start date
The only time I use pictures of people (living or dead) is with quotes relevant to training content and at the end of a section. It serves as a pause point offering me an opportunity to grab a sip of water and the audience an opportunity to breathe, reflect, and ask questions they have not yet asked before we move on to the next section.
Attachments
Randy
Super Moderator
One reason I quit the training delivery process was having "the dead" tossed into my face all the time by "the experts", "Juran this, Demming that, Ishikawa such and so, Shewhart's numbers, Crosby such and so, so on and so forth"..... "Hey guys, all well and good, but this ain't, it's not on the test and you paid about $40-$50 an hour of more for this and not that!"
I guess I shouldn't bother making any references to the dead guys. But then again, this crew is not who I am making my e learnings for.
Jane Austen
Registered
Thank you to everyone who replied so far and shared their opinion/experience. That in itself makes me feel a little less alone!
I agree the main takeaway is to continue to educate the methods and lessons the gurus brought and that name dropping might be less relevant. However, I always like to share quotes and references to them and feel that a little history still has its place
Thanks again!
Jane
I agree the main takeaway is to continue to educate the methods and lessons the gurus brought and that name dropping might be less relevant. However, I always like to share quotes and references to them and feel that a little history still has its place
Thanks again!
Jane
AllTheThings
Involved In Discussions
I value the history, even if it isn't 'relevant' to most people actually putting some of these concepts into practice.
In my view, knowing the history (and the dead) is necessary to truly understand some of these concepts. The constraints of their time in history, the experience and decision-making that yielded their techniques...It all helps in application. To me, that is what defines a technician vs. an engineer: A technician implements known tools, an engineer has a deep understanding of the tools and can tailor them to fit a need. Even if we forget names, understanding the training-within-industry goals and history helps an engineer break down tasks and problems: They can see their challenge through the lens of a more challenging world war and post-war rebuilding.
Straying from strictly quality system 'gurus', I remember a recent discussion here on the 4:1 "rule" of gage accuracy : master reference accuracy. It has been taught in engineering schools for decades, and even combined with some nonsense about "4:1 for shop measurements" and "10:1 for calibration". But ask most engineers why those ratios, and they cannot tell you. They know it "works", and they are right...It works for most of what they do.
If they peeled back the layers, they would find 10:1 ratios used by 19th century gagemakers...And 4:1 evolving over the years, first as a NASA (or maybe German) concept addressing accuracy and measurement risk, then as a much more modern concept based on measurement uncertainty (not accuracy) and the probability of false acceptance
Understanding the history behind those ratios is the most sound way to 'uncorrupt' and optimize their use. My favorite regarding the original 4:1 "rule" is a quote by Jerry Hayes in 2007 regarding his work on measurement risk a half century earlier: " “the idea was supposed to be temporary until better computing power became available or a better method could be developed.” and "I can't believe they're still using that old accuracy ratio requirement."
Would an engineer still use a concept disavowed by its creator? I hope not.
In my view, knowing the history (and the dead) is necessary to truly understand some of these concepts. The constraints of their time in history, the experience and decision-making that yielded their techniques...It all helps in application. To me, that is what defines a technician vs. an engineer: A technician implements known tools, an engineer has a deep understanding of the tools and can tailor them to fit a need. Even if we forget names, understanding the training-within-industry goals and history helps an engineer break down tasks and problems: They can see their challenge through the lens of a more challenging world war and post-war rebuilding.
Straying from strictly quality system 'gurus', I remember a recent discussion here on the 4:1 "rule" of gage accuracy : master reference accuracy. It has been taught in engineering schools for decades, and even combined with some nonsense about "4:1 for shop measurements" and "10:1 for calibration". But ask most engineers why those ratios, and they cannot tell you. They know it "works", and they are right...It works for most of what they do.
If they peeled back the layers, they would find 10:1 ratios used by 19th century gagemakers...And 4:1 evolving over the years, first as a NASA (or maybe German) concept addressing accuracy and measurement risk, then as a much more modern concept based on measurement uncertainty (not accuracy) and the probability of false acceptance
Understanding the history behind those ratios is the most sound way to 'uncorrupt' and optimize their use. My favorite regarding the original 4:1 "rule" is a quote by Jerry Hayes in 2007 regarding his work on measurement risk a half century earlier: " “the idea was supposed to be temporary until better computing power became available or a better method could be developed.” and "I can't believe they're still using that old accuracy ratio requirement."
Would an engineer still use a concept disavowed by its creator? I hope not.
Last edited by a moderator:
You’re not wrong. There are a couple of approaches here that are useful: teaching the how and the why allows the “engineers” to really understand what is being done and how it actually works so that they can properly alter the approach for the unique situation they face. And it helps them figure out and know what is logical and what is crap (eg Control Charts and Normality etc.) Most trainees don’t need to understand the foundation and the whys - only what do. Others absolutely need to know the foundation and the whys so they can lead.
But you have to find the right people to educate. For example there are many articles regarding the AIAG Guage R&R approach and Cpk/Ppk abomination. I knew the guy who wrote the paper “The Rubber Ruler” which publicized the GM approach to Giage R&R. Years after he wrote the paper he rejected the approach for the Youden approach but no one listened to him the second time around. There is a paper on the original introduction of Cpk to the American quality that never discusses the conflation with a defect rate or twists itself around to deal with attribute data or that relies on teh Normal distribution for any interpretation of the index. There is no ‘within’ capability only total. But so few people read it or even care, let alone apply critical thinking skills. So the popular statistical alchemy persists in company “Quality manuals” - logic doesn’t always matter.
Simple discussion of the ‘gurus’ tho turns most people off. We can discuss the foundations and the whys without overly relying on “Deming said so” or “Deming went to Japan after the Second World War”. You turn too many people off. It is helpful to reference the important papers or books that provide a deeper dive in to the foundation and the whys for those who may be interested. We need more education in the foundations and the whys…
But you have to find the right people to educate. For example there are many articles regarding the AIAG Guage R&R approach and Cpk/Ppk abomination. I knew the guy who wrote the paper “The Rubber Ruler” which publicized the GM approach to Giage R&R. Years after he wrote the paper he rejected the approach for the Youden approach but no one listened to him the second time around. There is a paper on the original introduction of Cpk to the American quality that never discusses the conflation with a defect rate or twists itself around to deal with attribute data or that relies on teh Normal distribution for any interpretation of the index. There is no ‘within’ capability only total. But so few people read it or even care, let alone apply critical thinking skills. So the popular statistical alchemy persists in company “Quality manuals” - logic doesn’t always matter.
Simple discussion of the ‘gurus’ tho turns most people off. We can discuss the foundations and the whys without overly relying on “Deming said so” or “Deming went to Japan after the Second World War”. You turn too many people off. It is helpful to reference the important papers or books that provide a deeper dive in to the foundation and the whys for those who may be interested. We need more education in the foundations and the whys…
I've been surprised in my career(s) at times when it becomes obvious that somebody (occasionally "somebody = an industry") has adopted some sort of methodology for an alternative area that, from a certain (squinty?) perspective looks like the technique might be applicable to a new area. At times like these I have found it valuable to look into the history, and I find myself wishing that whoever made that initial recommendation had done the same.
Often there is nothing wrong with the (adapted) methodology except that it isn't applicable/doesn't address underlying issues. The Cove could probably write an encyclopedia of misapplied project management techniques for example.
Often there is nothing wrong with the (adapted) methodology except that it isn't applicable/doesn't address underlying issues. The Cove could probably write an encyclopedia of misapplied project management techniques for example.
Great post Bev! A bit more "we" can rail against discussing or referencing those who invented, created or refined "the foundations" of QA, Engineering, Science, Economics...etc., yet to ignore these (in many cases giants) is to ignore proper and deserved attribution for these concepts, theorems, etc....to properly inform and educate, attribution is essential, even if just by casual reference.
Similar threads
