Deming's SoPK (System of Profound Knowledge) Discussion

[Mike S.]

So it may have been an amalgamation of Deming's principles. In any event, it serves no purpose to nit-pick the issue to death.

Let's move on to some constuctive ideas.

Sorry if I'm boring you, Rob. And here I thought this thread was for discussion of Deming's teachings and to help people understand them better. As I see it, if I don't understand or agree with something presented it is not destructive or "nit-picking" to question it and bring it up for discussion. Seems as though my "nit-picking" has uncovered a few nits along the way, doesn't it?

I always most respected the teachers who invited questions and discussion (or even dissent) and had the least respect for those who demanded unquestioning agreement (complete with cracking whip to keep discipline). Guess which type I learned more from? Besides, I usually found that if I had a question about something it was most likely that several others had the same question but were too embarrased or shy to ask it themselves. Sorry if I'm the dunce of the class, but as long as I have questions I'm gonna ask them until they get answered, or I give up trying, or they kick me out.

 

[WALLACE]

Let's get back on track here

Yup,
Just like in any other thread at the Cove or, other business forums.
We reveal our personalities to each other. take it in context though and, don't ever take it personally to heart as some kind of character assassination.
I agree with you mike if you have a question to ask, however daft you might think it may seem, just ask away. I'm certainly in a learning mode regarding further understanding of A SoPK, I have to say though, I generally overlook Demings SoPK and attempt to understand systems thinking and its implications for this century.
As I said in my mapped visual of A SoPK, by nature it develops (Or evolves) according to knowledge that is shared, extrapolated, understood and infused.
Wallace.

 

[David Hartman]

OK, guys let's play nice!

Rob, As I understood the purpose of this thread it is to help educate those that are not familiar with, or do not understand SoPK. If that is the case, then I believe Mike's queries to be justified - since what may be trivial and/or a nit to me may in-fact be the one stumbling block that is preventing him from having an AHA moment.

If understanding and adopting SoPK is the life-changing experience that Dr. Deming expressed it to be, don't we owe those that haven't experienced that understanding some of our time and patience in order to help them towards enlightenment.

Mike, Nit away! If the SoPK gurus can't answer your questions then perhaps SoPK is not the revelation that it is purported to be. I for one am greatful for the opportunity to attempt to express my understanding of WED's teachings, but I must also express a lack of experience in their full application. I have made it a practice for several years now to use my understanding of his instructions as a guide as I lead my portion of the organizations that I work in/with.

 

[WALLACE]

I for one am greatful for the opportunity to attempt to express my understanding of WED's teachings, but I must also express a lack of experience in their full application. I have made it a practice for several years now to use my understanding of his instructions as a guide as I lead my portion of the organizations that I work in/with.

Me too
Wallace

 

[Mike S.]

I agree that jumping back and forth between this thread and the "key indicators" thread is getting tedious, but they are interrelated by now, and only a moderator, should they deem it appropriate, can merge them.

So, in post 29 on the key indicators thread DD might have found the genesis for the "97% quote".

In that context, can someone please give examples (Deming's or your own) of the 3% and 97% just so I'm sure I'm not confused?

 

[Rob Nix]

I was in a meeting and couldn't respond sooner.

Sorry, Mike, I didn't mean to ruffle any feathers. I thought (mistakenly I might add) based on your original questions that you were finding fault with Wes's statements, which I thought were more generalizations that anything else. Only now do I get the sense that you were truly digging for understanding. I guess I was assuming a sarcasm that didn't exist. Anyway, I apologize again for my presumptuousness.

Also, I hope the references from Out of The Crisis helped.

 

[Wes Bucey]

I agree that jumping back and forth between this thread and the "key indicators" thread is getting tedious, but they are interrelated by now, and only a moderator, should they deem it appropriate, can merge them.

So, in post 29 on the key indicators thread DD might have found the genesis for the "97% quote".

In that context, can someone please give examples (Deming's or your own) of the 3% and 97% just so I'm sure I'm not confused?

Mike, I accept your sincerity on this issue. I apologize for implying 97% was a direct quote. My input on the citation is in http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=70981&postcount=32

Let's leave the "nitpick" of the citation aside (for now and definitely in the other thread) and address the concept.

Is your (Mike's) primary objection to the percentage cited? (i.e. Would you accept 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?)
OR
Is your primary objection to the concept that some (or ANY) things which are important cannot be measured?

Understanding the source of your displeasure/confusion would help us focus our responses

 

[David Hartman]

Mike et al,

Once again pulled from the DEN. A paper by Dr. Myron Tribus that addresses some of the "unmeasurables" that depict the health of a system (and why they should be treated as observable, but "unmeasurable").

 

[Mike S.]

Is your (Mike's) primary objection to the percentage cited? (i.e. Would you accept 90%, or 80%, or even 50%?)
OR
Is your primary objection to the concept that some (or ANY) things which are important cannot be measured?

Understanding the source of your displeasure/confusion would help us focus our responses

The percentage cited got my attention first. Then, knowing Deming wasn't a dumb guy, I wondered exactly what I might be missing -- what exactly is it that cannot be measured? I admittedly don't spend lots of time thinking philosophically about such stuff, so I thought it would be a pretty easy thing to ask for examples of the things Deming felt couldn't be measured, then I could decide if I agreed or not. I didn't expect it would be a big thing.

I'm not here with an agenda to promote or denigrate Deming or anyone else. There are certainly things he says I agree with 100%, others I agree with to varying degrees, and other things I disagree with. JMO. There are very few absolutes on any subject I will agree with, and the closer to an absolute something supposedly is the more likely I will disagree with it. I will look carefully at anything that is supposedly 97% this or that.

 

[Craig H.]

David:

Thanks for the attachment, it was very interesting.

As far as the 97 (or 95) percent nonmeasurables go, I think it would settle my mind some to settle weather or not the figure is based on a (very educated) guess, or emperical study. By the nature of the beast, I would think it would have to be the former, no?

That said, I think we can agree that the exact number, or percentage, is not very important. What is important, as Dave's article alluded to, is how the things we can and can't measure will impact the health of the company over the long term.

The article points out that management is NOT science, but an art, and therefore the usefulness of numbers is limited.

Or do I just not get it?

Craig