Optimization vs. Local Suboptimization

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Leader
Admin
a return to an old thread

Jim,

Processes and sub-systems can be suboptimized to a higher or lower level than what is optimal. In order to optimize the system, some components will be suboptimized. Some examples were listed above as well as your own contribution. There are also non-biological uses of the word ‘synergy’ which can be defined as ‘working together’.

What I can’t be certain of, given your comments and through a review of Mike’s original post, is which type of suboptimization Tom is speaking about. It does appear that he is speaking about localized suboptimization that in my experience generally means maximization of a process or subsystem to the detriment of the whole. Tom may instead be warning the reader not to create localized suboptimization of this type as by maximizing an area or process will negatively impact the system optimization as a whole. Six Sigma, in my experience, attempts to create localized optima. This often times is suboptimal to the System.

My assumption, right or wrong, was that Tom’s usage of suboptimization was an endorsement to the creation of localized optima.

Regards,

Kevin

P.S. I have still not read Tom’s article. In fairness to him, the discussion here should probably center about Mike’s selection of this threads header: optimization vs. suboptimization. Oddly enough, it’s really not a competition.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
Kevin Mader said:
Processes and sub-systems can be suboptimized to a higher or lower level than what is optimal. In order to optimize the system, some components will be suboptimized. Some examples were listed above as well as your own contribution.
Sigh. It's never a good idea to redefine words in order to get them to mean what you want them to mean. "Optimum" refers to the most favorable conditions for something or, as I said earlier, making something as good as it can be under the circumstances. The "big" system can't be optimized if any of its components aren't optimized. Do the math. "Optimum" is not necessarily related to "capacity."

Kevin Mader said:
There are also non-biological uses of the word ‘synergy’ which can be defined as ‘working together’.
I said the word comes from biology, but I didn't say there were no legitimate uses outside of biology. This isn't one of them, though. It refers to a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts, not just "working together." "Symbiosis" might have been a better fit, but it's not right either. Why not just say "working together"?
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Jim Wynne said:
"Optimum" refers to the most favorable conditions for something or, as I said earlier, making something as good as it can be under the circumstances. The "big" system can't be optimized if any of its components aren't optimized. Do the math...

No, I think Kevin is right. We are not using words in a sterile or clinical environment. We are trying to optimize processes, not describe process already in an optimal state.

The process of doing the optimizing has lots of situations where we are not yet in a favorable state.

For example, we sweat and strive and stress, argue with clients and coworkers, fight for resources, careers start and end, compromises are made...in order to come as close to optimizing (not reaching optimal).

In that context, a non-teamplayer, could carve out a little special situation for himself, to the detriment of the whole. In industry, we refer to that as sub-optimizing.
 

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
hjilling said:
No, I think Kevin is right. We are not using words in a sterile or clinical environment. We are trying to optimize processes, not describe process already in an optimal state.

The process of doing the optimizing has lots of situations where we are not yet in a favorable state.

For example, we sweat and strive and stress, argue with clients and coworkers, fight for resources, careers start and end, compromises are made...in order to come as close to optimizing (not reaching optimal).

In that context, a non-teamplayer, could carve out a little special situation for himself, to the detriment of the whole. In industry, we refer to that as sub-optimizing.

I think you're misunderstanding my objection, Helmut. In this context, "suboptimization" refers to deliberately causing a sub-operation to perform at something less than its capacity in order to balance its output with the needs of other processes, and ultimately, the uber-process that results in the finished product. Of course, that's just prudent planning. There's no sense in having a lot of WIP lying around all over the place if it can be avoided. My point is that using the correct definition of "optimize," a sub-process is not sub-optimal just because it's not producing at its full capacity. In fact, the opposite is true, in view of the big picture.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Jim Wynne said:
I think you're misunderstanding my objection, Helmut. In this context, "suboptimization" refers to deliberately causing a sub-operation to perform at something less than its capacity in order to balance its output with the needs of other processes, and ultimately, the uber-process that results in the finished product. Of course, that's just prudent planning. There's no sense in having a lot of WIP lying around all over the place if it can be avoided. My point is that using the correct definition of "optimize," a sub-process is not sub-optimal just because it's not producing at its full capacity. In fact, the opposite is true, in view of the big picture.


No disagreement there. Perhaps, when used as a verb, the term takes a different connotation.

The usage I usually hear for "suboptimizing" as a verb refers to focusing on benefitting a subprocess to the detriment of the whole. Don't know what Websters says about it, but this is the common usage I frequently hear.

But, I agree with your usage as well.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
:topic: I'll admit I didn't think this would digress into a semantics discussion.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Marc said:
:topic: I'll admit I didn't think this would digress into a semantics discussion.


Sorry 'bout that. But, it's an important topic, so making sure we understand the what the topic means seemed relevant.
 

Marc

Fully vaccinated are you?
Leader
Yeah - Not a big deal to me. Just a comment. I guess when these forums were smaller there tended to be few semantic issues.
 
T

TucsonTom

Re: Optimization vs. Suboptimization

Please view Tom Pyzdek's article on considering constraints qualitydigest.com/june00/html/sixsigma.html
 
Top Bottom