posted 12 July 2000 08:17 AM               

Actually (I know i am going to get eaten now) I always found Deming a bit over-rated, i suspected he was a little contradictory in his writings and statements. Could i be the only person that has twice failed to get to the end of 'Out of the Crisis'?.

He did produce another book which was basically written from the point of view of an attendant at one of his seminars, and this was a lot more digestable (Could it have been written by Bill Latzko?).

Regards

------------------
Andy B

posted 12 July 2000 06:28 PM               

Well put. It is one writer's perspective. The reader of any article or print must keep this in mind. Do you believe everything your read? I don't. However, I believe that there may be some truth with what the article states.

In many books written by Japanese Quality contributors, (Kaizen, by Imai comes to mind immediately) I have noticed it mentioned (by the author or one of his sources) that many of the ideas and concepts that Deming is noted for, were in fact, other folks contributions. Who is right? I don't know. Still, it doesn't matter much to me, so long as I can agree with the concept presented, not so much the presentor.

I enjoyed the article. Interesting to me. I also can't help but point out that Deming gives plenty of credit to many folks, even those folks he can't remember (their name anyway) are given proper credit (i.e. some person in one of his 4 day seminar makes a statement that makes a passage in any of his books). This does not seem to be consistent with a self proclaimer, IMHO. Juran has been accused of the same thing. That one doesn't bother me much either. I'd rather focus on the concepts.

Regards,

Kevin

Back to the group...

posted 12 July 2000 06:51 PM               

I think the wise person leaves themself open to new information. It is necessary for developing one's theory. When a person aligns themself with a 'guru', hopefully it is done because they find that their own theory closely resembles a guru's (coincidence). At least, that's what I think. I started out a firm believer in Feigenbaum. Now, a Deming disciple (I am still heavily influenced by many other gurus and non-gurus). Maybe it will change again when I am influenced by a new piece of information and my theory changes? Who knows?

As a Deming disciple, I appreciate the fact that there are folks out there who don't see eye to eye with every Deming concept (I don't either). How else can theory be refined without testing it or putting it against another one? It is what strengthens your theory, or causes one to reevaluate, and perhaps adopt the new one. Perhaps it is a blend of both? You don't need to cringe to speak your mind, but I appreciate your sensitivity to your reading audiance.

Regards,

posted 12 July 2000 10:55 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kevin Mader:
Don't worry Andy. No one bites here that I know of.

---

posted 13 July 2000 05:30 AM               

Nope... Never heard of him before but this was an interesting tale, so I think I'll try to find out more now.

We have always been told that Japan eagerly adapted the ideas of Deming and others after the war, and then proceeded to blow the west off the court....

Then their astonishing success bullied us into accepting these ideas.

This story seems to indicate that they too had to be shoved pretty hard in the right direction.

So: Some kind of pressure seems to be neccessary for radical changes to take place.

posted 17 July 2000 11:50 PM               

Regards,

Kevin

Strangers in a strange land

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Strangers in a strage land
From: "William J. Latzko"
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 09:45:34 -0400

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copy of message to Bob Cringley:

There not being a discussion group for your article on Homer Sarasohn, I
write to you directly. since there is no discussion group on your web site
for this article.

While Sarasohn and Protzman did very valuable industrial engineering work,
they did not do the essential of getting Japanese top management to realize
the importance of quality. Having looked at their training text, I found
the it included some basic control chart methods. The few pages devoted to
quality compared to the rest of their extensive discussion of other
industrial engineering tools speaks for itself.

I admire Sarasohn and Protzman for the work they did. It certainly helped
the Japanese on to the road of recovery. However, to say that Deming, a
friend and colleague of Shewhart, did nothing to deserve his admiration by
the Japanese is incorrect.

To get the facts straight, Deming did not work for JUSE. They invited him
to come and teach the 600 some odd scientists and engineers in August of
1950. If that were all that he did, he would be as forgotten today as are
Sarasohn and Protzman.

What Deming did was to talk to the top managers of Japan and tell them that
quality came from them, not just the workers. These managers represented
80% of the Capital in Japan. He introduced the quality model which later
became the Plan-Do-Study-Act model. For your information, Deming always
credited Walter Shewhart for this model even though it was mostly his,
Deming's, creation.

Sure Sarasohn and Protzman were pioneers and did much to change Japanese
manufacturing methods. But, to say that Deming, and later Juran and
Feigenbaum did nothing to deserve the honors that they got from the
Japanese, is more than simplistic. I wish that you would set the record
straight.