Rules -vs- principles/Beedon

[julie@vistabee.win-uk.net (Julie Beedon)]

I saw Michael Tviete speak at the 1995 BDA Conference - the Theme
for the Conference was The Deming Legacy - Managing a Better
Future.  I am often struck, as I read The New Economics, that
Deming produced some of his most profound (to me anyway) work in the
last year of his life ... a wonderful legacy and we may never fully
understand all that he meant.   Anyway back to Michael - he took as
his topic The Future of Demings Legacy - in it he quoted Joyce Orsini
as saying that the system of profound knowledge was the 'evolution of
is life's work' He reminds us that Deming introduced his system by
saying that "it provides a lens.  It provides a new map of theory by
which to understand and optimize the organizations that we work in,
and thus to make a contribution to the whole country"    Michael goes
on to say that Deming also said "one need not be eminent in any part
of profound knowledge in order to understand and apply it"

I remember and made notes at the time for what Michael said stayed
with me and has inspired me since the death of a man I admired who
left us much to inspire our future learning.   

Michael laid out the difference between rules and principles 

        * rules 
                - set limits
                - are a basis for exclusion
                - enable to us to argue right and wrong
        * principles
                - are a basis for us to grow and expand
                - are a basis for inclusion
                - enable us to learn from differences
he said Deming was not about rules and right answers but about
principles and learning. 

Michael said Deming was a man of learning who was adding new
theories and models to his thinking right up until his death... so
let us not assume his ideas are complete and let us stay true to
his principles as we learn ourselves...  


So if I take Demings principle of the system of profound knowledge
as a lens - then I need to consider it as a three dimensional
model - so difficult when we have only flat means to discuss it and
so tempting to make it flat by breaking it into parts.  If I define
it as a lens then as I look at anything through it I can see traces
of all of the aspects .. so I can look at theory X&Y as more than
psychology and consider what it means from a variation, knowledge and
systems point of view...  the whole and the parts are very different
things .... the whoel once broken into the parts can never be the
whole or function as the whole - and parts when joined together
become something more than they were as parts .. it might not be what
we intended (hence we might get salty soup if we are not careful)
.... but it is very different - I am comfortable with playful
construction - but once we talk about the parts in isolation then
they do not function as they do when they are part of the whole...

In a world of shallow and simplistic thinking I for one am glad
that Deming made his system a 'profound' one it might be seen by
some as pretentious but at least it gives us plenty of depth... 
 
I do not really want a focussed DEN - I woudl like one rich in
learning - if we are going tight on rules and proceedures I think
we coudl be leaving principles behind.  I think there is space in
this medium for those who want focused discussions to ahve them -
but lets not impose tham on everyone all of the time.   

I am not for one minute suggesting we do not talk of the parts -
lets just not insist that when we talk of one part we do not relate
it to the others ... and we do not dismiss the connections that
other people make as belonging in another part... lets not talk of
any part without looking through the lens that Deming left us ...
and if we need to use our intelligence, and the works of other
people, to do that let us not shirk from the task which Deming
left unfinished just because we have no words on paper to refer
back to... 

People have many questions they would like to answer I am curious to
consider: 
        *  what Deming would have made of the wonderful work coming
        out of the Sante Fe Institute
        * what sort of conversation he and Meg Wheatley woudl have
        had 
        
I respect that other people have other questions - let's all ask
them but lets not waste too much of our energy in 'discerning' in
people understand what Deming meant - but that they are building
on his principles and legacy

My theory is that if we do otherwise - the system will become
closed and the second law of thermodynamics which applies only to
closed systems would mean that it would die...  for we woudl be
giving up energy that can never be retrieved or accessed as it
becomes increasingly relevant to those who are working to do what
Deming gave us the 'lens' of his system of profound knowledge for
and I quote him again in this respect... "it provides a lens.  It provides a new map of theory by
which to understand and optimize the organizations that we work in,
and thus to make a contribution to the whole country" 

Lets ensure we can do that ..................

Julie Beedon
VISTA Consulting - for a better future
julie@vistabee.win-uk.net

=======================================================================