Re: Deming, Covey & Personal Life/L'Heureux

"Howard A. L'Heureux"

Mon, 11 Nov 1996 08:52:33 -0800

Julian Simcox asks if anyone sees a link between Deming and Covey.

I see Covey's work as a good way of helping people to see some of the personal
"psychology" aspects of life.

Any organization with more than one person has the possibility of being
extremely complex.  If people don't understand what makes themselves tick, how
could they ever understand the complexities of interdependence where they
work?

While I can see the similarities between Covey's inside-out approach and some
of Deming's work, I can also see a great difference.  Taking an inside-out
approach, on the individual level, I see as a good thing.  In an organization
though, taking an inside-out approach, say working with one division in a
larger corporation, could certainly lead to suboptimization -- something which
Deming did not advocate.

To me, Systems Thinking requires an outside-in framework.  The tendency, of
course is to analyze, and break the organization down into parts.  Instead, as
Ackoff says, we need to use "synthesis", moving the system forward as a whole.
 Don't break it down, work on the largest system you can affect.

I think Covey's work is excellent.  It provides a great way for people to get
control of their personal lives.  It lays the foundation for people to
understand interdependence.  In understanding interdependence, people become
more apt to see how they fit into their organization's system.  If people see
where they fit in the system, they might more readily accept Deming's
teachings.

Howard A. L'Heureux
Organizational Systems Alignment
hmlheure@ix.netcom.com
=============================================================

Re: Applying Deming To Personal Life/Latzko

"William J. Latzko"

Mon, 11 Nov 1996 16:53:16 +0000

At 19:37 11/10/96 +0000, Eric Budd wrote:

>I have recently begun to work on a project with a co-worker, looking at
>marriage viewed as a system. The aim of the system (which probably varies
>with each couple and their committment) seems to be joy in living. We are
>interested in your thoughts, experiences regarding marriage as a system. 
>
I presume that you have looked into Deming's THE NEW ECONOMICS page 72 and 142.

Bill Latzko
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
William J. Latzko
215 - 79th Street
N. Bergen, NJ 07047
Voice:     201-868-5338
Facsimile: 201-868-5338
E-mail:    latzko@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Re: Baldrige Clarification/Newman

Downstrm@aol.com

Mon, 11 Nov 1996 11:55:08 -0500

Based on Dr. Goolsby's scale I feel sorry for poor companies that score 599
on the Baldridge assessment.  On second thought they will be ok because they
will get a 601 next time.  You gotta love that common cause variation.

On to a more serious discussion.  the Deming Philosphy is just that a
philosphy.  The Webster's definition is: all learning exlcusive of technical
precepts and practical arts.  A philosphy is not intended to include the
specific answers to the problems, instead it provides the framework and base
assumptions that if properly understood and applied allows one to discover an
answer.  It is the theory that future learning is based on.  Many people have
copied past solutions(usually found in popular managment books) and continue
to try them on new problems without ever understanding the theory behind them
or why they worked for a particular problem.  However just like the furniture
maker that decided to try and make pianos they find that without the
Theory(philosphy) they are helpless because they do not have a basis for
learning and understanding the solution to the new problem.  

Unfortunately it takes a different set of skills and knowledge to be able to
go into the philosophy and come back with the solution than it does to copy
an old solution.  Many people do not have these skills.

Mike Newman
Downstrm@aol.com

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

Re: SoPK Elevator Speech/Newman

Downstrm@aol.com

Mon, 11 Nov 1996 12:09:11 -0500

Here is the response I give when asked off the cuff just what this Deming
thing is all about.

First of all I say that the Deming Philosophy is a different way to run a
business.  It uses a different set of assumption than any other current
business philosophy.  You have actually seen the long term results of using
it to change the way a company does things.  Deming went to Japan after WWII
and began to teach it to the Japanese businessmen trying to rebuild their
country.  They learn it and used it to lead the innvoation that we have seen
in the auto industry since then.  (I use the auto industry because that is a
known entity to most people).  This is not something that happens overnight
because Deming began working with the Japanese in the 1950's and we saw the
results in the late 70'/early 80's.  It takes that kind of commitmant.

I then go on to say that the basis of this philosophy is the SoPK which is
made up of four areas: Systems, Variation, Knowledge, and Psychology.
 Understanding these four elements allows you to learn differently and then
use that new knowledge to improve your organization.  I give one quick
example of each element of Profound Knowledge.

Systems:  You must begin to understand and lead your organization thinking of
it as one interconnected series of processes and people.  Each area must be
evaluated in terms of it's impact on the entire system.  The system includes
both suppliers and customers.  The aim is to optimize the entire system not
individual segments.

Variation:  I state that there is variation in every process.  The key is to
be able to understand the variation and know how to make decisions that will
improve the predictability of the process.  My last comment is that when you
unknowingly make the wrong decision based on the variation in the process you
actually will make things much worse.

Knowledge:  Communicaton requires operational definitions so that everyone is
on the same page.  I also state that everyone within the process must
understand the theory behind what they do in order to be able to learn from
their daily activites.

Psychology:  This element helps us undertand the personal interactions within
the system and it’s processes.  People are different from one another and a
leader must undersand these differences and use them to optimize the system.
  Each person learns differently and this has to be taken into account in
training design.  Finally, I make once last statement about intrinsic vs
extrinsic motivation.  The deming philosophy believes that everyone is born
with intrinsic motivation, but it is slowly exchanged for extrinsic as they
progress through life.  Individuals perform at their optimum level when they
intrinsically motivated so that is the aim.  The good news is that if
extrinsic motivation is learned then it can be unlearned.

I re-state that it is understanding of these four areas and using that
knowledge to make decisions and learn about the world that leads to improved
people/processes/organizations.

The last comment is usually a suggestion of reading materials such as The New
Economics for the person to get a more detailed view of the philospohy.  I
also always offer my personal help if they have any further questions or need
additonal information.

I also have a few pre-selected examples or issues I know will certainly
provoke a strong reaction if I think that will prolong the conversation.  One
example would be a statement that bonuses or commissions actually do more
harm than good for the company.  Sometimes you get through the whole
discussion and sometimes not, but this is the best approach I’ve found for
me.  once in awhile I will start with the example just listed and let the
persons response lead into the full description of SoPK.

Mike Newman
Downstrm@aol.com

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

How should managers use the natural desire to win to feel good?/Taurman

Taurman

Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:00:29 -0600 (CST)

Competition

I think the discussion is drifting far from the point of Deming's warnings
about to competition.

He was  trying to tell us to avoid organizational habits that force one
manager to win at another's expense. Organizations do that when the use
performance ratings,  when they use judgmental bonuses, when they measure
results that can be improved by taking from a peer, etc.

But competition can be healthy with no losers. I have seen teams compete
with each other over set up time and down time and then share the results
because the emphasis for both was on improving.

It is possible to avoid win lose situations, it depends on how management
treats competition.

Benchmarking is a form of reality check and competition. It serves to show
the real mark on the wall and help rally around an improvement goal. It is
healthy to have people striving to do something better together even if it
is against someone else as long as it is not at their expense.

I do not mean to become involved in a political discussion but the USSR had
little or no economic competition and had trouble providing for its people.
Yet it had severe destructive competition within the organization for
approval, rewards and advancement. This internal competition was based on
judgment, ability to look good and the ability to suck up. Consequently it
was destructive competition. The kind Deming warned us to avoid.

Had the USSR had more results based competition and organization
performance, they may have survived and been able to provide for the needs
of their people. But the competition with in the organization kept them
focused on the wrong issues. That caused waste of human and economic
resources.  The competition with the US was the healthiest thing the USSR
they had going. It gave their people something to strive and compete for. We
all need to strive to feel good.

Internal competition where approval was based on political relation ships
and looking good as opposed to being good is unhealthy . Competition based
on improvement and quantified measures can be good.

People feel good when they
		compete and win
		do their best and know it was good
		improve and know it 
		associate with a winner
		are part of the winning side
		watch the "enemy" lose
		break a barrier
		make someone happy		

The question we should be asking is, "How can management organize, so people
can feel good through achievement?" 

Eugene Taurman
interLinx
ilx@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~ilx

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

RE: Baldrige a Lottery?/Taurman

Taurman

Mon, 11 Nov 1996 14:25:12 -0600 (CST)

TRUE many people find casue and correlation where there is none. But the
people I spoke with have data, and knew how their concepts of management had
changed.

It looks like genuine change for the better because the concepts they
adopted were in the right direction, sounding more like Deming than several
before. Further their growth has not stopped. We were together to support
their struggle to implement ideas new to them. 

They are measuring better indicators and are acting on them  and are working
to stop behavior that caps performance.

The Baldrige award winners formerly with IBM are especially aware of
Deming's concepts and how to do what he espoused. They have taken what they
learned in pursuit of the Baldrige award and applied it to new jobs in
different companies. The results are impressive as is their down to earth
understanding of Deming they acquired in pursuit of an award in a
competition. In a competition that improved teamwork 


Gene Taurman
Eugene Taurman
interLinx
ilx@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~ilx

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

Remarks by Bob Galvin of Motorola/Tribus

"Myron. Tribus" <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>

Mon, 11 Nov 96 23:12:27 EST

I had the good fortune to be in the audience when Bob Galvin of Motorola spoke
to the Missouri Excellence Council in St. Louis, MO,  at the end of October.  I
believe that members of this list will be interested in some of the things he
said.  My notes are incomplete.  It is hard to take notes when the speaker is so
inspiring.

His remarks were mostly concerned with the role of leadership.

"Quality is personal.  If you are a leader,  you have to be able to say,  'This
is what I did'   'I did this'  You have to demonstrate that at a personal level
you use quality principles."  He then went on to discuss the AT&T vice president
who kept a check list of the times he was late to meetings.  Every time he was
not on time,  late by even two seconds,  he entered a check mark.  He kept a run
chart on his 'in time' performance and showed it to his subordinates.  Pretty
soon others were keeping their check lists and showing them.  It finally got to
the point where all meetings were not only on time,  the often began early!  He
mentioned one short meeting that was ended before the official start time!

(Incidentally,  I have a copy of a tape about this incident,  obtained from
Professor Harry Roberts of University of Chicago School of Business.  Harry has
published materials on how best to keep personal charts on your own quality
efforts.)

Galvin then went on to discuss the problem of sustaining the momentum of
quality.  He strongly favors friendly competition,  calling it "Collaborative
Competition".   He said that in Motorola they have created a "Superbowl"
mentality,  a "World Series" of quality,  if you will.  The contests are
customer oriented,  that is,  different groups compete to show what they have
been doing to serve customers better.  They compete on a demonstration of the
use of spc, problem solving methods,  etc.   They have 12 minutes to make their
case.  They are judged on such things as "Did they share?"  "Did they use the
techniques effectively?"   Motorola conducts a 'ladder tournament (as in tennis)
They end up with a 'Superbowl' held at Disneyland.   He said that those who lose
are still proud of what their winning colleagues have done. 

He emphasized that this was a friendly competition and not cutthroat.  The
objective is to push best practice higher and higher.  He believes that
something like this is essential to keep the spirit of continuous improvement
high.

Galvin discussed the role of competition in quality,  saying that where it is
absent,  people have difficulty in sustaining the effort.  He raised a question
of whether Ford will continue to show the same zeal they did when they started
back in the 1980's.  They do not have competitions the way that Motorola does.

(incidentally,  this is the same story I heard from Japan.  The contests are
region wide and the winners of regional contests get to go on a cruise ship
where they are involved in intercompany discussions of how to improve quality.
It is like the 'love boat' but when people visit one another's staterooms,  it
is to talk about quality!)

Galvin next proposed that we set up a method to measure leadership ability.  He
defines leadership as the ability to take us where we would not otherwise go.

He proposed two questions for leaders to answer:  
1) What is to be your legacy?   What do you expect to be remembered for?  What
are you doing to bring it about?

2) The Anticipatory Register:  What are your predictions regarding the future.
Write a few statements beginning with,  "I predict that..."   These statements
are to be kep on file and examined every six months.

His objective is to measure the 'top of the house'.  Where are you taking us?

Galvin's last points were concerned with obligations to employees.  He decried
the current denial of responsibility of corporations to employees.  He connected
this to a mind set of employers that did not include plans for continued growth.
Speaking for Motorola he said: "We expect to demonstrate loyalty to our
employees and to work towards life time employment."  What to do when there
isn't enough work?  He said he wanted to convince the state to pay unemployment
insurance by the day.  In that way he could rotate the unemployment among his
employees and they would all suffer less.  The way it works now,  some get laid
off and have a big cut in pay.   But if Motorola could put people on a four day
week and let the state pay unemployment compensation for the fifth day,  all
would suffer less and the state would come out the same.  

One way to be able to make good on the promise is to work on how to expand the
company.  He set the goal of a 15% growth.   In a decade this may mean startin
100 new  businesses per year!  This will require 100 new presidents per year.
They are all now under 35 years of age.  Where to find them?  To train them?
Where to get the human resources?  He spoke of starting to recruit among the
children of employees!

All in all,  a very inspiring speech.  Lotsa questions here.

Myron Tribus

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

Re: Reply To Applying Deming To Personal Life/Sinte

Sinte@aol.com

Mon, 11 Nov 1996 22:28:18 -0500

Systems Thinking, A Deming philosopy is definately applicable to Marriage and
or Family.  My thoughts are:

If one individual in a family is affected by cancer, alcoholism, or any thing
that disturbs the balance of the whole individual, it will have ramfications
on the entire family or marriage.  Just as a pebble dropped into a pond sends
ripples out and disturbs the entire pond albeit subtly, so to will the
actions of one individual in the family system effect the entire system.  

Dr. Deming emphasized knowledge of psychology in organizational management,
it would apply with the family system.  You cannot treat the individual
without treating the entire family.  Especially with a disease such as
alcoholism.  That's why there are groups for Adult Children of Alcoholics,
Al-Anon etc.  to treat the whole family system.

Dr. Deming's systems theory is applicable to any area of life be it
organizations, educational institutions, communities, and family system.
 They are all integrated in what I heard several years ago in college called
Systems integration theory.  Systems within or perhaps subsets of other
systems.

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

Re:Understanding part 2/Kerridge

David Kerridge

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:47:39 +0000

Deep learning is hard to explain, but everyone goes through this in
one form or another: "People learn in different ways". I have been
fascinated to observe myself and others learning, and I have read some
theory on the subject. But The Deming Philosophy does raise special
problems.

What seems to happen is that when we first meet one of the new ideas,
it passes completely over our heads if we are not ready for it. Then
we notice that there *is* a new idea, but can only see it in terms
of the things we already know. For example, if we have studied
philosophy, or statistics, or management, we distort what Deming says
until it fits what we know already, and think that "Deming hasn't put
that very well - I could do it better".

We must not put anyone off trying. It seems to be a normal stage of
this kind of learning. Of course, the small part we have understood,
we *could* explain better - but it is not what Deming is leading us
towards understanding. Finally, we realise "He is saying something new,
which I don't quite understand" and then we are ready to learn: or to
start unlearning the things that block our new vision. We may also need
to challenge and resist Deming's ideas, if we are to understand *why*
they are true, and *when* they are true.

Most of the things are *not* true in the world as we have known it.
For example, if workers are sufficiently demotivated, it could be that
targets, prizes, or even flogging will produce good short-term results.
We are looking to create the circumstances in which workers are not
demotivated, but intrinsically motivated, and then these things are
harmful. We cannot learn deeply without experience, but we must
understand which parts of our experience are relevant.

I don't think that this learning process can be speeded up much, by
methods we understand at present. There are many ways to learn
faster, if we are willing to sacrifice depth. In fact that is what
our whole "results orientated" educational system seems to do. I have
heard lectures and read books about learning: some do deal with "depth"
learning, but so far I have not met anything that deals with the two
other key elements of Deming-style learning:

1   To learn a new concept we must unlearn the old, which perhaps
    does work, or seems to work, in the world we know.

2   Any way to speed up learning is self-defeating if it lacks
    discrimination. It must be a way of learning that only works
    if what we are learning is true, and prevents us learning what
    is false. And beyond that, helps us to learn well beyond what
    we have been taught.

The Deming philosophy is not a fixed body of knowledge, but a way
of learning for ourselves, and learning continually. I remember him
saying, in his late 80's "I have learned more in the last six months
than in the previous ten years".

There is no reason why we should not all be like that, if we practice
thinking in the new way. But it is painful to challenge so many of the
ways we have been used to thinking and learning.

I don't think the Deming Philosophy is unique in this learning process:
really deep understanding of physics or other concept and evidence
based subjects are just the same. But the SoPK touches things that we
think we can understand intuitively, and  contradicts a great deal that
we have been taught, and that makes it more difficult. And if we are to
use the ideas effectively under the stress of day-to day management, they
have to become part of us, not just something we have learned.

This understanding affects how we make the best use of our discussions
on the DEN. We must assume that everyone is trying to learn, and going
through just the same struggles that we all have. But whatever our stage
of understanding, and whatever anyone else's, we can all learn from
each other. Dr Deming told me "You must never stop learning from your
students". While we are struggling to deepen our understanding, we will
make all the "mistakes" I have described, and more. Except that they
are, I believe, not really mistakes, but an essential part of learning.
If we think of the mistakes as evidence of learning, and not as errors,
we will help each other more.

No one can go straight from the old style of learning to the new. It
is as if we have to learn to walk all over again. Our problem is that
we cannot always tell when we have fallen down. And we must be very
careful not to discourage anyone who is struggling. Who isn't? We
just struggle with different things. Every time we reach the top
of the mountain, we see another, higher, peak in the distance.


David Kerridge

British Deming Association Scotland

dfk@rsc.co.uk


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

Re:Understanding part 1/Kerridge

David Kerridge

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 13:52:33 +0000

Don Kerr says:
>
>Does anyone else see a need to go beyond 14 points and four components
>to better communicate the teachings?
>
I used to think that the problem was just this: the need to communicate
the Deming ideas better. But I have slowly begun to realise that there
is a different kind of problem, related to our ability to absorb new
ideas. I don't think I can explain this briefly, or very well, so please
either be patient, or delete now. I have also broken this into two parts,
to make deletion easier.

When I was learning mathematical physics, I found that there was a
*minimum* time lag between hearing an idea and understanding it - about
6 months. By understanding it, I do not mean just that I could use the
techniques I had learned to solve problems, but that the ideas were
completely clear, both what they were, and why they were obviously
true. I could then produce my own reasons, other than those I had
learned, and I could apply them in unfamiliar situations.

Then when I came to study and teach statistics, I noticed that although
it took no longer to learn the methods, it took far longer to grasp
the underlying meaning: all the more because the meaning is rarely taught,
and I had to find new ways to express it. I also found, to my amazement,
that there were people who had practiced statistics for years, and even
were teaching it, who had never grasped the concepts, in this sense of
deep understanding, because they concentrated on the technical aspects of
mathematical proof. To understand these ideas you need both theory *and*
practice: but it is no use having both if you keep them in separate
mental compartments.

Dr Deming believed that education must always develop this deep level
of understanding, rather than parrot-like learning. (See the New Economics)
So he taught in a way that forced us to think for ourselves, even at the
risk of making more mistakes. This is disturbing if all the "education"
we have experienced until now is of the superficial kind.

But in the Deming management philosophy there are more new ideas to master
than in any previous study I have met. With most of the concepts the
minimum time lag between learning and understanding seems to be nearer
five years than the six months I was used to.

His way of teaching the ideas, especially in the New Economics, may seem
rather frustrating at times. But I believe that it is designed is to force
us to think things out for ourselves, rather than to spoon-feed us with
cut-and dried explanations. So when we finally do grasp the idea, it
has become thoroughly our own. Of course, this only works with those
who have such a desire to learn that they will make the effort needed

Even then, it takes time to integrate theory and practice, which is
why Dr Deming advised that the best way to learn the Deming Philosophy
is to "study under a master, and earn while you learn".

This shows how different this is from the academic learning we are
used to.

In the next part I will try to describe the learning process and how
understanding it will, I believe, help us get more value from this list.



David Kerridge

Assistant Director of Research, British Deming Association

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

Re: Applying Deming To Personal Life/Budd

EBUDD@aol.com

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 20:15:36 -0500

 >>In a message dated 96-11-12 01:57:49 EST,  Bill Latzko writes:
 >>
 >>I presume that you have looked into Deming's THE NEW ECONOMICS page 72
 >>and 142.
 
Thanks Bill. I've even had the pleasure of a conversation with the woman who
wrote Dr. D. the letter.

************************************************************
Eric Budd	
EDS Quality Consulting and Resource Center
(810) 696-7814
ebudd@aol.com
************************************************************

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

Re: Defining the Philosophy/Beedon

Julie Beedon

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 09:16:24

Interesting comments from John on the question of operationally
defining what we are talkign about when we talk about Deming ...  

> I would like to get rid of the notion that there is Deming
>philosophy or a quality management philosophy.  To suggest that this is a
>"philosophy" suggests it is but one way of approaching organizations, among
>many.  

Philosophy - etymologically is from the Greek 'philos' which,
although of uncertain origin, meant 'loving' and of the Greek
philosophia which second element 'sophos' meant 'wise'.  It comes
to us through the Old French filosofie and Latin philosphia and thus
means 'loving wisdom'.   My edition of the dictionary has philosophy
as the 'love, study or pursuit, of wisdom or knowledge especially
that which deals with ultimate reality, or with the most general
causes and principles of things and a philosopher as one who loves
wisdom.' 

>
>By definition they are systems (or whatever synonym you want to use for that
>word).  By definition they exist to deliver something of value to some group
>of customers.  From those assumptions, and I claim they are not
>philosophical in nature but simply an expression of what's going on,

Etymologically System is from the French systeme, the late Latin
systema and the Greek sustema 'combined or organised whole, formed
from many parts'  This was a derivative of sunistanai bring
together or combine which was a compound word from sun - together
and hustanai - cause to stand.   The interesting aspect of this
origin is the second part in that it reminds us of the extent to
which we 'cause' things to be systems and that our perception plays
an important part.  The dictionary today has system as meaning
'complex whole, set of organised parts, organised body of material
or immaterial things *or* a department of knowledge or belief
considered as an organised whole; comprehensive body of doctrines,
beliefs, theories, practices, etc., forming a particular philosophy
etc.... 

It makes sense to me to talk of a system although I have a theory 
that when we use it to describe Demings work we are talking about
the second definition and we lead ourselves back to the idea that
it is a philosophical field..... I can relate to Deming as a 'lover
of wisdom' and much of his material seems to me to be philosophical
in nature.  I do not have him as bringing a whole body of thought
together, although that may be what we do with his work.  I have him
as pursuing wisdom and profound knowledge and developing a particular
set of principles which he believed were general to all
organisations.  I think his search for these principles were what
made him such a life-long learner.  

The implication for me in mentally modelling it as a philosophy is
that I can continue to journey and search for wisdom and I can use
it to test new ideas against. Somehow this seems to be more than
'observation and methods' it seems to be a cognitive framework of
much more profound implications.  

I am not sure I understand how 'by definition' they exist to bring
value to some group of customers.  I think whether people buy some
principles or not is irrelevant to whether they work - gravity
exists and applies I do not have to use it or find it of value to
accept its existance. The notion that all are using it clearly links
to this thought - we do not have to understand gravity to have it
influence our lives.   


>So I'll say again, we aren't talking about a philosophy here.  In fact, to
>assert we are is the beginning of all the confusion.
>
>John Woods
>Editor, The Quality Yearbook

I would like to think we are talking about a philosophy and a whole
school of philosophical thought which is growing and developing,
not one which has all the answers, but one which is developing
better questions and some general causes and principles for
things...  

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

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

Deming and competition/Goolsby

"Jerry Goolsby"

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 10:28:34 -0500

I attended a Deming seminar in 1992 and someone asked about 
competition.  In his usually curt way, he responded that companies 
should cooperate when it is appropriate and compete the rest of the 
time.  So, companies should cooperate on matters such as 
standardization of products and parts (the famous AAA battery 
example) and compete in the marketplace for customers.

Richard Greene's tome "Global Quality" (ASQC, Business One Irwin, 
1993) addresses in great detail how the Japanese, who apparently got 
at least some of the concept from Dr. Deming, deal with competition.  
According to Greene, a central motivator of Japanese companies 
and individuals is winning.  To Americans, the central motivator is 
lifestyle.  Japanese sacrifice so that "they" can win.  Sometimes 
this unit of analysis ("they") seems to be the company among 
competitors, sometimes it seems to be the industry among other 
industries, and sometimes it seems to be the Japanese economy 
in the world marketplace.  Cooperation at one level facilitates 
competition at another level.

To win, however, requires tremendous sacrifice and cooperation at 
some levels, but make no mistake, at least according to Greene, the 
Japanese companies want to win and enjoy competition.  

Simultaneously, the Japanese apparently appreciate a good fight.  The 
quality of the competition is not only in who wins but how well the 
battle was fought.  So, winning is extremely important, but winning 
in the context of well-fought battle is also important.  Apparently, 
Japanese baseball games are judged by the closeness of the game and 
the spirit of the competition, more than whether or not the favorite 
team won.  Japanese openly boo poorly executed games, even when the 
home team wins.

I really liked Greene's book because he addressed these and many 
other issues in the kind of detail and complexity (unlike my posting 
here) that these topics deserve--all 900 or so pages worth.   I 
recommend it.

One more thing about the Baldrige scoring:  When I went through 
examiner training I was told that the maximum accuracy of the scoring 
is at increments ending with 5,  but most examiners score in 
increments ending with 0.  I don't know of any knowledgeable 
individual who believes or would represent the Baldrige scoring 
guidelines as accurate to within a single digit and I'm even doubtful 
about 5s.  Nevertheless, there is a big difference between a 10% 
score and a 60% score on any category, the difference is articulated 
very well in the examiner training, and the difference is in the 
direction we want them to move.  Seasoned examiners seldom 
differ much at all on their scores, and when differences exist, they 
are generally resolved easily on clarification.
********************************************************

Dr. Jerry R. Goolsby
Associate Professor of Marketing
College of Business Administration
University of South Florida

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

Applying Deming To Personal Life/Kilkenny

Matt Kilkenny

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 08:53:00 -0800

The Deming management philosophy applies to pretty much anything that
requires prediction.
Dr. Deming's example from "The New Economics" (from my memory):

Management in any form, no matter how simple, is prediction.
How may I get home tonight? By prediction that my car will start.

Matt Kilkenny

[Moderator's Note:  In my classes - I tell my students that I want all of us
to meet for lunch at 12:00 the following Tuesday.  We then brainstorm all
of the potential predictions and variations that must be considered before
we can actually execute a plan to meet.  To me, a telling and personal
application.                                    Jim Clauson ]

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

Re: Remarks by Bob Galvin/ Worsley

Andrew Worsley

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 06:28:00 +1100

   Just a few comments.

> you use quality principles."  He then went on to discuss the AT&T vice
president
> who kept a check list of the times he was late to meetings. Every time he was
> not on time,  late by even two seconds,  he entered a check mark.  He kept a 
> run
> chart on his 'in time' performance and showed it to his subordinates.  Pretty
> soon others were keeping their check lists and showing them.  It finally got
> to
> the point where all meetings were not only on time,  the often began early!  
> He mentioned one short meeting that was ended before the official start time!
   
   I worry that this sort of activity can go wrong - can end up being an end
   in itself if it's not driven by the right goals i.e. the customer. I mean
   this may be perfectly good at Motorola - it really depends on the
   atmosphere or environment that it is applied in. i.e. Are the people
   motivated by fear (or looking bad) or enthusiasm to improve their use of
   time? 

   I guess there are also always a few unknownable questions such as what is
   the cost of late starting meetings (people avoiding them or deliberatly
   arriving late to avoid waiting too long), so it would be hard to know how
   much benefit or not there is.
> 
> (Incidentally,  I have a copy of a tape about this incident,  obtained from
> Professor Harry Roberts of University of Chicago School of Business.  Harry
> has
> published materials on how best to keep personal charts on your own quality
> efforts.)

   I would be very interested in some references or directions as to where to
   obtain more info about this. If you could reply to the list or directly to
   me (amw@aaii.oz.au) I would appreciate it.
> 
> Galvin then went on to discuss the problem of sustaining the momentum of
> quality.  He strongly favors friendly competition,  calling it "Collaborative
> Competition".   He said that in Motorola they have created a "Superbowl"
> mentality,  a "World Series" of quality,  if you will.  The contests are
> customer oriented,  that is,  different groups compete to show what they have
> been doing to serve customers better.
  
  Are the results produced examine statistically to see if there is any
  significance between the winners and losers? Or do they just pick the
  highest N groups? Perhaps a lottery approach might be mildly frustrating to
  others that made efforts and missed out?

  Another interesting question is whether the "best" ideas are ones that
  should be always adopted whole. I am thinking of the approach the IETF
  (Internet Engineering Task Force) adopted in developing a new protocol to
  replace IP (which the Internet is based on). They had many groups
  submitting competeing proposals and debating them in a friendly open
  meetings. People would take the best bits from other peoples ideas and put
  it in their own proposals. i.e. Even a dumb proposal is of value if it has
  a germ of a useful idea. Would people get to go on the boat cruise with
  people who had germs of a good idea?

  I am not saying their approach is wrong - just raising some questions that
  might help improve things (or might not :-).

.....
> 
> Galvin discussed the role of competition in quality,  saying that where it is
> absent,  people have difficulty in sustaining the effort.  He raised a
question
> of whether Ford will continue to show the same zeal they did when they started
> back in the 1980's.

  I think the pride in workmanship is an important factor here. The good
  feeling of doing a better job because you are improving (PDSA) is a strong
  motivating factor. I suggest stronger than competitive urges which tend to
  encourage you to make sacrifices (cut corners?) towards one goal rather
  than balancing several requirements required in a large organisation.

  I don't see any problem with entertainment or joy in work. But I wonder if
  such motivation is on an equal footing with pride in work. 
....

  Also I don't believe unemployment is inevitable in the future. The economy
  may change radically so that people can live happily only "working" fewer
  hours but I suspect that most people are ultimately most happy if they can
  make achievements whether it be study, sport, artistic or other "work".
  i.e. people need activities that give a sense of achievement - whether this
  ultimately is "work" in the sense that we know it to day is another matter.


   Thanks again Myron for another interesting post.

	Andrew Worsley

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

[Fwd: Red Bead Experiment Materials]

Chip Paliocha

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 14:41:55 -0500

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------482665AA4ABB
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I believe SPC Press has these in their catalog, Bill, if you don't
already have a referral:

http://www.spcpress.com/

or

SPC Press order line (800) 545-8602

Chip
-- 


Chip Paliocha
chip@evolve.net

--------------482665AA4ABB
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: deming@www8.clever.net
Received: from ns.dnsserver.com (qmailr@ns.dnsserver.com [208.5.7.252]) by westnet.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) with SMTP id MAA01385 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:46:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: (qmail-queue invoked by uid 0); 12 Nov 1996 17:28:21 -0000
Received: from www8.clever.net (deming@206.31.79.1)
  by ns.dnsserver.com with SMTP; 12 Nov 1996 17:28:20 -0000
Received: (from deming@localhost) by www8.clever.net (8.7.3/8.6.9) id MAA22740 for evolve@westnet.com; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:33:59 -0500 (EST)
Received: from emout08.mail.aol.com (emout08.mx.aol.com [198.81.11.23]) by www8.clever.net (8.7.3/8.6.9) with SMTP id MAA22716 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:33:57 -0500 (EST)
From: JPryor3@aol.com
Received: by emout08.mail.aol.com (8.6.12/8.6.12) id MAA11591 for staff@deming.org; Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:33:31 -0500
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 1996 12:33:31 -0500
Message-ID: <961112123329_1418591053@emout08.mail.aol.com>
To: staff@deming.org
Subject: Red Bead Experiment Materials
Status:  O
X-Mozilla-Status: 0001

Greetings From Detroit,

Can the materials required to perform the "red bead experiment" be purchased
from your organization?  If not.....Do you know of any
organization/manufacturer that markets these materials in a pre-packaged
form?

Thanks,

Jpryor3@aol.com


--------------482665AA4ABB--

Re: Need for competition?/Beedon

Julie Beedon

Tue, 12 Nov 1996 15:10:07

I liked the idea of linking the concept of 'freedom' to the debate
about competition. In his book The Intelligence Advantage Michael
Mcmaster devotes a whole chapter to the question of freedom and I
like his operational definition (BTW - one of the things I really
liked about the book is the way in which Michael includes
operational definitions for all the key words/phrases...) for
freedom he gives  .."that condition in which the agents in a
social system are unrestrained in their ability to act except by
rules, or principles that apply to the organisation of the system
as a whole"   Michael observes that freedom is important for
creativity, innovation, expression, initiative, application of
energy and intelligence... and I can see some of the principles of
for intrinsic motivation are linked to this concept - linking 
peoples ability to contribute to the ways in which they have been
suppressed...  we form, and are formed,  by the systems which we
inhabit - so we tend to organise around the values of the system
around us..  

If we are to have a theory of organisation without the sort of
'controls' which were predominant in the machine model of systems
then freedom of some form seems to be key.  So is competition or
cooperation freedom?? 

Competition could be thought of a a form of organising - a freedom
which patterns our behaviour - the more forms of competition we
experience the more it patterns our thinking....it can also be
thought of as a form of management control - limiting our options
....structuring the patterns of our behaviour to produce certain
results (Best Dressed/Most Innovative etc..) 

If we define competition as any form of thinking paterns which
produces a result whereby one party 'wins' and the other(s)
'loses' then I struggle to think of a way in which this can be
thought of as 'healthy' in our organisations... it is a form of
freedom but it is also a trap ... where else does it take me in
terms of how I view the people around me??   It gives us the
freedom to create to win - it might restrict the flows of
information between me and my competitors... at the end of the day
winning is what matters and winning can be a tyranny worse than
other controls..  

By this model I would define cooperation as any form of thinking
pattern which produces a result whereby any parties involved
'win'.. and there are no losers... thus I can never be a loser and
I do not end up thinking of anyone around me as a loser... it is
more than a question of sub-optimization it is a whole
psychological pattern for me.... it is a different form of freedom
producing different patterns - seeking partnerships we open the
possibility for synergy, working at partnering we build
opportnities for team learning and dialogue creating new
meaning... in finding a win for others we open a window for
innovative ways forward for ourselves... it is also a burden in
terms of the work needed to maintain informations flows and invest
in relationships... 

I am not sure if we 'need' competition or it is just highly
patterned into our thinking and we have not developed new patterns
- I find that when faced with a variety of situations the
cooperative options seem to be very different from the competitive
ones - in thinking about organisaitonal design (and
transformation) I am inclined to think that developing cooperative
models across as many situations as possible is likely to lead to
more effective systems... and pattern our thinking in new ways
which might just give us something we had never imagined would be
possible with competition 

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

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

Re: Reply To Applying Deming To Personal Life/Newman

Downstrm@aol.com

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:31:16 -0500

In addition to changing the compensation/performance appraisel at the company
I have mention in the past we also had begun the process of bringing in
Spouses to be a part of our communication process on benefit issues.  I also
developed a Deming Philosophy Overview class to eventually be taught to the
spouses so that they could start to understand and communicate with their
other half about the philosophy.  This particular class would also focus more
on how the principles could be used in life outside of work.
I have and always will utilize SoPK more in my personal life than anywhere
else.  I also believe that to make true cultural change the individuals
within the organization must buy into the Deming Philosophy because they see
it as a better way and not just because the company wants to do it.


Mike Newman
Downstrm@aol.com

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

Re: Baldrige a Lottery?/Newman

Downstrm@aol.com

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:39:10 -0500

The people at IBM could very well have improved their system via the
competition route however I also guarantee that they were forced to do some
things that were directly opposed to what the Deming approach would have
been.  This is the sub-optimization that Deming was against.  How much
quicker could they have improved, how much farther could they have
progresses, or how much deeper of an understanding of SoPK could they have
achieved if it were not for this sub-optimization.  This is unknown and
unknowable.  Unfortunately, that opportunity is gone forever.

Mike Newman
Downstrm@aol.com

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

RE: Baldrige a Lottery?/Levin

"Wayne J. Levin"

Wed, 13 Nov 96 11:14:34 -0500

In reading the discussion on both sides of the Baldrige it occured to me 
that the Baldrige may be more like chemotherapy than anything else.

Clearly we would want to do those things (or not do others) that would 
cause us to have cancer - that is the ideal - that, perhaps, is parallel 
to absorbing and applying Profound Knowledge. Yet, when the patient has 
cancer, chemotherapy can be very helpful, though it may generate other 
undesirable effects (nausea, loss of hair, weakness). There are, too one 
degree or another, parallel situations with organizations. Despite the 
drawbacks, chemotherapy may save a life. Perhaps than, the Baldrige may 
be helpful too, despite the drawbacks.

As David Kerridge often reminds us, all models are wrong but some are 
useful. The chemotherapy model is not a perfect fit. I know that if I had 
cancer, I would be inclined to take advantage of it. I also know, that I 
would not be inclined to recommend to senior managers that they do a 
Baldrige-based assessment or enter the competition. But if I could not 
convince them otherwise, I would cooperate to see if that experience 
could be used to draw them closer to the ideal (Profound Knowledge). 


Wayne J. Levin, M.A.Sc., P.Eng
Process Improvements, Inc.
PO Box 77506
North York, Ontario CANADA
M3H 6A7

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

RE: Shewhart and The Bell Labs/Towns

Bill Towns

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 10:34:30 -0600

Did we ever find anything on this (below message from Gogue)?   I am very
interested in some biographical information on Shewhart or historical
information on the Bell Labs.   Can anyone give me some sources?    Thanks
to all, Bill Towns

>>>  12/10/95 04:42am >>>
[Moderator's note:  With apologies to Jean-Marie, following is a missing
post
from DEC95.                                          Jim Clauson]

Dr. Deming often said that the Bell Telephone Laboratories surmonted 
big troubles they had during the 20's thanks to the Shewhart's theory. 
Before it, he said, *the more they made efforts, the more they failed*.
Dr. Deming testified that The Bell Telephone Laboratories was the first 
successful test of the Shewhart theory.

This fact is very helpful when we attempt to make people intrigued by 
the Deming philosophy. Unfortunately we miss a detailed history of the 
Bell Telephone Laboratory during the period 1920-1940. An excellent source 
is *The World of W. Edwards Deming* by his assistant Cecelia Kilian, but we
would need more information: the Bell organization, the Shewhart's pros 
and cons, problems, opportunities, etc.

Here is a call to the deans and professors who teach the Deming ideas in 
their universities. Studies about *What Shewhart had made within Bell Labs 
for 20 years* would be very helpful. It certainly would be a good subject 
for a doctoral thesis.

Originally sent by:
Jean-Marie Gogue
President
The French Deming Association
Versailles France
gogue@ensmp.fr


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

Re: Remarks by Bob Galvin/Taurman

Taurman

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:24:00 -0600 (CST)

Andrew 

You are right the behavior managers adopt can be destructive or constructive
but they will be copied.

Your story about the AT&T vice presidnt ilustrates a very important fact of
life for those who would adopt new a organizational culture. People learn by
watching peers to decide what is in their best interest. They then beleive
they are acting in the best interst of the organization and act accordingly
because that copied behavior minimizes grief and maximizies reward.


I like a quote from a longshoreman poet best 

        "When people are free to do as they please 
             they usually imitate each other."
                                                Eric Hofer

Employee attitude and behavior are determined by the what situations cause
management to act or not.  Employees decide what kind of behavior is
acceptable by watching peers and what managers do or do not act on.
Therefore what is acted on should be measured results of processes that
serve the customer.  Action is reward, put down, fixing, priorities etc. 

What is measured should be carefully chosen and aligned with customer 'turn
ons' and the strategic direction of the company.


Gene Taurman

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

Re: Deming and competition/Taurman

Taurman

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 11:34:34 -0600 (CST)

Jerry 

 Interesting post

You comments on the accuracy of the Baldrige apply to collecting data for
any problem solving exercize.

Often I find managers debating over whether the reject rate is 10% or 15%
and the accuracy of the data. When in fact the data is accurate enough to
decide to take action and provide direction. 

So too with Baldrige.  Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevent. Is it
directionally correct? I beleive it is. Like all other standards there are
people who will use it incorrectly.


Gene Taurman


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

Re: Deming and competition/Constantine

John Constantine

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 09:43:50 -0800

Dr. Jerry Goolsby offers in re Deming and Competition:

"According to Greene, a central motivator of Japanese companies
and individuals is winning.  To Americans, the central motivator is
lifestyle." 

and goes on to say, 

"So, winning is extremely important, but winning in the context of 
well-fought battle is also important.  Apparently, Japanese baseball 
games are judged by the closeness of the game and the spirit of the 
competition, more than whether or not the favorite team won."

It seems to me that Green and/or Goolsby may have stretched a bit too far 
to say that Americans are more interested in lifestyle (however defined) 
more than winning (however defined). As mom said, and many others since, 
winning isn't everything. Yet the American culture surely acts as if it 
were. "Career ladders" paint a nice visual picture, "better" jobs 
provide ranking, "in your face" sports give clear evidence, and stories 
of "winners" in the corporate world, provide ample proof that the message 
is: "in this culture you want to be on the "winning" side, never on the 
losing side." No matter what it takes, no matter what the cost, no matter 
the damage that is done, no matter what "human garbage" may be left 
behind...it is of no consequence, if the aim is to "win".

Domination is not the essence of human existence, or is it? Winning as it 
is currently defined in this culture means, for example, 
- honing a high school helmet buckle to a razor's edge, to be used in 
slicing the opponent. (This service provided by the athlete's father, a 
dentist.)
- spitting in the face of a major league umpire by a well-paid 
"professional" athlete, to receive a mild suspension which would be in 
effect next year, not to interfere with his participation in the World 
Series.
- a high school athlete in full gear and helmet tackling an official 
aftre the game had ended, thereby costing his team a spot in the state 
championships. (The athlete is now in jail on felony charges.)
- the continued dependence upon abusive instruments such as "performance 
appraisals", with the justification being that some have to be doing 
"better" than others, and those who do "worse" (as defined by the 
supervisor subjectively) should in effect be punished.
- the use of "pay for performance" and similar systems, squeezing the 
last drop out of a person, an example of Taylorism gone mad.
- comments such as "groups have no rights" by a millionaire proponent of 
legislation whose very purpose is to extinguish long-held concepts of 
justice and fairness in this society. (Sad part was that the millionaire 
happens to be of a racial group who weren't asked to come here hundreds 
of years ago, and with whom the dominant culture has not reconciled to 
date.)
- recent discussions by high level executives and others in a oil 
industry giant as to the "jelly beans" among them, and the need to 
destroy incriminating documentation. (The sad fact is that some of these 
people were still employed at last report giving further evidence that it 
is better to be in a higher position than in a lower.)
- recent news that veterans of the Gulf War were perhaps not making the 
whole thing up when referring to illnesses they suffered after service in 
that theater. (This, despite smoke screens by the military to the 
contrary.) 
I'm afraid that winning is the American sickness which is not related to 
competition, but rather to domination and control. Recent mention of 
increased incidence of what appears to be clinical depression in children 
of elementary school age, the fact that over thirty percent of all 
veterans of military service can be classified as homeless, downsizing 
and mergers of existing giants all might give us pause, and more reason 
to reflect on such ideas as whether or not we are more interested in 
lifestyle than winning.

This is not to make an argument, but rather to open up the channels here 
and elsewhere. If there is a "better", there will be a need for a 
"worse". It's a wonder that there was ever a Renaissance at all, much 
less our current state of dependency on all things winning. What we see, 
what we hear, what we eat...all are presented as the best ever, better 
than x or y or z.

The glass is more than half-empty, and we are coming to an end-point, in 
my view. The sad thing about the concepts which happened espoused by 
Deming is not that they might be wrong, but that they just might be 
right. The educational system now provides learning based on utility, in 
other words what the student will need for the workplace. Not to be 
taught how to think, but rather what to think. These are the demands 
placed on us and our children by the American culture in which we live. 

As I said elsewhere, human beings are not disposable tampons, to be 
discarded when their "utility" is up. They are, or should be, what 
constitutes the essence of this society. And if anything is true, this 
society is hell-bent on winning, and much less interested in a game well 
played.

I apologize for the length.
-- 

Regards, 
John Constantine
rainbird@trail.com
Rainbird Management Consulting
PO Box 23554
Santa Fe, NM 87502
http://www.trail.com/~rainbird
"Dealing in Essentials"

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

Deming in action/Wright

"david g. wright"

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:22:36 -0500

I am currently reading UNITED WE STAND - The Unprecedented Story of the 
GM-UAW quality Partnership by Thomas Weekley (UAW) and Jay Wilber (GM).
On the dust cover, Dr. Deming is quoted as saying "The two of you have 
the responsibility to communicate to American industry that you have to 
do this together."

The General Motors Quality Network, based on Dr. Demings tenets is up and 
runing. 

Any insights/comments on how well they have done? Any thoughts on the 
recent contract negotiations? Did both sides demonstrate "Optimization 
for everone concerned..."

Dave Wright
dgwright@papl.com

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

masters, DEN and by what Method/Kromkowski

Kromkowski@aol.com

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 14:44:57 -0500

<<  Dr Deming advised that the best way to learn the Deming Philosophy
 is to "study under a master,  >>

Who are the masters and by what method did D. and does the DEN operationalize
the definition?

[Moderator:  To *my* knowledge, there is no current operational definition
[for what Dr. Deming refered to as a Master - so I am reluctant to use the
[term on the DEN.]

To the extent that the DEN agrees that study under matsters is necessary, by
what if any method does the DEN intend to serve D.'s suggested course?  

[Moderator:  It is my hope for the DEN to facilitate the coming together of
[a collective knowledge and understanding to approach this role.]

In other words, after all of the fishing around for elavator speeches, oper.
defs. of D's philosoph or SPK, and discussions about the idea of Deep DEN or
Focused DEN, what do the owners/management of DEN intended to do, if any
thing, and what do they predict about the effects of any action (or
non-action).

JDKromkowski

[Moderator:  The DEN consists of the 5-600 subscribers - both those that 
[contribute and those that listen in.  There is no owner/management, per se.
[I donate my time to moderate the DEN and Del Kimbler donates the computer, 
[software, and his time.  So *our* intent is not the issue -- at issue is
[what is the intent of the subscribers to the DEN?

[There are efforts underway to create an introductory course and an advanced
[course to be administered via the internet.

[Thanks for the feedback, JD.                        Jim Clauson
===========================================================================

Re: Understanding/Taurman

Taurman

Wed, 13 Nov 1996 17:28:11 -0600 (CST)

Dr. Kerridge

Your explanation of understanding is right on target, But I believe there is
more to the problem of people learning about Deming or any new idea. Deming
ideas are in conflict with core beliefs that have made managers successful.
Some cannot even see them much less allow them to incubate and take hold.

Everyone has set of beliefs that we believe to be true. We have learned
these by experience and found them to be true. The more successful he person
the stronger these beliefs have been reinforced.

When a person is confronted with a new idea that is different then the core
belief then it may be rejected but even more likely simply not acknowledged. 

The in way of expressing it here is paradigm. The student of Deming who has
been successful must not only learn but must adopt a new set of paradigms or
core beliefs.


 
This is a quote a fellow DENizen put on the web but it fits very well. 

Those who grow discouraged over their efforts to reform their companies may
draw some comfort from the following:

One of the difficulties in bringing about change in an organization is that
you must do so through persons who  have been most successful In that
organization, no matter how faulty the system or organization may be.
       
To such persons you see, it is the best of all possible  organizations,
because look who was selected by it and look who succeeded most within it.
       
Yet these are the very people through whom we must bring about improvements
       
       -George Washington 
       The passage is an excerpt from his second
       inaugural address as President of the United States


"Some people change when they see the light others when they feel the fire."
							Colleen Schrader
	
"Behavior, priorities or attitude will not change until the 'pain of not
changing' is more than the pain of change." 

							             E. T.

That means a change leader must understand the consequence system already at
work in the company.  Most managers do not know how the reward system in
their company works. They do not know what people are rewarded for or what
put downs are common. To make change happen a manager must learn what we do
not know about the existing consequence system for that is what we must
change.   That consequence reward system, which is pervasive and complex
drives attitude and that drives behavior.

PARADIGMS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AT WORK

"It is difficult for men in high office  to avoid the malady of self
delusion.  They are always surrounded by worshippers. They are constantly,
and for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness."  

                                                        Calvin Coolidge 

Gene Taurman

Struggling to help people understand

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

Re: Deming and Competition/Prevalnig

"Walter G. Prevalnig" <104337.2101@CompuServe.COM>

14 Nov 96 11:58:32 EST

If the aim is to optimize the system we must strive to attain nominal value,
that is minimum loss.

IMHO if competition results in minimum loss on our journey toward optimization ,
so be it. If it does not, stop it. 

 The application of profound knowledge is useful here for many reasons , not the
least of which is our propensity to define as a "system" that which is important
to us. We focus upon it and tend to  ignore or not to see the effect of our
actions upon the larger system.

Demind said (not a direct quote)......that any loss to a system represents a
loss to society as a whole. Included here is the loss of knowledge.


Walter G. Prevalnig
PREVALNIG & ASSOCIATES   " Building Learning Organizations"
104337.2101@compuserve.com

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

RE: Understanding/Playford

John Playford

Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:54:39 -0500

Thanks to Gene Taurman for some fine quotes that are right on target.  I
have been working within a healthcare organization since 1988 which
has been struggling with transformation of management.  This
organization has also experienced first-hand the deep soul-searching
that happens when there is a change at the top (CEO change).  The
quote:

"It is difficult for men in high office  to avoid the malady of self delusion. 
They are always surrounded by worshippers. They are constantly, and
for the most part sincerely, assured of their greatness."  

                                                        Calvin Coolidge 

really hits home.

Our management and staff had been studying and trying to understand
Deming for nearly 6 years when this change of senior management
came about.  As the change agent within the organization I saw much
back-tracking and "assuring of greatness" happening.

After almost two years of treading water, some very interesting things
are beginning to happen.  We continue to work with all our staff in
learning about SoPK.  The department managers are coming out of their
shells once again and finding out that the idea's we have been talking
about for years are okay, and have truly been ingrained into the
organization.  At a recent meeting, the department managers decided that
it indeed was time to eliminate our merit system.  When one person broke
the ice on this subject, nearly everyone jumped on the band-wagon,
including the CFO, COO, & UFO (as Heero Hacquebord would say).  This
is now an extremely exciting time for me to see the light bulbs starting to
go on.  It has taken a long time, as Taurman say's, for these ideas to
"incubate and take hold," but it seems they have.

Perhaps this is an example of presenting something that is so different,
but so right, for so long, eventually there is no choice but to begin to grab
hold.

John Playford
Clinical Support Division
Tanner Medical Center
jplayford@tanner.org

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

Deming and competition/Wright

"david g. wright"

Thu, 14 Nov 1996 09:27:10 -0500

In a recent post, John Constantine says; "Domination is not the essence 
of human existence, or is it? Winning as it 
is currently defined in this culture means, for example;"

He then goes on to recite several examples of athletes and others 
performing in a manner which we all agree is not exceptable.

I object that this is what our culture defines as winning. You are 
arguing from the specific to the general.I and others could list 
hundreds(no Thounsands) of examples where sports competition has promoted 
healthy human growth in mind, body, and spirit.

The problem is in application. Any philosophy or activity or thought 
process can be applied in the wrong case or in the wrong manner. Because 
some do, does that invalidate the process?

If competition is replaced by cooperation,does that lower performance to 
the lowest common denominator? Does a process's performance reduce to the 
weakest(slowest, costlist, etc.) part of the process? As an individual 
performer, do I want my compensation tied to someone who cannot or 
willnot perform at as high a level as me? Granted I believe that part of 
the purpose of SoPK is to learn and improve those areas. Is the point of 
buisness to provide a product or service to a consumer or is it provide 
growth in capital to those invested? If it is the first then cooperation 
is all that is needed. If it is the second, then competition is required. 
What provides the push to grow if not competition?

Hail Dilbet
Dave Wright
dgwright@papl.com

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

Re: Baldrige a Lottery?/Taurman

Taurman

Thu, 14 Nov 1996 08:31:41 -0600 (CST)

At 10:39 AM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>The people at IBM could very well have improved their system via the
>competition route however I also guarantee that they were forced to do some
>things that were directly opposed to what the Deming approach would have
>been.  This is the sub-optimization that Deming was against.  How much
>quicker could they have improved, how much farther could they have
>progresses, or how much deeper of an understanding of SoPK could they have
>achieved if it were not for this sub-optimization.  This is unknown and
>unknowable.  Unfortunately, that opportunity is gone forever.
>
>Mike Newman
>Downstrm@aol.com

There is no doubt that the IBM effort was flawed but so are all the attmepts
to follow Deming. The question is Are the people better off for have tried
to learn and change.

Gene

Eugene Taurman
interLinx
ilx@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~ilx

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

RE: Remarks by Bob Galvin/Duffy

"A6CCM01.DUFFYJE JACK DUFFY"

Thu, 14 Nov 1996 23:02:40 EST

     If you'd like to learn more about the AT&T vice-president and find a
     useful strategy for attaining a deep understanding of personal
     improvement, read the original material in QUALITY IS PERSONAL, 1993
     Free Press, Harry Roberts & Bernard Sergesketter -- about 150 pages
     and $20.  I guess some would say it's supplemental to the work of Dr.
     Covey.  It's a deceptively easy read on an unusually difficult and
     subtle concept.

     Jack Duffy, Peoria IL


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

SoPK & Competition/Smith

david smith

Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:20:57 -0500

When asked your opinion on some thing or another,
have you ever replied, "I have a problem with that!" 
My use of the SoPK enables me to recognize the pros and cons of many
activities. Dr. Deming called this ability a lens. A friend calls this use
of theory a filter.  I think it's both.  It is a lens because you view
things as either helpful or harmful to the "system" you're looking out for.
It's also a filter because you pour the possibilities of every endeavor
through the four strainers of the SoPK looking for a future failure mode.  A
failure mode is any violation of  PRINCIPLE  in ANY quadrant of the
philosophy. When I do this with competition, I have to say I have a problem
with that.

I have a problem with competition because I see ways it will sub-optimize
the system you're striving to improve.  If you can appreciate the theory of
a system, then you know that its "health" is one thing that you want to
optimize. But, on the other hand,  I guess competition isn't bad if you're
willing to settle for a short-term win/lose which is offset by a long-term
lose/lose.

Among competition's failings are redundancy of resources and human efforts,
secrecy prohibiting networking, focusing only on the profitable projects
(not working from mankind's Pareto of concerns), the introduction of fear in
the work place which removes joy from work, and future problems associated
with people being labeled "loser."

How many research labs are working independently on similar projects? Each
one hiding "confidential" information from the other. Each wasting resources
creating the same infrastructure to house the critical elements needed to
create a breakthrough. Think of the loss to society from this behavior:
        Not enough (add your own critical elements here) to do the job right
        because the budget is tight. 
        Charity work? No time or money for that, besides, we have to stay
        focused!
        Oh, not to pressure you, but I heard that if you don't have a
        breakthrough in the next three months we're all history.
        Hey, don't put that loser in my group! I want to win...

The SoPK has enabled me to realize that by organizing competitions to win
today's cash, we also lose tomorrow's opportunities to keep our companies
alive and growing.

In closing, I hope we do not confuse what we have to do with what
we will do--given the opportunity.  Granted, the first thing that we have
to do is survive.  If competition is a factor in that survival then it has to be
dealt with.  If you have to "win" then that is your current reality.
The direction the SoPK points you toward is one of continual improvement.
The focus here is always set in the future.  Dr. Deming called this focus on
what should be " a window into another world."  That world is waiting for us
to create.


David L. Smith
Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems
Division of GM
LNUSFE1.wzp8pn@gmeds.com

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

Re: Understanding/Castellano

jcastellano@desire.wright.edu

Thu, 14 Nov 1996 14:19:34 -0500 (EST)

Gene Taurman's post discussed the difficulty of getting new ideas 
accepted.  I head a great line at a conference several weeks ago that 
speaks to this point.  The speaker said: "education is about learning, 
transformation is about unlearning".  Although the comment was made in a 
non-business context I can identify with it.

I teach a graduate level MBA class in Management Accounting.  For the 
first three weeks we use Neave's "Deming Dimension" book to prepare them 
for what will come next; my attempts to show the dangers of using 
accounting-based targets to control people and processes.  If you think 
the transformation (the unlearning) is difficult with respect to merit 
systems and employee ranking, try to take on the accounting target 
issue.  

It is extremely difficult for most students (who are out in the work 
arena)to imagine an organization that does not use these targets to 
control people and processes.  What would the board say, what about 
shareholders, and financial analysts?  To address this issue, with any 
degree of hope of encouraging "out of the box thinking" requires getting 
the class to discuss the distortion of the system and figures that such 
a focus encourages.  Lately I have been having some luck with getting 
them to ask such questions as:  "what is the theory of knowledge that is 
operative when we use standard cost systems to control processes"?  What 
is the theory operative when we use spc to control these processes?

I would like to end by giving you a quote from St. Thomas Moore I ran 
across several years ago which has helped me during those times of 
discouragement.

"If you can not pluck up bad ideas by the root,if you cannot cure long 
standing evils as completely as you would like, you must not therefore 
abandon the commonwealth.  Don't give up the ship in a storm because you 
can not direct the winds.  And don't arrogantly force strange ideas on 
people who you know have set their minds on a different course from 
yours.  You must strive to influence policy indirectly, handle the 
situation tactfully, and thus what you cannot turn to good, you may at 
least make less bad.  For it is impossible to make all institutions good 
unless you make all men good, and that I don't expect to see for a long 
time to come."

                        St. Thomas Moore
========================================================================

Understanding/L'Heureux

"Howard A. L'Heureux"

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 07:38:14 -0800

Bravo to David Kerridge for some excellent explanations.

I'd like to add something that I've learned through the years.

Understanding -- is the essence of communicating.

Many people believe that communicating is talking, or listening.  Those
are but the tools we use.  There has been much published about
'effective listening', or 'how to speak so others will hear you.'  What
has been missed in much of this literature though, is the essence of the
process itself -- understanding.

Communication doesn't happen when I talk and you listen, but when we
come to a mutual understanding.  I can speak to you in Greek, and you'll
hear me; but, we won't communicate unless you understand not just what I
say, but we agree on what I meant.  Of course, that doesn't mean you
necessarily agree with what I said, just that you understood it.

This is why Deming's teachings about Operational Definitions are key.
Operational Definitions enhance (almost ensure) understanding.

Howard A. L'Heureux
Organizational Systems Alignment
hmlheure@ix.netcom.com
=========================================================

The Weakest Link in the Chain/Prevette

Steven_S_Prevette@RL.gov

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 07:40:20 -0800

     Dave Wright's post:
     
     >If competition is replaced by cooperation,does that lower performance 
     >to the lowest common denominator? Does a process's performance reduce 
     >to the 
     >weakest(slowest, costlist, etc.) part of the process? As an 
     >individual performer, do I want my compensation tied to someone who 
     >cannot or willnot perform at as high a level as me?
     
     caused me to realize something and a connection to another approach.  
     I believe that either in competition or cooperation, the performance 
     of a process is in fact determined by the weakest link in the process. 
      This is well supported in process improvement methods (the Pareto 
     principle does relate to finding the weak link, so does the "Theory of 
     Constraints" or any queueing theory analysis).
     
     And perhaps my compensation is in fact tied to someone (or more likely 
     some part of the process) that is the weakest link.  Note I say more 
     likey some part of the process, since Dr. Deming would state that 94+ 
     percent of the problems are with the process, not the people.
     
     Which system - cooperation or competition improves the weakest link 
     most effectively?  I would believe cooperation - I help my fellow 
     employees with their weaknesses, they help me in return.  This is 
     win-win (expanding pie) vs. win-lose (stable, or decreasing pie).
     
     - Steve Prevette

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

Re: DEN and by what Method/Novick

"David T. Novick"

Fri, 15 Nov 96 08:51:33 PDT

     On 13 November, the list digest included a posting by Kromkowski with 
     added comments by the list moderator.  It addressed the following:
     
<<  Dr. Deming advised that the best way to learn the Deming Philosophy
 is to "study under a master,  >>

     to which Kromkowski asked

> Who are the masters and by what method did D. and does the DEN           
> operationalize the definition?

     and the moderator responded

> [Moderator:  To *my* knowledge, there is no current operational          
> definition for what Dr. Deming referred to as a Master - so I am         
> reluctant to use the term on the DEN.]

     IMHO, this uncertainty is a typical illustration of Deming's approach; 
     make students think, pursue their own definitions, seek their own 
     answers and create their own solutions.  In this manner they create 
     knowledge.  Who then is a master?  I suggest each of us needs to 
     search and come to our own conclusion.  To ask for guidance from 
     someone knowledgeable is appropriate but in the end we can only 
     satisfy our own needs by deciding for ourselves who we believe to be 
     the master.  To my way of thinking, this means we must even look into 
     the philosophy and teaching of those in disagreement.  As we proceed 
     to an understanding of all sides, we are seekers of knowledge.  As we 
     learn we hope to find our answers.  Who then is the master?  In my 
     opinion, the true master is the path to learning.

> To the extent that the DEN agrees that study under masters is necessary, 
> by what if any method does the DEN intend to serve D.'s suggested course? 

     In reading and contributing to the DEN, we both study with the masters 
     and we are the masters.  Some of us may be more learned, but that is 
     because they have been on the path longer than others.  We novices 
     tend to think of the more practiced as our masters.

> [Moderator:  It is my hope for the DEN to facilitate the coming together 
> of a collective knowledge and understanding to approach this role.]

     And I, for one, believe the DEN is doing so very well.  In the absence 
     of an alternative, the DEN is my master.

> In other words, after all of the fishing around for elevator speeches,   
> oper. defs. of D's philosophy or SPK, and discussions about the idea of   
> Deep DEN or Focused DEN, what do the owners/management of DEN intended to 
> do, if any thing, and what do they predict about the effects of any       
> action (or non-action).

> [Moderator:  The DEN consists of the 5-600 subscribers - both those that 
> contribute and those that listen in.  There is no owner/management, per  
> se.  I donate my time to moderate the DEN and Del Kimbler donates the    
> computer, software, and his time.  So *our* intent is not the issue -- at 
> issue is what is the intent of the subscribers to the DEN?

> There are efforts underway to create an introductory course and an       
> advanced course to be administered via the internet.]

     I need say no more.
     
     I remain a humble student.
     
     David T. Novick
     dtnovick@anet.rockwell.com

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

Rewards and Recognition/Crow

James Robert Crow

Fri, 15 Nov 96 09:56:54 EST

Deming gives several examples in The New Economics where he went to far.  A
simple thank you was sufficient, but he offered to tip the person helping
him and in doing so actually hurt the person's feeling and potentially
damaged the relationship.  He calls this overjustification.

This carry's over into a business situation when we tie rewards, bonsus, pay
for performance to job performance.  In making use of these external
rewards, (extrinsic motivators) we kill the intrinsic motivation within
people.  Achievement is a big motivator.  Recognition for achievement is
another.  Achievement is seeing your ideas put into action, or mastering a
difficult task.  Some recognition on the part of your peers, or the boss,
sweetens the accomplishment, but to come back and present the person with a
public award or a monitary bonus may detact from the achievement.

In Deming's two examples these people had assisted him of their own free
will.  They were not doing this in hopes of monitary gain.  Their ability to
provide him with assistance was reward in itself.  When he then offered them
money for assisting him he changed the relationship.  In effect he reduced
the relationship from one person assisting another to that of a hired hand.
Instead a relationship of equals we now have a boss subordinate
relationship.  One is now subservant to the other.

If you will tie this back to Demings discussion of systems and the
interdependance of the various components which make up the system and his
discussion of the short comings of the performance appraisal process you can
see that by eliminating the appraisal process, and pay for performance you
enable a different relationship to emerge.  When you cast management in the
role of judge, and jury you cast the workers in the role of being judged.
While you can't really eliminate this distinction, by doing away with the
performance appraisal and pay for performance you do not reinforce the
separation between the two groups.

When Deming is saying "Drive out Fear"  he recognizes that there is always a
certain level of fear of people who are in positions of power.  This fear
inhibits contributions from all people in the organization and can be a
barrier to the success of the enterprise.  By doing away with reward systems
handed out by management you remove a barrier between people and allow the
system to function more freely.  Communications is the oil of any
enterprise.  Just as materials must flow freely and smoothly through the
production process, communications must flow freely throughout the
enterprise for the system to function effectively.

There are enough barriers between people without adding to them by
artificial means. We should be looking for ways to remove barriers, not
build them.

Robert Crow,            The Crow Group
jr1crow@mindspring.com, Continual Improvement
Voice (770) 461-1177,   Optimization of the System
FAX   (770) 461-1177,   Focusing Organizational Energy
250 Thornton Drive,	Motivating Work Environments
Fayetteville, GA 30214

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

Re: Statisticians and the real world/Stauffer

Ripstaur@aol.com

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:02:20 -0500

J.D. Kromkowski writes:

>>" Finally, "real world" -- I tend cringe at this partly because I believe
 everything is part of the "real world" and partly because I have some
 affinities for Platonism, such that it may well be the "mathematicians" who
 are trully studying the "real world".<<
 

I'm not sure I understand all the implications in this thread.  I have talked
to numerous statisticians (involved in quality) who expressed the following
sentiment: "Statistics should be taught in the school of Business, not in the
school of Mathematics."  Statistical theory relies on mathematics for its
mechanical workings, but there is nothing particularly arcane about the math
involved.  The problem with relying too much on mathematical models is that
they exist on the mathematical plane.  They may have a strong correlation to
the real world, but they assume an infinite amount of noise-free data.  The
real world doesn't give us that.  If you were to argue, for instance, that
some complex technique was superior because it yields accuracy to plus or
minus .0001 vice .001 (for some simpler technique), you might be tempted to
buy that argument and use the complex procedure.  However, if you are talking
about measuring red beads (in whole units), arguments about a thousandth of a
bead vice a hundredth are a victory of complexity over common sense. 

I believe this was a major thrust of Shewhart's work. In talking about a
state of statistical control, he said, "It must, however, be kept in mind
that logically there is no *necessary* connection between such a physical
statistical state and the indefinitely expansible concept of a statistical in
terms of mathematical distribution theory. There is, of course, abundant
evidence of close similarity *if* we do not question too critically what we
mean by close.  What is still more important in our present discussion is
that if this similarity did not exist in general, and if we were forced to
choose between the formal mathematical description and the physical
description, I think we should need to look for a new mathematical
description instead of a new physical description because the latter is
apparently what we have to live with." (Statistical Method from the Viewpoint
of Quality Control, pp. 22)

Don Wheeler, talking about a feature in software that estimates a curve over
a histogram, said, "If you have that feature, do yourself a big favor and
disable it." The insight is available from the histogram, the histogram is
the picture of the real world.

He also constantly says, "The purpose of analysis is insight," and "Think
first, then think statistically."  I guess the point is, a massive background
in mathematics is neither a  prerequisite nor a guarantee of ability to think
statistically.  Enough math to enable you to understand the theory and the
will and desire to study the theory are all that's required. To dismiss
"practical statistics" as being an entity exclusively within the realm of
hacks ignores a number of highly-educated mathematicians unable to apply
theory to the real world.

Rip Stauffer
Naval Leader Training Unit
Ripstaur@aol.com 

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

Re: DEN numbers and SPC/Stauffer

Ripstaur@aol.com

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:02:06 -0500

A quick XmR chart revealed a discontinuity (surprize, surprize!) in
September.  The limits are hugely inflated by the shift, so any further
insight will probably only be gained by re-starting the chart at September
and running it out for a while, but it certainly seems that the process has
shifted. 

Rip Stauffer
Naval Leader Training Unit
Ripstaur@aol.com

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

Re: Project vs. Process Variation/Stauffer

Ripstaur@aol.com

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:02:01 -0500

I have always looked at the concept of a "project" as something of limited
duration. In other words, it has a beginning and an end.  A process is a
series of steps that result in an output, or a collection of causes which
come together to produce an effect.  You put manpower, materials etc. into
processes.  You may have to use several processes to complete a project.
Building a house would be a project. Framing carpentry and bricklaying would
be two processes involved in that project. 

I believe you could use the notion of stability and capability to good effect
in project planning, but it would mean having some knowledgeable contractors.
 If you were attempting (for instance) to build a house,  it would certainly
be useful if your subcontractors could actually predict (via control charts)
how long it took to put up a certain square footage of floor, wall, etc.
 Vendors submitting realistic bids using actual knowledge of their processes
would, I think, be preferable to vendors submitting low bids based on
"undercutting the next guy."  This type of knowledge would make a coherent
plan possible.

Rip Stauffer
Naval Leader Training Unit
Ripstaur@aol.com

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

Deming teaching tools/Ferson

Jerome Ferson

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 13:24:57 -0600 (CST)

Ladies and Gentleman of the DEN,

	I am looking for any resources, other than the trainers exchange,
that will help me bring out D. 14 points. Are there any books on "quality"
games? I would like to get the audience involved in the learning experience
and want to use a variety of tools to do so.

Thank You for your help,

Jerome Ferson

_________________________________________________________________________
| Jerome Ferson     | E-mail: ferson@postbulletin.com | PO BX 6118     |
| Distribution Mgr. | Voice: (507) 285-7745           | Rochester, MN  |
| Post-Bulletin     | Fax:   (507) 285-7666           | 55903-6118 USA |

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

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

Re: SoPK & Competition/Tribus

"Myron. Tribus" <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>

15 Nov 96 21:22:34 EST

Smith's comments on the 'wastefulness' of duplication in research is all the
more interesting since he and I are in the same general professional field,  the
improvement of energy systems.   In this field I have about 50 years of
experience which biases me,  somewhat.   Over and over I have found that the
really new and useful ideas have been rejected by those who were 'cooperating'
in research.

I had the opportunity to work with Irving Langmuir,  the famous Nobelist who,
among other things invented the tungsten filament,  put the grid in the vacuum
tube (Lee DeForest disputed who was first,  never mind),  invented the coatings
on lenses which are used to reduce reflections, invented the system of smoke
protection used in WWI to protect battleships,  improved sound locators as anti
aircraft defense devices in WWI,  invented the method of cloud modification
using dry ice,  developed 'two dimensional chemistry' and many other original
inventions.   His published papers run over eleven volumes,  many of them most
inspirational reading.

He once told me,  "The hardest thing to sell is a new, good idea.   If it is
new,  then people will have to change the way they think.   If it is good,  they
will have to adopt it.  And they don't want to."

David Kerrige introduced an important consideration when he reminded us that we
need to be free to compete.  

People who have never had to fight to get their ideas accepted will not
appreciate how important it it to have the freedom to compete.  Of course it is
better if people cooperate,  but on whose terms,  yours or mine?

Myron Tribus

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

Re: Understanding/L'Heureux

"Howard A. L'Heureux"

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:51:32 -0800

Bravo to David Kerridge for some excellent explanations.

I'd like to add something that I've learned through the years.

Understanding -- is the essence of communicating.

Many people believe that communicating is talking, or listening.  Those are
but the tools we use.  There has been much published about 'effective
listening', or 'how to speak so others will hear you.'  What has been missed
in much of this literature though, is the essence of the process itself --
understanding.

Communication doesn't happen when I talk and you listen, but when we come to a
mutual understanding.  I can speak to you in Greek, and you'll hear me; but,
we won't communicate unless you understand not just what I say, but we agree
on what I meant.  Of course, that doesn't mean you necessarily agree with what
I said, just that you understood it.

This is why Deming's teachings about Operational Definitions are key. 
Operational Definitions enhance (almost ensure) understanding.

Howard A. L'Heureux
Organizational Systems Alignment
hmlheure@ix.netcom.com
=========================================================

Re: What is SoPK?/Stauffer

Ripstaur@aol.com

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:02:55 -0500

In a recent posting:

<< >John Kaliste says:
 >
 >>        Nothing exists outside of the mind.  All of our reality occurs
 >>internally.  I believe Pyschology is root to understanding the other
 >>three, ourselves, and everything else under the sun.
 >>
 >
 >True, in the sense that the only reality we can investigate is the
 >reality that we know about. But whatever exists in my mind, a
 >plane won't fly unless it obeys the laws of physics......  >>

Just thought I'd throw this fuel into the fire:

   " The totality of the possible experiences in which any interpretation
would be verified--the completest possible empirical verification which is
conceivable--constitutes the entire meaning which that interpretation has.  A
predication of reality to what transcends experience completely and in every
sense, is not problematic; it is nonsense.
   " Perhaps another illustration may make the point more clear. Occasionally
philosophers amuse themselves by suggesting that the existences of things are
intermittent; that they go out when we cease to notice them and come into
being again at the moment of rediscovery.  The answer is not given by any
question-begging reference to the independent object or to the conservation
of matter. What we need to inquire is why this notion of permanent objects
was ever invented.  if nothing in experience would be different whether the
existence of things should be intermittent or continuous, what character of
experience is predicated by their 'permanence?'  When we have answered to
such questions, we have discovered the whole meaning of 'permanent existence'
and nothing further, unless paradox of language, remains to be discussed.
 Reflection upon experience and our attitude to what is given cannot discover
what is not implicitly already there--and there is nothing else which
philosophic reflection can hope to disclose."--C.I. Lewis, Mind and the World
Order, Dover, pp 32-33.

This is kind of a fun quote to kick around, and seems particuarly relevant to
this thread.  

Rip Stauffer
Naval Leader Training Unit
Ripstaur@aol.com

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

Re: Total Organizational Change versus Pilot Project/Stauffer

Ripstaur@aol.com

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:01:57 -0500

Scott Cadora wrote:

<< Hence my quandary:  
 Can you effectively set up a pilot project that is based upon Deming's 
 principals, when the pilot is outside of the original organization?  Is
there 
 precedent for this? >>


In the department of the Navy, we set our original implementation plan up
around the notion of pilot projects.  Many of us now feel this may have been
somewhat misguided.  The idea of piloting implementation on a small scale is
perfectly in line with the PDSA, but I think you need to be very careful as
to how you structure it.  One of the things you are trying to do is transform
an existing (and entrenched) knowledge base.  Unless I miss my guess, these
leaders you describe are fairly traditionalist folks.  If you build some
separate pilot project outside the organization, they may see it as good, but
they might say, "Well, yeah, it worked over THERE, but this is HERE, and that
won't work HERE."

One of the assumptions we made in taking this approach was that a critical
mass of top leadership would be trained and carry out the pilot project.
Unfortunately, when it came to training the critical mass, many of our top
leaders were too busy or had no felt need for the training.  Pilot projects
were picked for high visibility, easy applicability of tools, etc.,  but they
were never picked on the basis of application to the mission.  Total Quality
was therefore seen as some sort of quality of life therapy to be applied to
things other than our day-to-day, mission-oriented business. 

We have become convinced (through several years of having to re-educate and
re-train some of the same organizations over and over) that there may be a
better way: if the top leader is truly "on board," get him to work with you
in training the others.  He must constantly show that he feels this is
important, that this is the new way the company does business.  He must be
extremely supportive, get them the help they need to work through their
resistance; but he must leave no doubt that there is a new way.  Once your
top leaders have some education in the basics,  work with them to write at
least a mission statement, and some guiding principles (a quality philosophy
is helpful at this stage, also).  Then have them pick a pilot project, but
tie it to the mission of the company; use systems thinking and get them to
work on something cross-functional. Don't let them fix problems in the
parking lot or access to the dumpsters.  Let them see that this philosophy
works in their areas of responsibility. 

This, believe it or not, is the "short answer."  I could give you a lot more
details, but I'm sure the DEN will supply many things I have left out. 

Rip Stauffer
Naval Leader Training Unit
Ripstaur@aol.com 

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

Re: SoPK & Competition/Bacal

rbacal@escape.ca

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:06:17 +0000

On 14 Nov 96 at 19:20, den.list@deming.ces.clemson.e wrote:


> Among competition's failings are redundancy of resources and human efforts,
> secrecy prohibiting networking, focusing only on the profitable projects
> (not working from mankind's Pareto of concerns), the introduction of fear in
> the work place which removes joy from work, and future problems associated
> with people being labeled "loser."

In keeping with an open mind, it might be productive for us all to 
consider presenting the advantages AND disadvantages, so some 
accurate representation of the issues is in front of us for use.

> 
> How many research labs are working independently on similar projects? Each
> one hiding "confidential" information from the other. Each wasting resources
> creating the same infrastructure to house the critical elements needed to
> create a breakthrough. Think of the loss to society from this behavior:
>         Not enough (add your own critical elements here) to do the job right
>         because the budget is tight. 
>         Charity work? No time or money for that, besides, we have to stay
>         focused!
>         Oh, not to pressure you, but I heard that if you don't have a
>         breakthrough in the next three months we're all history.
>         Hey, don't put that loser in my group! I want to win...
> 

Robert Bacal, Bacal & Associates, rbacal@escape.ca
Join us at our Resource Centre at
http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359
Phone: (204) 888-9290

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

Re: Understanding/Taurman

Taurman

Fri, 15 Nov 1996 10:26:19 -0600 (CST)

Mr Castellano.

Since you are in accounting I want to share with you quotes from my favorite
accountant. They are right on top of what Deming discovered. Measurements
and actions on those measurements drive behavior. Deming discoverd that SPC
foreced managers to decide with beter judgemnt what to meaure. As it happend
these measures had positive impact on peole becasue they measure what is
important to the worker. 

The quotes from Bill Ferrara


"People will ultimately perform in accord with the way they are measured and
rewarded." "Control is preconditioning"

If rewards and measuring are not in accord with the best interest of the
corporation then people will not perform in the best interest of the company.

                                                William L. Ferrara
                                                Penn State University
                                                                1975 


Best of Luck on your journey.

Gene

Eugene Taurman
interLinx
ilx@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~ilx

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

Re: SoPK & Competition/Taurman

Taurman

Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:36:35 -0600 (CST)

Myron 

Your comments are supprted by the research of a futurist named Joel Barker.
He beleives all really new ideas must come from out side the field. People
in the field reject new and in fact can not even see the new idea becsuse it
contradicts their vision of the truth. He is probably the man that made
paradigm a common word among those of us who would change culture. Though
his speeches seemed to be mainly about new inventions than culture change or
management concepts.

Gene

Eugene Taurman
interLinx
ilx@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~ilx

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

Perfection & Nomad/Goolsby

"Jerry Goolsby"

Sat, 16 Nov 1996 11:06:42 -0500

I am not much of a Star Trek fan, but I remember one episode about a 
spacecraft named Nomad, which had been sent into space to seek out 
viruses and destroy them.  Somewhere along the way Nomad was hit 
by something and its program was altered to destroy anything it found 
that was not perfect.  Captain Kirk was able to convince Nomad that it, 
too, was not perfect and therefore must destroy itself, which it did, 
thereby saving the imperfect Enterprise and crew from destruction.

IMHO, this resembles a lot of discussion here.  Is competition good 
or bad?  If its not perfect, let's destroy it totally.  Is the Baldrige good 
or bad?  If its not perfect, let's destroy it totally.

My point about the Japanese view of competition and cooperation was 
that, at least according to Greene, the Japanese think both are 
sometimes appropriate and use each at times when it helps "them" 
(whatever or whoever that is) to win.

My point about the Baldrige architecture has been that, even though 
it is flawed and is clearly not an ideal state, sometimes it helps us move
forward and advances our cause.

The message from the Nomad episode to me was:  one should be very 
careful in setting the heighth of one's standards, unless prepared to 
 be "hoisted with one's own petard."

Simultaneously, I greatly respect those on DEN who seek to move us 
forward by taking idealistic positions.  I can't remember who (perhaps 
George Bernard Shaw) said that the future is created by unreasonable 
people, because reasonable people are always willing to accept things 
as they are.

Personally, I'm delighted the DEN addresses both realistic and 
idealistic positions; I believe we are richer for the discussion.
********************************************************

Dr. Jerry R. Goolsby
Associate Professor of Marketing
College of Business Administration
University of South Florida

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

Beginner vs. Master/Smith

david smith

Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:42:16 -0500

On the topic of a becoming a Master:

"A man ceases to be a beginner in chess and becomes a master
 when he has learned that he is going to be a beginner all his life."
 --Paraphrased from R. G. Collingwood (1889-1943),
 British philosopher. The New Leviathan, pt. 1, ch. 1, aph. 46 (1942).

David L. Smith
Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems
Division of GM
LNUSFE1.wzp8pn@gmeds.com

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

My Two Cents on Competition/Cooperation/Slater

Murray Slater

Sat, 16 Nov 1996 11:14:17 -0800

This subject, competition and fear, has been of deep interest to me for a 
long time.  I really appreciated the thought being shared about it on the 
DEN.  I try and follow the idea of KISS, but got chastised one time when 
I did express a thought on this topic.  I am trying again.

1.  At a San Diego Deming User Group meeting a few years ago, our guest 
speaker coined a phrase that I use in thinking about competition and 
cooperation: "Trust and fear are the opposite ends of a continuum."  
Similarialy, I see competition and cooperation as the opposite ends of a 
continuum and then to me, the question becomes where on this continuum do 
I want to live.  Interestingly, I found out that as a Libra one of my 
strong desires is for a balance in all things, that the scales are a 
symbol to my way of thinking.  I found this out after I had drawn a 
picture of a set of scales with cooperation on one side and competition 
on the other.  I also showed that the ultimate end in competition was war 
and I that the ultimate end in cooperation was a "smiley face" and 
finished the picture with the question I stated earlier. And I see that 
it all comes down to each individual to make this choice.

2.  I have just finished reading Lester Thurow's book "The Future of 
Capitalism."  I recommend it to all.  But throughtout the book, he refers 
to capitalism as a game.  I believe that we have brought too much of 
"game" thinking into our lives. But seeing that we have, explains to me 
why we are so intralled with winning or losing, being number one, king of 
the hill etc.  There is nothing wrong with games but I do not chose to 
liken my life to a game.  My choice again.  There is no doubt in my mind 
that professional sports for example is soley focused on winning, 
certainly not on losing and that they will do anything to win.  I 
remember sitting in Juvenile Hall one day listening to a player from the 
local football team tell these kids about how much money he was making 
and that it was alright to do anything you wanted to win the game as long 
as the referee did not catch you.  We know that this attitude has rolled 
over into the business world.

Again, where we chose to live on the continuum between cooperation and 
competition all boils down to each individual's choice.  That choice, I 
am sure, will be based on the values that we hold important to us, such 
as many on the DEN have been discussing

In light of an earlier posting that I made on dialogue and discussion, I 
should share that I am not trying to convince anyone that my ideas on 
competition and cooperation are any better that anyone elses.  I hope the 
process of dialogue will prevail so that we all can come to some 
consensus about this difficult topic.

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

Re: Statisticians and the real world/Tribus

"Myron. Tribus" <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>

16 Nov 96 14:09:12 EST

Dick Hamming,  one of the pioneers of computing, had this to say:

"The purpose of computing is insight,  not numbers"

Then he went on to say

"Alas,  the purpose of computing numbers is not yet in sight"

Myron Tribus

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

Communication & dialogue/Slate

Murray Slater

Sat, 16 Nov 1996 10:25:38 -0800

 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Re: The Weakest Link in the Chain/Constantine
John Constantine 
Sat, 16 Nov 1996 09:34:57 -0800
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
Steve Prevette in discussing the Weakest Link:

" And perhaps my compensation is in fact tied to someone (or more likely
  some part of the process) that is the weakest link."

and, 
" Which system - cooperation or competition improves the weakest link
  most effectively?"

Both points and the rest of Steve's post reminded me of a bit of ancient 
history. It seems that when a Roman legion did something that the 
commanders didn't see as "productive", they merely took every tenth man, 
had him step forward, and had him executed. This is known in modern terms 
as "downsizing". In other places it is also known as RIF'ing.

I've always pondered how one deals with the vagaries of a system, 
organizational or otherwise, and the many "what-if's" that roll out. If 
Steve's salary (or other benefit such as retirement, insurance, 401k, 
etc,) is tied to the system's weakest link (human), then we do have a 
win-lose situation at the outset. What this tends to force people to do 
is squash the problem on the backs of those below, until one reaches the 
lowest level. If the top level doesn't like what it sees, the lower level 
goes away, is "decimated", downsized or RIF'd.

Often it is a group or level that looks ripe for the chopping, such as 
secretaries for instance. This actually has occurred in many 
organizations, so I'm not just making it up. Trouble was they found out 
later on that it wasn't cost-productive for mid-level managers to be 
typing and filing their own "stuff". And they were paid too well to be 
doing that...soooooo, away go the mid-managers, cut and burn, chop and 
slash we go into the nineties. Think back in your own experiences fellow 
den members, how many such cases can you recall?

Were they small companies who didn't know what they were doing? Were they 
large companies that didn't know what they were doing? Were they industry 
giants who didn't know what they were doing?

Steve's use of the Pareto example, and Deming's reference leaves little 
to be said, except that someone in authority had to make those systems 
what they are, and everyone else must pay the price for it. That is, of 
course, except Al Dunlap and others like him. Such as him are those that 
are responsible for the shape of american corporations, paid to decimate. 
Those who are below are not required to grant him respect. Such as he are 
the weakest link in the chain are they not.

Regards, 
John Constantine
rainbird@trail.com
Rainbird Management Consulting
PO Box 23554
Santa Fe, NM 87502
http://www.trail.com/~rainbird
"Dealing in Essentials"

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Re: Deming and competition/Gradin
Larry Gradin 
Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:02:09 -0500
[Next of thread]            
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           
John Constantine wrote a long posting that dealt with ethics.  He need not apologize for the length of his valuable input.

I believe the issue is one of Integrity and Ethics.  Unfortunately our society seems to accept violation of commitments and violation of expected and stated requirements as the norm.  When a person who honors commitment is treated as a hero in the media rather than treating this as the norm and indicating those that violate commitments are acting normally we are condoning the deterioration of the Character Ethic.  

I recognize that the term Character was used in our recent US presidential campaign -- but it was used as a political mechanism, only.  If those who used it truly believed it, how can they make up and be friends with those they despised due to ethical violations and lack of "good character"? 


 We also have too many "Professionals" including Licensed or Registered Professionals who constantly violate the Code of Ethics expected of the Professional.  Likewise they act in an unprofessional manner,  A consensual definition of professionalism generally accepted (described in The New Professionals by Mary Ann Von Glinow) includes:

	[]  Expertise - normally gained from prolonged specialized training - in a body of abstract knowledge.

	[] Autonomy - a perceived right to make choices that concern both means and ends. 

	[] Commitment to the work and profession - in short, the "calling"

	[] Identification with the profession and other professionals

	[] Ethics - a felt obligation to render service without concern for self-interest and without becoming emotionally involved with clients.

	[] Collegial maintenance of standards - a perceived commitment to police the conduct of other professionals.

In work with top management and in many situations I try to see if I can get agreement with the statement in, "The Power of Ethical Management", by Kenneth Blanchard and Norman Vincent Peale that:

There Is No Right Way to Do A Wrong Thing"

In addition concepts of Integrity, Honesty, Fairness, Equitable Treatment, many of the Deming and Covey principles are discussed to ensure true Commitment really exists for quality culture change.  Without the Commitment to Integrity (=Honesty, = Quality,  = Credibility, Etc., Etc.) more harm is done by Hypocrisy than leaving  the old traditional structures alone.

Sorry, my posting is also long.  

A zealot for Integrity.  

 ***************************************************************
*  Larry Gradin, PE, QSLA, CQA   QUAL-TEK, Inc.
*  Email:  LGradin@ix.netcom.com   &  L.Gradin@ieee.org  
*  Tel: (516) 420-1060    Fax:(516) 420-4419
*  127 Cabot Street,  West Babylon, NY 11704  USA
*  WWW home page:  http://www.zdh.com/~njiw/qualtek
 *****************************************************************

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




[Next of thread]            
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           

Re: Deming and competition/Monroe
PHILHOOVER@aol.com
Sat, 16 Nov 1996 22:28:45 -0500
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
Gene Taurman writes:

"So too with Baldrige.  Whether it is right or wrong is irrelevent. Is it
directionally correct? I beleive it is."  

>From everything I have read, and from what I personally heard Dr. Deming say,
I believe that he did not think Baldrige was directionally correct.

Phil Monroe
PhilHoover@aol.com

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Re: SoPK & Competition/Stauffer
Ripstaur@aol.com
Sat, 16 Nov 1996 14:22:41 -0500
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
David Smith wrote:

<< How many research labs are working independently on similar projects? Each
 one hiding "confidential" information from the other. Each wasting resources
 creating the same infrastructure to house the critical elements needed to
 create a breakthrough. Think of the loss to society from this behavior: >>

Beautiful!

To reinforce this point, there was a recent letter to the editor in our local
newspaper, a diatribe against an article that had appeared a couple of days
before that. The original article was a story concerning pharmaceutical
houses working on medication for a type of diabetes.  Because of competition
for patents and future profits, etc., discoveries which might have made the
search for a medication successful were kept secret, and neither company was
successful. Each had the key to the other's success, and neither would
relent. 

The loss? I don't know you would measure it.  Much would be "unknown and
unknowable," but the cost of keeping up parallel efforts must have been high.
 That's just overhead. What is the loss now that neither company is able to
market the drug?
What is the loss to the company? What is the (incalculable) loss to sufferers
of diabetes?

This kind of competition, coupled with unnecessary government regulation,
will probably hand the European Community the market in Pharmaceuticals in
years to come.  They have the knowledge and the technology, and the will to
cooperate to capture the market.  When it becomes cheaper to fly to Europe to
get the medication you need, big drug houses will be left scrambling like the
auto industry in the s 70s and 80s.

To quote Dr. Deming, "Is anybody interested in PROFIT? I see very little
evidence, anybody is interested in profit." (the Deming Library, Competition,
Cooperation and the Individual)

Rip Stauffer
Naval Leader Training Unit
Ripstaur@aol.com

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




 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Re: Deming and competition/Stauffer
Ripstaur@aol.com
Sat, 16 Nov 1996 14:22:34 -0500
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
In a recent posting, Wright wrote:

<< Is the point of  buisness to provide a product or service to a consumer or
is it provide growth in capital to those invested? If it is the first then
cooperation is all that is needed. If it is the second, then competition is
required. What provides the push to grow if not competition? >>

The point of business is and always has been to provide a product or service
to a consumer, from the moment the first haunch of mammoth was traded for a
nice stone axe. Business has been around for a while. The stock market is a
somewhat more recent invention.  If you believe your stockholders are your
most important customer, you will never achieve quality. Worse, you will
eventually be put out of business by someone who works to provide quality for
the customer.

Yes, it is a good thing to provide your stockholders with a nice dividend.
 That will be easy to do if you provide a high-quality product at a price the
consumer will pay. Failing that, your company will remain competitive only as
long as there is no competition.  As Tom Peters said, in describing the
dominance of the American Management System in the years following WWII, "We
were 27-0, but it was all by default."

This is the point of The New Economics.  This is, I believe, a central tenet
of the Deming Philosophy.  Knowing what the stockholders want is easy.  If
you want to provide it in this day and age, you'd better start figuring out
what the customers want.

Rip Stauffer
Naval Leader Training Unit
Ripstaur@aol.com  

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





[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

RE: Shewhart and The Bell Labs/McKinley
Jim McKinley 
Sat, 16 Nov 1996 20:45:34 -0600
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]            
[First by author]            
>Did we ever find anything on this (below message from Gogue)?   I am >very
interested in some biographical information on Shewhart or historical
>information on the Bell Labs.   Can anyone give me some sources?    Thanks
>to all, Bill Towns
>
>Here is a call to the deans and professors who teach the Deming ideas in 
>their universities. Studies about *What Shewhart had made within Bell Labs 
>for 20 years* would be very helpful. It certainly would be a good subject 
>for a doctoral thesis.
>
>Originally sent by:
>Jean-Marie Gogue

Some information on the history of Bell Labs and a brief biographical
overview of Dr. Shewart (there are links to other biographies of associates
that assisted Dr. Shewart at this site) can be found at the following www
addresses:

http://www.bell-labs.com/
http://www.lucent.com/Family/Docs/shewhart.html

Jim McKinley   Excellence in Leadership   leaders@gulftel.com
721 N. McKenzie St.  Suite 2  Foley, Al.  36535-3542 (Gump Country)

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






 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]            
[First by author]            

Re: Joel Barker & EFG/Tribus
"Myron. Tribus" <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>
17 Nov 96 12:02:50 EST
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             
Yes,  I know Joel quite well and have been much influenced by his work.

His latest attempt,  the EFG curriculum is worthy of note.

Myron

[Moderator's Note: Joel's name and the impact of his thinking and videos has
come up several times on the DEN; however, the EFG Curriculum Consortium has
not.  The EFG curriculum is a Joel and Barbara Barnes process based on a 
new approach to curriculum based on Environment, Futures, and Global.  
A couple of years ago, Joel and Barbara came to Chattanooga (TN) and began
working with the public schools here on the EFG curriculum.  Those interested
might want to look at:  http://efgcc.cps.k12.tn.us           Jim Clauson]

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




 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             

Re: Deming and competition/Tribus
"Myron. Tribus" <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>
17 Nov 96 12:02:54 EST
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             
Gradin's recent posting on integrity and character is right on target.

I am always interested in how attitudes and platitudes get turned into action.
I was pleased to learn about the existence of the Josephson Institute of Ethics
which has a very active program "Character Counts".  Write to:

Joseph & Edna Jospehson Institute of Ethics
4640 Admirlaty Way, Suite 1001
Marian del Rey,  CA a90292
Phone: 310 306 868  FAX 310 827 1864

I am impressed with their program and support it.

Myron Tribus

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             

Re: Deming and competition/Tribus
"Myron. Tribus" <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>
17 Nov 96 12:02:58 EST
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             
Monroe wrote:

>From everything I have read, and from what I personally heard Dr. Deming say,
>I believe that he did not think Baldrige was directionally correct.

Many people have heard Dr. Deming.  I wonder what he (and others) would say to
the latest revision in the Baldrige criteria.  I received my copy a short time
ago and see that they are on a path of continuous improvement....

Myron Tribus

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             

Obligations of supervisors/Tribus
"Myron. Tribus" <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>
17 Nov 96 11:02:33 EST
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             
Deming's 14 points ("obligations of management") have been augmented by David K.
Lindo in an article published in Quality Digest for June 1996 (pg 40).  He calls
it the 10 Commitments of Quality Supervision".  These are:

1.  I keep my word
2.  I give credit where it is due.
3.  I ask for input before I make a decision
4.  I am easy to approach and willing to help.
5.  I embrace risk
6.  I am impartial
7.  I keep my patience
8.  I act ethically
9.  I support my employees
10. I am consistent

The fact that the author thought it necessary to publish such a list put me in
mind of an exercise I gave to students from industry in a course taught about 12
years ago.   Their assignment was to spend a full day with a foreman,  writing
down hour by hour how he spent his day.   Then they were to write an essay
comparing what they found with the diary of a Japanese foreman,  also recorded
hour by hour.  

Front line supervision determines whether quality is or is not job one.

Myron Tribus

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



[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             

directionality of the Baldrige/Goolaby
"Jerry Goolsby" 
Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:18:08 -0500
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            
I was just curious if anyone knows why Dr. Deming would have thought 
that the directionality of the Baldrige scores would not have been 
consistent with his teachings.

To get high scores, a company must:

1.  have interfunctional, systematically aligned and fully deployed 
processes and systems.

2.  have processes benchmarked against world class standards, many of 
whom are Deming-influenced organizations.

3.  be managed by facts.

4.  demonstrate improvement sequences, through PDSA-type cycles.

5.  have leadership that "walk the talk" of quality, even proving to 
site examiners through appointment calenders that sizeable 
percentages of time are spent in promoting quality inside and outside 
the organization.

6.  have systematic approaches to relationships with suppliers, which 
to get really high scores virtually necessitates single source 
relationships.

7.  align all human resource processes to the achievement of goals 
and the increase of quality.

8.  have important processes documented, requiring the use of quality 
tools.

9.  use customer expectations and satisfaction measures to drive the 
aim of the organization and guage results.

10.  show social responsibility in its relationship with the 
community and the use of quality principles in improving those 
relationships.

I'll grant anyone that the Baldrige architecture does not describe 
Dr. Deming's ideal state, but companies that move from being 
knuckle-dragging Neandrathals to a high scoring Baldrige company are 
moving in the right direction.

If not, somebody explain to me why, please.

I was in Delaware this past week for the Delaware Quality Awards.  
I just can't imagine somebody telling the employees of these 
companies that all their efforts were a waste of time and that what 
they really need to do is to forget everything they have done, go back 
to where they started and go in a completely different direction that Dr. 
Deming would have approved.  I just don't see it.

BTW, I don't believe that this is an irrelevent, esoteric discussion. I 
want to have my students to work for organizations that practice Dr. 
Deming's philosophy.  But, to move companies forward, we have to use 
things like the Baldrige, flawed as it may be,  just to get companies 
where they can see what we are talking about.  
********************************************************

Dr. Jerry R. Goolsby
Associate Professor of Marketing
College of Business Administration
University of South Florida

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



[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            

Competition/McKinley
Jim McKinley 
Sun, 17 Nov 1996 19:54:38 -0600
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
The discussion on competition/cooperation is very interesting. Variety of
perspective and belief on the topic has provided a lot on energy in this
discussion thread. In reading the posts I keep wondering what the definition
of competition might be for the different authors.

A starting point for discussion of definition (?):

Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition

competition n. 1. the act of competing; rivalry  2. a contest, or match  3.
official participation in organized sport  4. opposition, or effective
opposition, in a contest or match  5. rivalry in business, as for customers
or markets  6. the person or persons against whom one competes 7. Ecol. the
struggle among individual organisms for food, water, space ect. when the
available supply is limited
SYN - competition denotes striving for the same object, position, prize,
ect., usually in accordance with fixed rules;
rivalry implies keen competition between opponents more or less evenly
matched, and , unqualified, it often suggests unfriendliness or even=
 hostility

Webster=92s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, Deluxe Second Edition

competition n. [L. competitio, an agreement, rivalry]  1. the act of seeking
or endeavoring to gain that for which another is also striving; rivalry;
strife for superiority=85=85. (the remaining list of meanings follow closely=
 the
ones above)
SYN - emulation, rivalry, contention


competitor n. 1. one who endeavors to obtain what another seeks; one who
claims what another claims; a rival; one who competes

competitress, competitrix n. 1. a woman competitor (didn=92t want to leave
anyone out of the discussion)=20


----
Jim McKinley   Excellence in Leadership   leaders@gulftel.com
721 N. McKenzie St.  Suite 2  Foley, Al.  36535-3542 (Gump Country)

"Without theory, experience has no meaning. Without theory, one has no
questions to ask. Hence without theory there is no learning."=20

W. Edwards Deming

"Tell me and I'll forget."                            =20
"Teach me and I'll remember."                         =20
"Involve me and I'll learn."        =20

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






[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Re: DEN numbers and SPC/Bov
Jack 
Sun, 17 Nov 96 17:15:00 EST
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]            
[First by author]            
Rip Stauffer wrote: A quick XmR chart revealed a discontinuity (surprize, 
surprize! in September.  The limits are hugely inflated by the shift, so any 
further insight will probably only be gained by re-starting the chart at 
September and running it out for a while, but it certainly seems that the 
process has shifted. 
>
>===========================================================================
>
Jack Bov replied:

I found the same analysis as Rip Stauffer. What went on before? I noticed in 
July and August a number of people wondering why there were so few messages on 
the Den list. This reference to messages is only one data point however. Are 
there any others that people have noted.

Jack Bov

"One World"

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



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]            
[First by author]            

Re: The Weakest Link in the Chain/Budd
EBUDD@aol.com
Sun, 17 Nov 1996 20:48:44 -0500
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
In a message dated 96-11-16 01:58:15 EST, Steven_S_Prevette@RL.gov writes:

<<  And perhaps my compensation is in fact tied to someone (or more likely 
<<  some part of the process) that is the weakest link....Which system -
<<  cooperation or competition improves the weakest link
<<  most effectively?  I would believe cooperation - I help my fellow
<<  employees with their weaknesses >>

A challenge that we face in understanding a system is our preference for
seeing the people/parts/components and not the interactions as critical. Even
in this discussion of "weakest link" the focus is on improving someone. By
altering our interactions and not the people, we can improve the system. The
following is an example that I have used occasionally to illustrate this
concept.

The Naysaying Team Member
Your situation
You are an improvement team leader.
You and your team work for a large defense contractor. The improvement team
was formed to reduce the cycle time of the Dock-to-Stock process. The
Dock-to-Stock process begins with the receipt of incoming material at the
receiving dock and ends with the material being made available for the
production line. Some of the steps in the process include:
Verify order
Unload crates, etc.
Inspect for quality
Log material into inventory system
Place material in warehouse
Transport material
Your improvement team consists of people from several areas: dock workers, a
store keeper, transport personnel and quality inspectors. The Dock-to-Stock
process cycle time is averaging about three working days (however some items
are in the process for as long as thirty days). Your cross-functional team
seems to be the right approach. They are excited about the project. The
company environment is supportive of a high-commitment, high involvement
approach to process improvement. Working together they should be able to
eliminate duplicate and non-value-added steps.
One team member (we’ll call him Naysayer) does not get along with the rest of
the team. Naysayer is a devil’s advocate, always finding problems with the
recommendations and approaches suggested by the rest of the team. Naysayer
feels that, in working with dock workers, he is working with people beneath
his station [they sweat when they work]. Your team dislikes him. His attitude
is poor and he refuses to  share information. The team thinks he is
uncooperative. They want to get rid of him.
You know that the store keeping function is an important part of the
Dock-to-Stock process. What do you do?
A leader and the system
A system must be managed. Even a system as small as an improvement team needs
to be managed. Most leaders believe, however, that their job is to manage the
components of the system or, in this case, to work on “fixing” or doing
something about Naysayer.
By focusing on “fixing” the components of the system, attention is drawn away
from the area of the system that is the chief responsibility of a
leader—managing the interactions within the system. 
As “Dr. Russell Ackoff explains, you don’t get a car that works by assembling
the best components from different cars—say, a Rolls-Royce engine, a
transmission from another car, an alternator from yet another. It doesn't
work. Furthermore, it’s the working together that’s the main contribution of
systemic thinking, as opposed to working in parts separately.” Dr. Ackoff
goes on to say, “the basic managerial idea introduced by systems thinking is
that to manage a system effectively, you must focus on the interaction of the
parts rather than their behavior taken separately.”*

*from, A Theory of a System for Educators and Managers, Volume XXI, The
Deming Library, Films Incorporated.

What really happened
The situation described above is real. The team leader of the actual
improvement team did something quite simple, yet the principle applied is
profound. He understood that his role was to improve how the team functioned
as a system.
He went to the team and said to them, “let’s see what we can learn from this
guy.” With that challenge he altered the relationships and interactions the
team had from then on with Naysayer. Naysayer was still a pain, but over the
next six months they did learn from him. Most of the issues he raised were
legitimate. Rather than ignore his input or go without it, they incorporated
his ideas into their process improvements.
The average Dock-to-Stock process cycle time of three days (with some 30-day
long cycles) was reduced to three hours (with some two-day cycles).

************************************************************
Eric Budd	
EDS Quality Consulting and Resource Center	
(810) 696-7814
ebudd@aol.com
************************************************************





 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Re: Obligations of supervisors/Crow
James Robert Crow 
Mon, 18 Nov 1996 08:27:10 -0500 (EST)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             
While there is no doubt that the front line supervisor is a key element to
the success of any process, quality is made in the board room.  The front
line supervisor is caught up in the system, and is in many cases a victim of
the system. Having said this, the front line supervisor is a key element in
the implementation of any change process.  Many have failed because the
front line supervisor was not made a part of the process.

>Front line supervision determines whether quality is or is not job one.
>
>Myron Tribus
>
Robert Crow,            The Crow Group
jr1crow@mindspring.com, Continual Improvement
Voice (770) 461-1177,   Optimization of the System
FAX   (770) 461-1177,   Focusing Organizational Energy
250 Thornton Drive,	Motivating Work Environments
Fayetteville, GA 30214

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



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             

Re: Understanding/Crow
James Robert Crow 
Mon, 18 Nov 1996 07:51:04 -0500 (EST)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             
I appreciate your comments regarding communications and the importance of
communications.  I have taught a course on effective listening.  We always
begin by defining communications and its purpose.  The purpose or aim of
communications is to Achieve understanding.
>
>Understanding -- is the essence of communicating.
>
>Many people believe that communicating is talking, or listening.  Those
<>
>This is why Deming's teachings about Operational Definitions are key.
>Operational Definitions enhance (almost ensure) understanding.
>
>Howard A. L'Heureux

Robert Crow,            The Crow Group
jr1crow@mindspring.com, Continual Improvement
Voice (770) 461-1177,   Optimization of the System
FAX   (770) 461-1177,   Focusing Organizational Energy
250 Thornton Drive,	Motivating Work Environments
Fayetteville, GA 30214

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



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             

DEN Numbers and Critical Mass/Prevette
Steven_S_Prevette@RL.gov
Mon, 18 Nov 1996 12:54:15 -0800
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
     I believe that the DEN has reached critical mass, and is a 
     self-sustaining (if not super-critical) chain reaction.  This explains 
     the current increase in postings.
     
     OK, my nuclear reactor background is showing, but let's think of DEN 
     as a reactor.  One neutron (message) comes in, strikes a nucleus (the 
     message is posted to the group), and nothing may happen (the neutron 
     is absorbed with no effect), or the nucleus may fission, and release 
     multiple neutrons (further messages).  Currently, a DEN message causes 
     more than one "daughter" message, each of which can cause further 
     generations.
     
     An interesting project would be to track through all the DEN messages 
     and determine which messages begat other messages.  I know I have 
     responded to other messages (including this one) with daughter 
     messages, but I don't think I have submitted any "first generation" 
     messages.  
     
     There may not be a clean single trunk to these family trees either.  
     Some branches may intertwine.  This almost becomes like cognitive 
     thinking - one thought causes further connections to occur.  By the 
     time you get five generations down, it can be hard to believe the 
     fifth generation was actually connected to the first!
     
     So, if we are a super-critical reactor, I might predict ongoing 
     exponential growth in the number of DEN messages.  This actually 
     raises questions like - what is the average length of a generation, 
     what is the average number of daughter messages spawned from an 
     originating message, how many messages are actually first-generation 
     (original thinking) vs. daughters, and what topics seem to generate 
     the most daughters per generation?
     
     This was a fun message to write.  Hope it spawns some daughter 
     messages.
     
     - Steve Prevette
       steven_s_prevette@rl.gov

[Moderator's note:  Those familiar with the Learning Organization list have
seen their examples of dynamic thread management. This feature links and
tracks all messages in a manner that addresses Steve's questions.  In Del's
"spare time" - he is reviewing how we might be able to do this on the DEN.]

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




 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

RE: Shewhart and Bell Labs/Joiner
"Joiner, Scott" 
Mon, 18 Nov 96 11:33:19 EST
[Next of thread]            
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           
In regarding this inquiry my first thought was that information may be 
available through Dr. Joseph Juran.  From my understanding Deming and Juran 
both had professional relationships with Dr. Shewhart and The Bell Labs in 
the 1920's and 1930's.  Since Dr. Juran is available for comment he might be 
willing to answer this question of historical significance.

Scott Joiner, Administrator,
Organizational Improvement
City of Tallahassee, FL
joiners@dt.ci.tlh.fl.us
 ----------

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



[Next of thread]            
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           

Re: directionality of the Baldrige/Goodwin
ICMAfrica@maf.org
Tue, 19 Nov 96 04:55:23 UTC
[Next of thread]            
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]           
     Jerry, 
     Thanks for the comment. I too believe the discussion is important.  
     
     Two cents from Africa.  I've just finished Deming's Profound Changes: 
     When Will the Sleeping Giant Awaken? by Kenneth Delavigne and Daniel 
     Robertson (PTR Prentice Hall, 1994).  They raise the issue of the 
     Baldridge Awards.  Their conclusion is Deming would not have approved 
     as 1) they promote competition for the limited, coveted award - not 
     cooperation; 2) not actual implementation of change is required to 
     win.  Here are few quotations I gleaned which might help with their 
     perspective.
     
     "Baldrige competitors may actually make some improvements, but the 
     rules of the game make few of the necessary distinctions between 
     symbols and reality" (Delavingne, Robertson, 1994, p. 68).  
     
     "The Baldrige competition is another example of extension 
     transference: in the minds and actions of management the competition 
     itself frequently has taken the place of the improvement process which 
     ought to have been put into effect in order for an organization to 
     qualify for a prize" (Delavingne, Robertson, 1994, p. 69). 
     
     "as noisome as is the theater of Baldrige competition, the award's 
     chief flaw lies in the Tayloristic presuppositions underlying the 
     examination criteria applied to the contestants. Even organizations 
     that choose not to compete for the award are beginning to use its 
     criteria for internal assessment, thus spreading Taylorism under the 
     semblance of being near the leading edge of quality improvement'' 
     (Delavingne, Robertson, 1994, p. 81). 
     
     My conclusion it that flawed as the award may be, it is a tool to move 
     a company in the right direction and can lead to systemic change, not 
     just rhetoric about our level of quality.  This issue, it seems to me, 
     lies in our use of the tool; toward what end are we going through the 
     assessment process?  Comments?
     
     Myron Goodwin
     ICMAfrica@daniel.maf.org
     
    ======================================================================
 




[Next of thread]            
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]             
[First by author]           

Definitions/Kerridge
David Kerridge 
Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:25:50 +0000
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
Myron Goodwin remarks on creeping Taylorism in respect of quality
awards. I have noticed another example in relation to definitions.

How we should define, and what we should define, depends on the
immediate purpose. There is often virtue in leaving things undefined
or ill-defined. I know that this is an unfamiliar idea: our Taylorist
education system makes us think in absolute terms.

We are used to the fact that a legal definition may be quite different
from a "commonsense" definition. For example, I believe that in European
Community law, a snail is defined to be a fish. It (probably) makes
sense in the context in which it is defined, but it would be no use
to a biologist.

A definition is not an expression of absolute truth, but of a *practical*
way to achieve sufficient agreement for a particular purpose.

So for different purposes we have:

Operational definitions, to achieve agreement for the purposes of
measurement. These define action precisely.

Theoretical definitions, for the purpose of logical or mathematical
analysis. These define axioms precisely.

Conceptual definitions, to achieve common understanding. These
are often best expressed in terms of loose analogies with what we
understand already.

There are plenty of others, of course, but these are the ones we
need in practice.

In The New Economics you will notice Dr Deming moving effortlessly
between these types of definition. But we may easily get stuck in
one rut. We may be surprised to see, on page 50, the comment

"The components (of the system) need not all be clearly defined and
documented: people  may merely do what needs to be done."

(Definitely failing ISO9000, and Baldrige too, for all I know).

The difficulty with exact definition is that it reduces the scope
for individual judgement. That may be necessary: we do not want
everyone who collects figures for analysis to measure in a different
way.

But if everyone understands the aim, and wants to do a good job, it
is desirable to allow freedom to adapt or innovate. In the same way,
when we discuss a concept, well-judged breadth of meaning is desirable,
if we understand the purpose.

Our purpose in these discussions should be to help each other deepen
our understanding, and this means developing judgement. If we reduce
the possibility of misunderstanding too much, we also reduce the area
in which we learn to apply judgement. This is the great dilemma of
education. The hack does the thinking for his students: the educator
supports them while they develop the ability to judge for themselves.

David Kerridge

Assistant Director of Research, British Deming Association

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




 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Re: Directionality of the Baldrige/Taurman
Taurman 
Tue, 19 Nov 1996 09:07:08 -0600 (CST)
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            


>     Myron Goodwin wrote and asked for comments

'Their conclusion is Deming would not have approved as 1) they promote
competition for the limited, coveted award - not cooperation; 2) not actual
implementation of change is required to win.'


The Baldrige Awards also promote cooperation. The winners are required to
share their experience with others. That is one reason it s so easy to find
out what the winners have been doing and how thye changed.

Gene

>
Eugene Taurman
interLinx
ilx@execpc.com
http://www.execpc.com/~ilx

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



[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            

Re: Shewhart and Bell Labs/Stankard
MartinS999@aol.com
Tue, 19 Nov 1996 11:14:29 -0500
 [Topic List]                          
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
Deming list members following this thread may be interested to know of a
series of 14 video tapes prepared by AT&T.   Entitled, A History of Quality
Control and Assurance at AT&T: 1920-1970, I think they will do much to answer
historical questions.   The tape of Deming is one of the longest and contains
Deming's version of the story of how Deming came to know Shewhart and
understand his thinking.

The tapes are direct personal interviews of most of the participants in the
development of Quality theory and practice at Bell Labs and Hawthorne who
were still alive in 1988 and 1989.  They consist of:
Vol I Paul Olmstead 
Vol II Joeseph Juran 
Vol III W. Edwards Deming 
Vol IV Mary Torrey
Vol V C. Eugene Fisher
Vol VI Bonnie Small
Vol VII Ralph Wareham
Vol VIII Robert Saunders
Vol IX  C. Eugene Fisher and Ralph Wareham
Vol X  John Tukey
Vol XI Homer Sarasohn
Vol XII C. J. Keyser
Vol XIII R. Brandford Murphy
Vol XIV Arnold O. Beckman (who went on to found Beckman Instruments) 

The tapes bear the select code 500-721 and are priced at $600.  They come
with a small booklet which may be ordered alone for $1.85.  The booklet
itself has a thorough index so that a scholar interested in any indexed
subject can go right to the tape concerned.  The telephone number for
ordering given on the booklet is 1-800-432-6600 (This info is all I have, but
is almost 5 years old, so may have changed as a result of the AT&T/Lucent
breakup.)

I have no financial or business interest in promoting these tapes.  I
recommend them because I feel that they provide the most direct and
authoritative source now available relevant to this thread.

I hope this helps.

Martin Stankard

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



 [Topic List]                          
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

First Line supervisor/bonuses/and tips/Wright
"david g. wright" 
Tue, 19 Nov 1996 12:43:55 -0500
[Next of thread]            
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           
Robert Crow writes:"While there is no doubt that the front line supervisor is a key 
element to the success of any process, quality is made in the board room.  The front 
line supervisor is caught up in the system, and is in many cases a victim of the system. 
Having said this, the front line supervisor is a key element in the implementation of 
any change process.  Many have failed because the front line supervisor was not made a 
part of the process."

Imagaine the frustration of a first line in an organization undergoing extreme 
change(deregulation of the utility industry), tied to a tradtional Union contract, using 
an annual performance review system that requires a forced ranking of personel, and told 
that the anwser to the question "how do I do my work with less people?" is "work 
smarter."

Mr Crow is right, quality is made in the board room. First line (no matter how steeped 
in knoweldge) can not implement without the leader leading. He can be a role model for 
those around him and try to impact the job performance of his area/crew, but is easly 
crushed by the juggernaut of corperate "policy."


In a earlier posting it was said; "Some recognition on the part of your peers, or the 
boss, sweetens the accomplishment, but to come back and present the person with a public 
 award or a monitary bouns may detact from the achievement."

I agree that recognition is nice and desired; but I'm sorry, when you are paying a 
morgage every month and putting one kid through college and the other through female 
teenagehood, give me the monitary bonus everytime.

Also I would like to address tips as "overjustification." I know a waitress who recieves 
a small set compensation. She counts on tips for a substantial portion of her income. 
She gives me great service and goes the extra mile to ensure a total eating expirence. I 
in return show my aprecation for this quality service by leaving a nice tip. She is not 
offended nor does she feel subservant. I know a second waitress who could care less 
whether my food arrives at my table in any reasonable time. My expresstion of 
apprecation to her is somewhat different. Overtime she will "learn" or move on to more 
suitable work. Is this life exercise in line with Dr.Deming's teachings? Really, I'm not 
trying to be facetious, what would Dr. Deming say about this situation?

Thanks for your patience
Dave Wright
dgwright@papl.com

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




[Next of thread]            
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           

Re: directionality of the Baldrige/Constantine
John Constantine 
Tue, 19 Nov 1996 10:41:55 -0800
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            
Myron Goodwin, after quoting from Deming, regards the direction of the 
Baldwin as positive:

" My conclusion it that flawed as the award may be, it is a tool to move
a company in the right direction and can lead to systemic change, not
just rhetoric about our level of quality."

After many threads on the value of such awards, we have had many 
discussion of tools. Tools are a reasonable concept to many people. They 
are used because they are meant to fit, they are designed to work at the 
task for which they are used, and they feed a sense of completeness in 
answering the tough part of this whole question.

A tool is used to change tires. There are better tools or worse tools. 
The use of the tire changing tool is not very complicated, it has become 
automated for the most part, and there are a lot of tires. 

What makes this a useful analogy? The tool was made by somebody, 
hopefully using proper material. It has a form, a design, which must fit 
to work. You can try to change a tire with a small spoon and, depending 
upon the size of the tire, you might actually accomplish the task. But 
having done so what have you accomplished? You may have changed the tire 
after one or more hours of struggle on a bicycle tire, countless hours on 
a motorcycle tire, and having given up on a truck tire with split rims. 
Such is the application of tools to the task.

A tool has utility. Does the Baldridge have such utility? Do others see 
it as a tool? Do others use it as a tool? Is it a "large spoon", a "small 
spoon", not a spoon at all? What is it if it is a tool?

Tools work with instructions. Those who use tools read the instructions 
first, hopefully. Someone wrote the instructions which limit the use of 
the tool, and perhaps its applications. Screwdrivers don't do well as 
post-hole diggers, post-hole diggers don't do well as sewing needles. 
What makes the Baldridge a tool, a useful tool, a tool for the task, and 
a tool which has instructions which allow for unlimited utility, not 
restricted by the warning labels?

""The components (of the system) need not all be clearly defined and
documented: people may merely do what needs to be done.""   Deming

The search for signs of life in an organization are not tool or machine 
based. Tools don't make the decisions in an organization, although it 
might seem so. Tools don't respond to crises, although such might be 
prevalent in organizations which must have crises to be alive. (You may 
know some yourself.)

Moving forward depends upon where you happen to be standing in relation 
to a fixed point. Quality improvement is very much akin to standing on a 
diameter line and stepping forward. You can always step back, but the 
line is your reference point. If all the corporations trying to make an 
effort to improve their condition are lined up along that diameter line, 
each may assume progress as long as they move somewhere away from that 
line forward, not restricted to this particular angle or that one.

What does this have to do with the Baldridge? Each organization is a 
human potential, expressed in a mechanistic manner, totally repugnant to 
the human element. What is alive and dynamic and human at the same time 
is that the vision which those such as Deming express is not limited to 
one way only. Not the use of one tool only, not the use of ANY tools at 
all. It is more of a leap of faith, and once across life is never the 
same again. Does your organization require a Baldridge award in order to 
know itself to have made that leap?

Does getting away from mechanistic approaches to organizations make 
sense? Is it what comes from greater understanding? Greater reflection 
on the purposes of humans within the organizations? Getting outside the 
box, not moving into someone else's. One of many dilemmas is that of 
wanting to be more educated, and not being asked to use that education. 
Another is in being told WHAT to do, and HOW to do, what you KNOW to do.

Do we need to pay to feel good? Our society would have us believe so. 
Aside from the point of diminishing returns, it breeds its own addictive 
behavior. Perhaps soon enough there won't be a mention of the underlying 
principles, only the winners of the prize. 

I know it is a familiar phrase, but I for one think it heads of in a 
direction which is limiting, not expanding the potential. To strive is 
one thing, to become an addict is another. Learn the rule, play the game, 
enjoy the playing, don't worry about the qualifications of the guy 
running the scoreboard; matter of fact, you have a lot more fun in the 
playing of the game if you never kept score at all. Radical?

-- 

Regards, 
John Constantine
rainbird@trail.com
Rainbird Management Consulting
PO Box 23554
Santa Fe, NM 87502
http://www.trail.com/~rainbird
"Dealing in Essentials"

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            

Re: directionality of the Baldrige/Tribus
"Myron. Tribus" <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>
19 Nov 96 23:27:37 EST
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             
Goodwin's post quoting Delavigne and Robertson's book brings out a point which
seems worthy of comment.  I like the book but I do believe we need to read it
critically.  

>     2) not actual implementation of change is required to 
>     win.  
This statement is not true.  Winners have to show how they changed themselves.
They do just that in thier presentations.

>     "Baldrige competitors may actually make some improvements, but the 
>     rules of the game make few of the necessary distinctions between 
>     symbols and reality" (Delavingne, Robertson, 1994, p. 68). 

I do not know what to do with conclusions drawn from an analysis of what some
competitors MAY do.  Do we have any data on what they do?  Not anecdotal data,
for I'm sure there are horror stories out there.   But are they typical?  
     
>     "The Baldrige competition is another example of extension 
>     transference: in the minds and actions of management the competition 
>     itself frequently has taken the place of the improvement process which 
>     ought to have been put into effect in order for an organization to 
>     qualify for a prize" (Delavingne, Robertson, 1994, p. 69). 
 
It might be true that in SOME minds of management the competition itself has
FREQUENTLY (how frequently?) tkane the place of the improvment process...
I am reminded of what the CEO's of several Japanese companies told me about the
effect of the Deming Prize on their companies.  They said it had provided a
unifying theme for the entire company.  The competition to win had, in their
view,  brought a coherence of effort they could not otherwise have aroused.
Deming was proud of the existence of that award.  
     
>     "as noisome as is the theater of Baldrige competition, 

One man's celebration is another man's noisome theater....  You should see the
celebration surrounding the winning of the Deming Prize in Japan.

>     the award's 
>     chief flaw lies in the Tayloristic presuppositions underlying the 
>     examination criteria applied to the contestants. 
Does anyone know what are these Tayloristic presuppositions?  

>     Even organizations 
>     that choose not to compete for the award are beginning to use its 
>     criteria for internal assessment, thus spreading Taylorism under the 
>     semblance of being near the leading edge of quality improvement'' 
>     (Delavingne, Robertson, 1994, p. 81). 

Who has the data for this assertion?
     
I still like their book.   But I suggest that we read it critically.

Myron Tribus

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]             

Re: Perfection/Kerridge
David Kerridge 
Wed, 20 Nov 1996 11:30:28 +0000
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
Jerry Goolsby raises some interesting points about perfectionism.

To take the heat out of the argument, let us start at a point where
we all agree. It is desirable to "Cease dependence on mass inspection".
To do that, we must make mass inspection unnecessary, by improving
the system by several orders of magnitude. In fact, on the last day
of the Deming 4-day seminar, (and in Out of the Crisis), there is a
great deal of advice on how to inspect when you must.

Similarly, if others will agree to cooperate with you to optimise the
*complete* system, of suppliers, producers and customers, then work
with them in cooperation. If they won't cooperate with you, you must
compete. And if they want you to help them exploit customers or
suppliers, don't have anything to do with them: compete. But don't
compete in a way that sets out deliberately to drive them out of
business. For one thing, you don't need to. They are doing that
for themselves.

The Deming Philosophy starts with the aim of long-term optimisation
of the whole system. The methods arises out of this.

This aim sounds like idealism, but it is based on realism: no system
can be sustainable in the long term unless everybody wins. The losers
will either go out of business, destroying the system, or they will
find a way to change the system.

Dr Deming asked"Who would want to do business with a loser?"
Answer: someone who thinks short term.

I remember Dr Deming saying that if you think in the sufficiently long
term, conflicts disappear. I asked him about this, because it seems a
sweeping statement, and he said that he could not prove it, but it was
something he believed.

In other words, it is a theory, to be tested and improved like any
other. We are perhaps so unused to long-term thinking that it *sounds*
like idealism.

The problem with getting improvements by methods that only work
because the world is imperfect is that they conceal the real problems.
For example, in the UK, we now have league tables, ranking the perform-
ance for schools, and in some subjects, measured standards have risen
 - perhaps real standards as well. The problem is that, even if the
rise is real, such methods create problems as well as producing
improvement.

There is an old saying "The good is the enemy of the best". Things
were bad: but when we come to make further improvements, we will have
greater barriers than we had before. This is short-term thinking
again. Nothing has been done about the real underlying problems.
Is that not a familiar story?



David Kerridge

British Deming Association Scotland

dfk@rsc.co.uk

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





 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Baldrige and Deming, Deming Library/McKinley
Jim McKinley 
Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:25:21 -0600
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            
Following are descriptions of the content of Vol. 22 and Vol. 23 from the
Deming Library. A review of these volumes might be of interest to those who
have been following the discussion thread on this topic.

----
Vol. 22: Understanding the Baldrige Award


      This video considers the differences between the new philosophy of
management and the seven criteria of quality management that the Malcolm
Baldrige National Quality Award uses to judge organizational performance. It
reviews the Baldrige Award's political history, discusses the essential
elements of a quality program, and summarizes Dr. Deming's system of
Profound Knowledge and the reasons he disapproved of the Award. Dr. Deming
and Dr. Curt Reimann, Associate Director for Quality of the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, discuss the influence and effect of
the Award. 30 min. 

      Vol. 23: Putting Deming and the Baldrige Award Together


With contributions from Dr. Curt Reimann, Cadillac general manager John
Grettenberger, and several Deming students, this video shows the many
correspondences between Dr. Deming's 14 Points and the seven criteria of the
Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Charts graphically display the
relationships. Deming questions the extent to which qualities like
leadership, education and training, and the degree of customer focus and
satisfaction can be measured or evaluated. 32 min. 

----
Complete information on the Deming Library can be found at the following www
address:

http://www.cc-m.com/
----
Jim McKinley   Excellence in Leadership   leaders@gulftel.com
721 N. McKenzie St.  Suite 2  Foley, Al.  36535-3542 (Gump Country)

"Without theory, experience has no meaning. Without theory, one has no
questions to ask. Hence without theory there is no learning." 

W. Edwards Deming

"Tell me and I'll forget."                             
"Teach me and I'll remember."                          
"Involve me and I'll learn."         

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            

 Charting the DEN numbers/Tolman
"Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D." 
         Wed, 20 Nov 1996 13:23:06 MST
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]              
Maybe I'm doing something wrong, which is why I decided to post this 
message.  I looked at Jim's numbers for the DEN and reached a 
different conclusion that some other posts I've seen.  Let me 
elaborate:

I calculated the data using an XmR chart since it seems to be that 
number of messages is attribute data -- it is a count, not a 
measurement.

I calculated the average moving Range to be 54.7, the average number 
of monthly posts to be 141.4.  

This gives me an X-chart with central line at 141.4, an Upper Control 
limit calculated as 141.4 + 2.66(54.7) = 286.9 and a Lower limit as 
141.4 - 2.66(54.7) = -4.1 which I counted as zero since there is no 
such thing as a negative post.  

For my mR chart, the central line was 54.7, and the Upper Limit was 
178.8.

Using these limits, the point for October remains within the control 
limits and would NOT be considered a special cause.  So, for that 
matter, would the low spot at August.  However, in looking at the 
variation around the central line, it definately looks like a new 
trend could be developing with a higher central line beginning in 
September.  Since there was not a deliberate shift in the process 
(unless Jim did something sneaky), we might have to find a natural 
explanation for the shift in the process.  The other possibility is 
that November's posts will drop back down closer to the central line. 
 
I did not calculate 2 sigma limits, so I do not know if Sep or Oct 
would both fall beyond the 2 sigma limit, which would make a stronger 
case for a shift.  

However, the mR chart DOES show an out of control point for the Sept 
number of posts.  This is no doubt due to the rebound from the August 
low to the new Sept high.  This difference was beyond what would have 
been expected given the apparently stable process.  However, I am 
also aware that the data begins in January 96, so we do not have data 
from last July/August to know if this is a regular event that occurs 
at this season.  If it were, I am assuming that with the inclusion of 
that data, that the latest two high points would fall within the 
limits.  

For my own part, my explanation for the special cause in the mR chart 
would be that in late summer, people were on vacation, moving, 
getting ready for school, and paid less attention to the DEN 
messages.  In September, life returned to normal and they began to 
process their backlog of DEN messages; this resulted in a dramatic 
increase of postings to the DEN which has carried over into October.  
If this is correct, they should regress back to the mean in the next 
few months.  

My concern is that my conclusions are different from a couple of 
other recent posts which concluded that there WERE some out of 
control points on the X-chart.  I would appreciate feedback on if I 
am calculating these figures incorrectly.

I also ran a scatter plot on the data given to Ken regarding number 
of DEN subscribers.  The plot of the number of DEN subscribers 
appears fairly flat and the scatter plot did not look to me as though 
there were a strong relationship between these elements, although I 
did not actually calculate a correlation.  

Thoughts?

________________________________
Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D.
Director, Psychological Services
Director, Quality Management
Wyoming State Hospital
P.O. Box 177
Evanston, WY  82931-0177
Anton@wsh.state.wy.us
(307) 789-3464
---------------    

[Moderator's note:  This is message #173 for November - for a projected total
for NOV96 of about 250.                                Jim Clauson]

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



[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]              

Wall Street Article Performance Reviews/Oliver
GlomacPlas@aol.com
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:03:56 -0500
 [Topic List]                          
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           
There is an article in the Wall Street Journal titled
"Its That Time of Year"
It is written by T. Schellhardt and he referance's W.E. Deming in the
article, you can also read it on AOL at there Business section under Dow
Jones.
Thx 
Tom Oliver
QA Mgr
Glomac Plastics Inc.
glomacplas@aol.com

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



 [Topic List]                          
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           

Creeping Taylorism/Goolsby
"Jerry Goolsby" 
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 10:28:52 -0500
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
RE:  posting of Myron Goodwin and David Kerridge

I absolutely agree that the Baldrige is flawed and I am not an 
apologist for it, although I'm sure many of you doubt that by now.

If an organization is a "Taylor-based" organization and wants to 
move to a Deming-based organization, how does it go about doing so?  
THAT's the question.  Here's a viewpoint and I apologize for the length 
and the "headiness" of the response.

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn talks about the 
"incommensurability" of paradigms.  His central thesis is that a 
researcher in one paradigm cannot communicate with a researcher 
in a different paradigm for several reasons, but mostly because of 
views of reality problems.  So, according to Kuhn, Newtonian-based 
researchers cannot communicate with and compare research findings 
with researchers in a quantum mechanics paradigm, because their 
worlds are so different.

For us, if Kuhn was correct, individuals locked into a Taylor-based
paradigm would be unable to work with and communicate with those 
locked in a Deming-based paradigm because the two paradigms are 
incommensurable or mutually exclusionary.  So, moving people from 
one paradigm to other would be impossible without some miraculous 
wave of insight suddenly moving the Taylor group into the Deming 
group.  There is no common state between the two and no possible 
links of communication.

Importantly, Kuhn was proven to be absolutely wrong by philosophers 
of science and he even recanted his thoughts in many subsequent 
articles that college professors do not encourage their naive students to 
read.

Newtonian mechanics is a mere subset of quantum mechanics.  That is, 
Newtonian mechanics can be mathematically derived from quantum 
mechanics formulae.  The notion that Newtonian mechanics is wrong and 
must be destroyed is pure folly.   The notion that quantum researchers 
cannot and do not communicate with Newtonian researchers is also 
folly.  Virtually all quantum physicists are recovering Newtowian 
physicists.  Newtonian mechanics, it turns out, hold within a narrow 
range of physical events.  Outside of that range, like at the subatomic 
level, it's useless.

The question becomes:  is it possible for an organization to hold a 
Tayloristic approach while it moves to a Deming approach?  The answer 
must be yes or we must all resort to hoping for miracles or the ever 
elusive "paradigm shift" to which everyone eludes but no one can 
document. I believe this hoping for a miracle approach, at least to 
me, explains why none of us work for truly Deming practicing 
organizations.

My experience suggests that radical transformations of organizations 
are consuming and tend to be unsuccessful because organizations try 
to hold two views of the world simultaneously that are very different.  
It's sort of like Orwell's "doublethink" where people try to hold 
two contradictory thoughts simultaneously.  For example, I find 
executives ordering their workers to become empowered.

Gradual evolutions, on the other hand, tend to be more successful.  
For example, I've seen several companies go from Crosby to Juran 
toward Deming, which seems like a workable evolutionary approach.

The Baldrige architecture is another of those evolutionary devices;
so is ISO 9000.

I don't look at Taylor and Deming as ends of a continuum as much as I 
view Deming being an ideal toward which all organizations naturally 
evolve.   I belief is that Dr. Deming's philosophy is so fundamentally 
right that organizations will eventually embrace his tenets, even if they 
have never heard of him or eventually they will go out of business.

Our job must be to help move people along using whatever tools 
are available, because we don't want to wait an eon for it happen 
naturally.  If the Baldrige is Taylorism "creeping" toward Deming, 
I'm all in favor of it.
********************************************************

Dr. Jerry R. Goolsby
Associate Professor of Marketing
College of Business Administration
University of South Florida

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Re: First Line supervisor/bonuses/Crow
James Robert Crow 
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 13:44:02 GMT
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             
I have nothing against bonuses provided they are designed to promote the
success of the total organization instead of the division, department, team,
or individual.  A bonus based on the overall success of the organization can
be a way of mobalizaing the energy of the organization.

When we begin to attempt to award the bonus based on department, division,
or individual performance we run the risk of destroying the system.  We
create internal competition and an adversarial work environment which will
be counterproductive to optimization of the system.

I believe what you are saying is that we all have an economic reason for
working.  This I will agree with, but it is the satisfaction at the end of
the day, that we can look back on the day with a sense of accomplishment
that makes it all worthwhile.

Tips:

In the two examples Deming provides in The New Economics, I did not get the
impression that the people assisting him normally received tips.  They were
simply helping a person who needed assistance.  In your example of the two
waitresses.  We all know there will be differences in individual
performance.  The job of management is to reduce variation.  Why does this
difference exist?  What can be done to reduce this variation?  When we
assume that money is a motivator, and to me this is a questionable
assumption, and begin to attempt to measure performance and hand out pay
increases,and bonuses based on our preception of that performance we run the
risk of increasing variation instead of reducing it.

In a 1964 study on the impact of performance appraisals done at a large GE
facility it was determined that performance appraisals had no positive
impact on the organization.  People receiving a good appraisal showed no
increase in performance as a result.  People receiving a bad appraisal
became defensive, and when their performance was checked several months
later it was found to be off.  The result was an increase in variation in
performance.

Here are their findings:

Criticism has a negative effect on achievement of goals.
Praise has little effect one way of the other.
Performance improves most when specific goals are established.
Defensiveness resulting from critical appraisal produces inferior performance.
Coaching should be a day-to-day, not a once-a-year, activity.
Mutual goa setting, not criticism, improves performance.
Interviews designed primarily to improve a man's performance should not at
the same time weight his salary or promotion in the balance.
Participation by the employee in the goal setting procedure helps produce
favorable results.

The same study experimented with something they called a Work Planning and
Review process.  This approach differed from the traditional performance
appraisal program in the following ways.

A.  There are more frequent discussions of performance.
B.  There are no summary judgments or ratings made.
C.  Salary action discussions are held separately.
D.  The emphasis is on mutual goal planning and problem solving.

One of the keys here I believe is that one of the primary roles of the
manager is the development of people.  The same study then conducted a year
long study in which half of the plant continued with the traditional
performance appraisal while the other half used the Work Planning and Review
process.

After one year the group usine the traditional approach showed not change in
any of the areas measured.

The group using the WP &R process changed in a favorable direction with
regard to:
        the amount of help the manager was giving them in improving
performance on         the job;
        the degree to which the manager was receptive to new ideas and
suggestions;
        the ability of the manager to plan;
        the extent to which the manager made use of their abilities and
experience;
        the degree to which they felt the goals they were shooting for were
what         they should be;
        the extent to which they received help from the manager in planning
for         future job opportunities;
        the value of the performance discussions they had with their managers.

In addition to these changes in attitudes, evidence was also found which
showed clearly that the members of the WP&R group were much more likely to
have taken specific actions to improve performance than were those who
continued with the traditional performance appraisal approach.

For more informatin see "Split Roles in Performance Appraisal" Harvard
Business Review, January-February 1965.

Now let's get back to your two waitresses.  As a customer there is little
you can do to reduce the variation between the two.  What you are doing
currently is rewards and punishments, which is reinforcing both behaviors.
Change your role to that of the owner of the restaurant.  What can you now
do to reduce this variation in performance?  What is your stake in the
matter?  How could you use a Work Planning and Review process?  How could
you enlist the aid of the other waitresses?  How would the reduction in
varation, ie improving everyone's performance benefit the restraurant and
the waitresses personally?

Life is more complex than paying or not paying bonuses, but it is also more fun.

Did anyone see the article in the Wall Street Journal "Annual Agony" on
November 19th?

Robert Crow,            The Crow Group
jr1crow@mindspring.com, Continual Improvement
Voice (770) 461-1177,   Optimization of the System
FAX   (770) 461-1177,   Focusing Organizational Energy
250 Thornton Drive,	Motivating Work Environments
Fayetteville, GA 30214

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             

Re: Charting the DEN numbers/Lo
"Look, Alson" 
Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:29:00 -0500
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
Don Wheeler's book Advanced SPC has some cautions about when and when
not to recalculate control limits.  He also cautions against two sigma
limits.  You can get the book from SPC Press 615-584-5005.
                                           ->423<-

Alson C H Look
looka@corning.com
607-974-6782
Standard disclaimers

[Moderator's note:  Our area code here in East Tennessee has changed from 615
to 423 -- so the above SPC phone number should read:  423-584-5005  They also
publish Ceil Kilian's The World of W. Edwards Deming which lists all of his
papers and books.  Their web address is http://www.spcpress.com            ]

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



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Re: Tampering in education?/Tolman
"Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D." 
         Thu, 21 Nov 1996 08:54:33 MST
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]            
[First by author]              
> My analysis:
> 
> 1. The histogram starts from a base of 28 instead of 0, making it look as
> if pupils born in the most favourable month achieve scores over 10 times
> better than those of the least favoured, rather than 1.12 times better.

Tim, this is an important and often overlooked observation.  If the 
graph were plotted from a base of 0, the differences between the 
birth months would look neglible which is what they probably are.  
 
> 2. The scores are all within 3 standard deviations of the mean.  (Mean =
> 30.03, sigma = 0.962).  So the system is stable.  It would be a waste of
> resources to make any special provision for "those born later in the year".
> (And anyway, why ignore  those poor souls (like me) born in November? :-()
 
As I read this, my question is:  what is the process we are measuring 
here?  As I understand the graph, these plotted scores are NOT the 
result of test score variation across time, but are test scores 
arranged by birth month, so this is not a true run chart and is a 
comparison of scores rather than an analysis of a process.  However, 
with roughly 95% of the population falling between 2 sigma limits of 
a normal distribution (and I haven't analyzed the distribution to see 
if it is normal), you would still have to drop to a low of 28.11 on 
average to consider the score below most of the population.  

It also seems strange to me that in the example, there is discussion 
of "people born later in the year" when some of the "later in the 
year" folks have scores remarkably high, including September!  The 
best ways I can think of to test the hypotheses are to use some 
comparison such as t-tests or ANOVA to check for differences among 
the birth months.  The biggest caution with doing this is the high 
chance for error among so many comparisons (unless you check it 
against two groups (first half of the year vs 2nd half of the year, 
etc.).  Depending on the number of subjects involved, even small 
differences could turn out to be statistically significant.  The real 
question is the "clinical" or real-life significance of any findings.

What is the real-life difference between a child who scores 28 on the 
test battery and one who scores 30?  Are there research findings 
which clearly link success on this test to definable real-life skills 
or ability to do better at work, in school, etc?  Maybe I'm too 
skeptical, but I doubt such data exists.  Such minor differences on a 
test of this sort are, in my experience, highly unlikely to correlate 
to anything real, especially when they are utilizing a single score 
collapsed across various dimensions, assigning a numerical weighting 
and then averaging!  Other important questions:  how many children 
are represented in the different birth months?  Large differences in 
the number of children included in each category could greatly affect 
the mean for the month since smaller numbers will be more affected by 
outliers.  

I do not think a control chart is the best tool for this analysis.  
I've suggested some alternatives above, but it would be useful to 
look at the histogram shapes across time and several years.  If the 
same pattern holds true, then it suggests several questions:  when is 
the test given in the year?  For example, if the test is given early 
in the academic year, then children born late in the year will be 
younger and less mature than children born early in the year who are 
included in the same grade and may have slightly more difficulty 
with some of the items.  Does the histogram look identical for boys 
and girls?  What I suspect is that the histograms would look 
different from year to year.  

If the definition of tampering includes reaching conclusions that 
could seriously affect policy decisions based on misinformed or 
misunderstood data, then this example certainly qualifies.  Any 
comments from those more astute in this area than I?
 ________________________________
Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D.
Director, Psychological Services
Director, Quality Management
Wyoming State Hospital
P.O. Box 177
Evanston, WY  82931-0177
Anton@wsh.state.wy.us
(307) 789-3464
---------------    

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



 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]            
[First by author]              

Re: directionality of the Baldrige/Holland
Neila Holland 
Fri, 22 Nov 1996 04:59:01 +0000
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            
RE: John Constantine's message:

I really enjoyed reading your post.  I agree that organizations cannot
overemphasize tools but I also think that tools can be the only way out of
the old paradigm . Tools like the Baldridge help to break paradigms and are
extremely important as self-assement instruments.

I feel that organizations need the Baldridge  criteria to better understand
their systems and processes.  Deming once said that only after a process is
stabilized, the process can be otpimized. The only way to stabilize
processes is to know and assess them. 

Thanks for the learning.

Neila Anchieta Holland, Ph.D.
International Quality Management
2424 Dorrington, Dallas, Texas 75228
Phone: 214-342-9394
E-mail   nholland.iqm@worldnet.att.net

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            

Re: the quality journey/Gribble
"Peter Gribble" 
         Fri, 22 Nov 1996 10:06:50 +1000
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           
Hello all. I recently subscribed to the DEN to see if it could help 
me get a better handle on exactly what Deming philosophy was all 
about. Used to think I had a handle on it but now I'm not so sure! 
Have found your postings well worth while as the topics raised are 
generally  of interest and targeted on a narrow subject area. I found 
the learning organisation list by contrast to be too all encompassing 
and the sheer volume of postings such that my only option (even with 
the digest selection!) was to switch off. 

This post is made on the off chance that one of you might be able to 
clarify for me exactly where in the Deming scheme of things 
prescriptive guides for one's quality journey fit if at all. I am 
aware that some people see such approaches as verging on  Taylorism 
allegedly because they implicitly assume a system simplicity and 
knowledge which is supposedly just not possible in any system in 
which human beings play a major role. Part of me finds this argument 
persuasive while another part of me wistfully continues to seek a 
magic key that will open the door to a limo that gives one's clients 
the dream ride many seem to be looking for (expect even!).

Dr Kevin Foley leading a recent industry committee investigating 
confusion in the quality movement in Australia was recently quoted 
(8/11/96) as saying 'If you carried away the 14 points of Deming you 
didn't really have anything that was operational ... In fact most 
failed and joined the ranks of the disgruntled, the disbelievers and 
the cynics".

It seems to me that this comment explains the attraction many people 
have to the Quality Award Models (Baldridge, AQA, European etc) and 
the self assessment tools in particular. They offer a 'tool' one can 
use to more effectively move towards the ultimate destination - that 
vision/state of quality nirvana we dream of.

I recently read Giorgio Merli's little book 'Eurochallenge: the TQM 
approach to capturing global markets' published back in 1993. In it 
he gives much credit to Deming, Ackoff and others. What I found 
fascinating was the detailed prescription he offered to start one on 
the quality journey. Based on my experience it seemed to make a lot 
of sense. It seemed to address gaps and pitfalls I'd seen other 
organisations encounter and lead ultimately to the failure or less 
than satisfactory outcome of their quality effort. So I came away 
pretty excited. Wow, is this the holy grail? Having learnt through 
life's experiences that a little caution goes a long way I decided 
to run my perception by you guys and see what you thought. Any 
comments would be appreciated.

Merli wrote in this book many things. Some seemingly controversial. 
Another one had to do with the role and place of SPC. The description 
was I felt one of the better ones I've come across especially at an 
introductory level. The key point though was the observation 
that the Japanese had found SPC not to be as central nor as useful as 
much of the American quality literature (the DEN even) would seem 
to suggest. Merli said that for an organisation well into continuous 
improvement SPC was of little use. The other quality tools (old and 
new 7) along with Policy Deployment, QFD etc were much more 
significant. My gut feel as well. In the service industries in 
particular does it really make sense to emphasise SPC as it does so 
obviously for the widgets say that the Motorola's of the world 
produce? I don't think so, as long as you use the other quality tools 
as appropriate. Thanks for your time and interest.

Peter  - P.Gribble@rmit.edu.au
Melbourne Australia
PH +61 3 9660 2919   FAX +61 3 9759 6747
Disclaimer: My opinion only.

[Moderator's Note:  My spin on the SPC issue:  I get asked fairly 
frequently by our clients about the "newer" tools, their having read
articles stating SPC was passe'  The goal is to reduce variation (for
all the reasons that Dr. Deming stated) and SPC is a valuable tool.  What
*I* feel the articles fail to mention is that SPC got the folks to a state
where they could use the other tools.                 Jim Clauson]
=====================================================================





[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           

DEN Digest problems?/Clauson
clauson@deming.ces.clemson.edu (List Moderator Account)
Fri, 22 Nov 1996 03:01:00 -0500 (EST)
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]              
DENizens,

I have had a couple of subscribers indicate that they were having problems
with the Digest version of the DEN -- incomplete or 'empty' ,messages.

If you are having such a problem -- please forward me a complete message 
(with headers if possible) so Del and I can troubleshoot the problem.

Thanks,

Jim Clauson
DEN Moderator

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

-- 




 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]              

 request for a list of business consulted by Deming
saveliff@humboldt1.com
Wed, 20 Nov 96 13:31:20 EST
 [Topic List]                          
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           
[Moderator's note:  The following request came in via the Clemson server from
a non-subscriber - if you can assist him, please reply to him directly.
Thanks.

In order to effectively introduce Dr. Demings work to my 
fellow business associates, I'm hoping to find a list of
well known businesses that have been consulted by Dr.
Deming during his long career.

Thanks kindly,

John Saveliff.
saveliff@humboldt1.com

Message posting through the Clemson CQI Web Server.

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






 [Topic List]                          
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           

Re: directionality of the Baldrige/Constantine
John Constantine 
Fri, 22 Nov 1996 11:49:31 -0800
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            
Dr. Holland speaks to issue of need for the Baldridge criteria when she 
states that:

"Tools like the Baldridge help to break paradigms and are
extremely important as self-assement instruments."

and that:

"...organizations need the Baldridge criteria to better understand their 
systems and processes. Deming once said that only after a process is 
stabilized, the process can be otpimized."

Before there were Baldridge criteria, organizations looked at themselves 
and their systems; as "individual organisms", unique in makeup. To now 
view these criteria as necessary further limits the potential of any one 
organization since it must adhere or abide by established rules, the 
creation of which was not perfect at the beginning, nor is it likely to be 
as long as improvements in the criteria themselves can be devised.

Moreover, the act of assessment on the part of an observer, however 
skilled and/or qualified, is "felt" by that which is acted upon, thus 
forever removing the potential for the organization itself to better "know 
itself", establish the limits of its processes, and better deal with those 
processes as a system. Surely this overall process did not, and does not 
yet, require interaction with the Baldridge criteria, assessors, judges or 
bill collectors in order to fully function in improving its entire system, 
or does it?

This is part of the intellectual problem I have with the Baldridge (or any 
such system) which establishes "parameters" as un-ininvited, and perhaps 
unwelcome guests, the establishment of which has created its own 
sub-culture which espouses quality and demands compliance. I have a major 
problem with that.

If I want my company to know itself for what it is NOW, and what it can be 
LATER, I want the members of my organization to be the architects as well 
as the scientists, the practical as well as the theoretical, the workers 
as well as the managers of what IT creates as ITS method of improving. 
This is what, to me, is the essence of the SoPK, not that someone ELSE 
does the work to say how we are in this or that, but that we as an 
ORGANISM can do best by taking the journey ourselves, by ourselves, 
answerable to ourselves, not payable or answerable to another entity.

We will know because I will make sure all know where we are from start to 
finish, which is never, and since we are all on the same team, we won't 
have to go far to get the information. The customers will know, and we 
will know. Psychology, variation, Profound (simple)Knowledge, Human 
learning...that's all that is needed, but if it is politically expedient 
for the Baldridge to come rolling out, give out awards, and claim it was 
NECESSARY all along, then let those join up who wish to. But know it is 
for a different reason than to answer Deming's "call to arms". Rewards 
last only for a time...then what?
-- 

Regards, 
John Constantine
rainbird@trail.com
Rainbird Management Consulting
PO Box 23554
Santa Fe, NM 87502
http://www.trail.com/~rainbird
"Dealing in Essentials"

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]             
[First by author]            

Re: Deming and competition/Simcox
Julian Simcox <101624.63@compuserve.com>
22 Nov 96 13:05:31 EST
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
I liked your notion of professional ethics. I am however left questioning the
notion that the professional consultant ought not to become emotionally involved
with the client. I can see that the professional consultant needs to be able to
choose his behaviour according to a well understoood set of values, and
principles (in the Covey sense), but don't consultants need to learn along with
the client, if only to be able to role model the importance of personal
learning?

I personally use my emotions as a powerful source of energy for doing meaningful
work when with clients. 

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Deming, competition & the environment/Mossman
am249@cam.ac.uk (Alan Mossman)
Fri, 22 Nov 1996 12:07:05 -0200
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
I was talking to one of the BBC's environment correspondents last night.

En passant he made some comment about the pervasiveness of the competitive
ideology (even the British Labour Party seem to have adopted it) and
thought that someone must now begin to do some research to show how
damaging it was.

He was surprised and pleased to hear about the work which had already been
done by Deming, Alfie Kohn and others and wanted to do a programme on the
topic but couldn't find a "peg" within his remit.

So - if you know of anyone who is making connections between Deming, Kohn,
the environment and competition please let me know direct.  I will pass
them on.

______________________Alan Mossman_________________________
Programme Development Manager                | evenings: 01223 322162
Cambridge University Programme for Industry  |
1 Trumpington Street Cambridge CB2 1AQ   UK  | weekends and holidays:
voice: (+44) 01223 332722                    | 19 Whitehall Stroud GL5 1HA
fax: (+44) 01223 301122                      | voice:    01453 765611
_____________________________________________|______________________________

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

SPC / Hunter
WDSG@aol.com
Sat, 23 Nov 1996 12:24:08 -0500
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
> What *I* feel the articles fail to mention is that SPC got the folks to a
state
> where they could use the other tools.                 Jim Clauson

I agree.  Using SPC to reduce variation not only accomplishes that but helps
an organization improve how it functions.  Our society does not do a good job
of teaching and encouraging the use of statistics to help improve how things
function.  

Using SPC helps focus an organization on what is actually going on.  In my
experience, we prefer cursory understanding and verbose explanations of what
events, results, problems mean.  We quickly shift our focus to another issue
before anyone actually understands the issue at hand.  

Without SPC we often accept, as the solution, an eloquently stated claim.
 Then focus then shifts to a new issue.  A year or two later someone will
notice that the original problems still exist and a new eloquent idea will be
adopted followed by the shift in focus to a new area...

SPC doesn't, alone, cause an organization to examine ideas a mile deep and an
inch wide but without it I rarely see more than a surface understanding of
the issues at hand.  The practice of SPC can transfer to the culture of an
organization.  Then, the other tools and methodologies are used to much
greater affect, in my experience.

     John Hunter       wdsg@aol.com
     http://pages.prodigy.com/john
     Arlington, VA		

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

 




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

 Banks using Deming's theory/Curtis
iqpic@nuvo.net
Sat, 23 Nov 96 10:17:58 EST
[Next of thread]            
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           

One of our member organizations is trying to locate 
any bank (or I suppose a similar form of financial 
institution) that is trying to apply Deming theory in its
quality improvement efforts. I believe they are merely wanting 
to confirm that indeed Deming's ideas have worked here too.

Usually, we can help with these type of connections
but our well is dry on banks. Please let me know if you know
of a financial institution with SoPK in its vault.


Thanks,

Don Curtis
IQPIC Executive Director

*****************************************************
Indy Quality, Productivity and Involvement Council
email:  iqpic@nuvo.net
url: 	 	http://www.iqpic.org

All About Making A Difference
******************************************************

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






[Next of thread]            
 [Author List]                        
[First of thread]           
[First by author]           

Re: Creeping Taylorism/Siegel
Jonathan Siegel 
Sat, 23 Nov 1996 08:33:07 -0500
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             
Jerry Goolsby wrote:
> 
> Importantly, Kuhn was proven to be absolutely wrong by philosophers
> of science and he even recanted his thoughts in many subsequent
> articles that college professors do not encourage their naive students to
> read.
> 

On behalf of myself and other "naive students" who were perhaps 
encouraged to read Kuhn less critically than they might, would you have 
any article citations, particularly regarding Kuhn's later self-critical 
work? I would appreciate some background on this perspective.

Thanks,

Jonathan Siegel

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             

Re: Deming, competition & the environment/Kerridge
David Kerridge 
Sat, 23 Nov 1996 11:13:33 +0000
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            
Alan Mossman says:

>I was talking to one of the BBC's environment correspondents last night.
>
>En passant he made some comment about the pervasiveness of the competitive
>ideology (even the British Labour Party seem to have adopted it) and
>thought that someone must now begin to do some research to show how
>damaging it was.
>
>He was surprised and pleased to hear about the work which had already been
>done by Deming, Alfie Kohn and others and wanted to do a programme on the
>topic but couldn't find a "peg" within his remit.
>

There is an article by Mitch Beedie in the July/August 1996 edition
of Asia-Pacific Chemicals on this topic. In it he reports an interview
with me.

"Everybody Wins" in Deming's all-embracing way, including the environ-
ment, suppliers and customers, is a very difficult idea to put across
without causing misunderstanding.

"A system includes competitors.  Efforts by competitors, acting jointly or
together, aimed at expanding the market and to meet needs not yet served,
contribute to optimization for all of them. When the focus of competitors
is to provide better service to the customer (e.g., lower costs, protection
of the environment), everyone comes out ahead." (New Economics p 56"


It is probably something we ought to think about more: not I mean the
point about environmental gain, which is clearly stated above, but the
way to convince people that we don't need to have losers. Most people
assume that *somebody* must lose, because, in their experience, that
is what happens.

David Kerridge

Assistant Director of Research, British Deming Association

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





 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]            

Re: Creeping Taylorism/Tribus
MYRON TRIBUS <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>
23 Nov 96 17:12:27 EST
[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             
Goolsby wrote:

> My belief is that Dr. Deming's philosophy is so fundamentally 
>right that organizations will eventually embrace his tenets, even if they 
>have never heard of him or eventually they will go out of business.

This reminded me of a conversation I once had with Dr. Deming.  It went
something like this,
"People often ask me if they have to accept ALL of the 14 points.  I don't know
what to say to them".

Dr. Deming replied.  "No.   They can discover some of them by themselves."

Myron Tribus

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




[Next of thread]            
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             

Re: the quality journey/Tribus
MYRON TRIBUS <104055.2663@CompuServe.COM>
23 Nov 96 17:12:31 EST
 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]             
Anyone seeking prescriptive advice in the realm of quality would do well to
consult the book, "Global Quality" by Richard Tabor Greene,  co-published by
ASQC Quality Press and Business One Irwin (1993).   This book of 886 pages
contains specific instructions on how to improve any business process.  Indeed,
one section (pg 416) is entitled "Another 40 ways to improve any business
process"

Greene is no amateur.   After many years as a consultant in Japan,  including
working with companies that had won the Deming prize,  he returned to the US and
produced this remarkable book.

For those who think the quality approach is fuzzy,  this will be an eye opener.

Myron Tribus

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




 [Topic List]                          
[Next by author]            
[First of thread]           
[First by author]