Course Syllabus - IEOR 5445 The Theory Behind the Deming Management Method Kevin Dooley, U. of Minnesota, Spring 1993 Learning Objectives The overall purpose of the course is to introduce the student to the variety of theory applicable to the design and study of continuous quality improvement systems, with specific emphasis towards those systems based on the teachings of W. Edwards Deming. The student should gain facility at understanding the link between theory and application. The course is a "survey" course in that a wide list of topics will be covered, rather than a few topics in great depth. Here are the learning objectives for the course: 1. State how each of the 4 theory areas (statistics, cognitive psychology, organizational behavior, and systems theory) is relevant to continuous improvement. 2. Identify and locate research sources (books and articles) relevant to a particular theory area. 3. Comprehend the language and terminology used in these different theory areas. 4. Demonstrate, using examples, the application of theory from the following topic areas (theory-to-application link): models of individual learning group design and dynamics leadership and power motivation and goals organizational learning single and double loop learning organization change and development conceptual pragmatism systems modeling chaos theory Shewhart's operation of control cognitive issues in data exploration and problem solving 5. Using the areas listed above, enumerate relevant theory, given: (a) the application of one of Deming's 14 points, or (b) a particular TQM implementation issue (application-to-theory link). 6. Demonstrate the ability to learn collaboratively in a variety of learning situations. The student is expected to have background equivalent to an introductory "Quality Control" course. The following are learning objectives it is expected the student has already achieved: 1. Identify inputs, outputs, customers, suppliers, resources, and environment for any system under different levels of scope and complexity. 2. Give definitions of product and service quality from several perspectives and demonstrate the usefulness of each definition. 3. Write operational definitions for any quality characteristic of interest. 4. Explain tendencies, patterns, and trends in data using the simple exploratory statistical tools (histograms, paretos, run charts, etc.). 5. Explain the assumptions behind these simple exploratory tools, and the impact of these assumptions. 6. Specify and contrast the purpose, design, assumptions, and use of control limits versus design specification limits. 7. Identify common and special causes using control charts. 8. Specify actions to be taken given control chart data. 9. Calculate the Taguchi loss function for a process. 10. Demonstrate the use of PDSA. 11. Specify the stages of team development. 12. Specify the elements of successful teams. 13. Demonstrate using examples the strategic importance of quality and continuous improvement. 14. Demonstrate using examples the importance of organizational culture and leadership on quality improvement. 15. Demonstrate using examples Deming's 14 points. 16. Demonstrate using examples quality function deployment. Statement of Process Following are my expectations from students: * Read appropriate material before class. * Participate in all class discussions. * Show respect for and acknowledge classmates and team members. * Locate and read other external material (library, magazines, newspapers). * Have an open mind; challenge assumptions. * Ask questions. * Help other classmates learn. Here are my own expectations: * Show students respect. * Encourage students to learn outside of my lecturing. * Demonstrate the relationships between theory and practice. * Give feedback promptly and appropriately. * Be fair in all dealings. * Gather feedback information during course so as to improve. * Have an open mind. * Be prepared. A variety of teaching methods will be used in the class. It is expected that the majority of learning will not come "from me", but rather from class discussion, outside readings, and your own reflections. It is my belief that the student must play an active role in their own education. Timeline The following is an initial topical plan. Changes may be made as needed. Required reading (note packet) is given in plain text; optional readings are given in italics: M 1-4 Course Intro; Deming background: Profound Knowledge -- Anderson, J.C., Dooley, K.J., and S.A. Misterek, "The Role of Profound Knowledge in the Continual Improvement of Quality," Human Systems Management, 1991, Vol. 10, pp. 243-259. -- Anderson, J.C., Dooley, K., and M. Rungtusanatham, "Requisite Knowledge for Continuous Improvement: Toward Improved Training and Education," Proceedings of the Continual Improvement Conference, Minneapolis, 1992. -- Anderson, J., Rungtusanatham, M., and R. Schroeder, "Exploring the Theory of Quality Management Underlying the Deming Management Method," Proceedings of the Continual Improvement Conference, Minneapolis, 1992. -- Deming, W.E., "A System of Profound Knowledge," Action Line, August 1990, pp. 20-26. --Schultz, L., "The Rings of Management: The New Management Theory," Human Systems Management, Vol. 10, 1991, pp. 11-17. --Tveite, M., "The Theory Behind the Fourteen Points: Management Focused on Improvement Instead of Judgement," Process Management International, 1990. W 1-6 Group dynamics, group design -- Hackman, Richard, "The Design of Work Teams." In J.W. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of Organizational Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1987. --Sundstrom, E., DeMeuse, K.P., and D. Futrell, "Work Teams," American Psychologist, Vol. 45, No. 2, February 1990, pp. 120-133. M 1-11 teams in chaos exercise --Bush, D., and K. Dooley, "Group as a Process: Teams, Variability, and Complexity," Proceedings of the Continual Improvement Conference, Minneapolis, 1992. W 1-13 teams in chaos exercise M 1-18 Holiday: Martin Luther King's Birthday W 1-20 Conceptual pragmatism -- Anderson, J., Dooley, K., and X. Liu, "Knowledge for Process Improvement," Proceedings of the Continual Improvement Conference, Minneapolis, 1991. --Boyd, F., "The Philosophy of Lewis's 'Mind and World Order' and Its Influence on Deming's Theory of Profound Knowledge," working paper, University of Miami. --Lewis, C.I., Mind and World Order, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1929, excerpt Chapters 7-8, pp. 195-273. --Strickland, B., "C.I. Lewis and Deming's Theory of Knowledge," Proceedings of the Continual Improvement Conference, Minneapolis, 1992. M 1-25 Chaos theory, quantum mechanics: Theory of variation -- Jensen, R., "Classical Chaos," American Scientist, Vol. 75, 1987, pp. 168-184. -- Mermin, N.D., "Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks? Reality and the Quantum Theory," Physics Today, April 1985, pp. 38-47. --Crutchfield, J., Farmer, J., Packard, H., and R. Shaw, "Chaos," Scientific American, No. 255, December 1986, pp. 46-57. --Michaels, M., " A Dictionary of Chaos Terms", Chaos Network Newsletter, November 1990. --Shimony, A., "Metaphysical Problems in the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics," International Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 8, 1978, pp. 2-17. W 1-27 Shewhart's operation of control -- Shewhart, W., Statistical Methods from Viewpoint of Quality Control, Graduate School Department of Agriculture, Washington, 1939. PAGES 1-49. M 2-1 Shewhart's operation of control -- Shewhart, W., Statistical Methods from Viewpoint of Quality Control, Graduate School Department of Agriculture, Washington, 1939. PAGES 80-119. W 2-3 Cognitive issues in data presentation, interpretation, problem solving, creativity -to be announced- --Gasper, P., "Causation and Explanation," from The Philosophy of Science, ed. R. Boyd, P. Gasper, and J. Trout, 1991, MIT, pp. 289-297. --van Fraassen, B., "The Pragmatics of Explanation," American Philosophical Quarterly, Vol. 14, 1977, pp. 143-150. M 2-8 Cognitive issues in data presentation, interpretation, problem solving, creativity -- Dooley, K., "The Perceptual Truths of Edward deBono," review to be published in Chaos Network, 1993. -- Flor, R., and K. Dooley, "Summary of deBono's 'Six Thinking Hats'," 1992. W 2-10 Models of learning -- Bush, D., and K. Dooley, "A Learning Process for Transformation to Continuous Improvement Management," to appear in Human Systems Management, 1993. -- Dooley, K., Bush, D., and T. Johnson, "Quantitative Models of Learning: Neural, Cognitive, and Organizational," Proceedings of the Chaos Network Conference, Santa Cruz, 1992. --Estes, William K. "Toward a Statistical Theory of Learning." Psychological Review, 1950, 57, 94-107. --Lippman, R.P., "An Introduction to Computing with Neural Nets," IEEE ASSP Magazine, April 1987, pp. 4-22. --Rescorla, Robert A. and Allan R. Wagner. "A Theory of Pavlovian Conditioning: Variations in the Effectiveness of Reinforcement and Nonreinforcement." In: A. Black and W.F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical Conditioning II. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972. M 2-15 Organizational learning -- Huber, G.P., "Organizational Learning: The Contributing Processes and the Literatures," Organizational Science, Vol. 2, No. 1, February 1991, pp. 88-115. -- Zeleny, M., "Knowledge as a New Form of Capital: Part 1. Division and Reintegration of Knowledge," Human Systems Management, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1989, pp. 45-58. -- Zeleny, M., "Knowledge as a New Form of Capital: Part 2. Knowledge Based Management Systems," Human Systems Management, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1989, pp. 129-143. --Dixon, N., "Organizational Learning: A Review of the Literature with Implications for HRD Professionals," Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 1992, pp. 29-49. --Stata, Ray, "Organizational Learning--The Key to Management Innovation," Sloan Management Review, Spring, 1989, pp. 63-74. W 2-17 Organizational learning -- Argyris, C., "The Executive Mind and Double Loop Learning," Organizational Dynamics, Autumn 1982, pp. 5-22. --Argyris, C., "Action Science and Intervention," J. of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1983, pp. 115-140. --Argyris, C., "Teaching Smart People How to Learn," Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69, No. 3, 1991, pp. 99-109. --Argyris, C., "Leadership, Learning, and Changing the Status Quo," .J of Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 4, No. 3, Winter 1976, pp. 3-43. --Schon, D., "Deutero-Learning in Organizations: Learning for Increased Effectiveness," J. of Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 4, No. 1, Summer 1975, pp. 2-16. M 2-22 Systems modeling -- Ashby, R., "Analysis of the System to be Modeled," in The Process of Model-Building in the Behavioral Sciences, Ohio State University Press, 1970, pp. 94-114. -- Flor, R., "Book Review: Senge's 'The Fifth Discipline'," 1992. -- Ackoff, R.L., "The Second Industrial Revolution," speech transcript, 1988. --Checkland, P., "Soft Systems Methodology," Human Systems Management, Vol. 8, 1989, pp. 273-289. --Schultz, L., and S. Loubert, "A System," Proceedings of the Continual Improvement Conference, Minneapolis, 1992. --Senge, P., The Fifth Discipline, Doubleday: New York, 1990, excerpts from appendix 2: The Learning Disciplines, pp. 373-390. W 2-24 Systems modeling --Ashby, R., "General Systems Theory as a New Discipline," General Systems, Vol. 3, 1958, pp. 1-6. --Ashby, R., "Cybernetics," in Recent Progress in PsychiatryIII, Fleming (ed.), London, 1958, pp. 94-117. --Ashby, R., "Requisite Variety and its Implications for the Control of Complex Systems," Cybernetica, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1958, pp. 1-17. M 3-1 Motivation, needs, goals, and fear -- Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., and L. Skon, "Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures on Achievement: A Meta Analysis," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 89, 1981, pp. 47-62. -- Scholtes, P., "An Elaboration on Deming's Teachings on Performance Appraisal," Joiner and Assoc., Madison WI, 1987. -- Carson, K., Cardy, R., and G. Dobbins, "Performance Appraisal as Effective Management or Deadly Management Disease: Two Initial Empirical Investigations," Group and Organizational Studies, June 1991, pp. 143-159. W 3-3 Models of leadership and power; empowerment -- Hollander, E.P., and L. Offerman, "Power and Leadership in Organizations," American Psychologist, Vol. 45, No. 2, February 1990, pp. 179-189. M 3-8 Organizational change and development -- Broadhead, J., "The Post-Deming Diet," Training, February 1991, pp. 41-43. -- Livingston, J., and C. Hart, "Florida Power Light's Quality Improvement Program," Harvard Business School Case 9-688-043, 1987. -- McLean, G., and S. Pakenham-Walsh, "An In-Process Model for Improving Quality Management Processes," Consultation, Vol. 6, No. 3, Fall 1987, pp. 158-174. -- McLean, G., and J. Persico, "An Updated View of the Model for Implementing a Quality and Productivity System: Total Quality Management Process (TQMP)," Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1990, pp. 23-32. -- S. Sekine, "The Almighty God TQC," Tokyo Business Today, August 1986, pp. 40-45. --Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., and B. Spector, "Why Change Programs Don't Produce Change," Harvard Business Review, November-December 1990, pp. 158-166. --Lewin, K., "Frontiers in Group Dynamics," Human Relations, Vol. 1, 1947, pp. 5-41. --Schein, E.H., "Organizational Culture," American Psychologist, Vol. 45, No. 2, February 1990, pp. 109-119. W 3-10 Organizational change and development -- Dooley, K., "Total Quality Management and Chaos Theory," presented to the American Psychological Society, San Diego, 1992. -- Nonaka, I., "Creating Organizational Order Out of Chaos: Self-Renewal in Japanese Firms," California Management Review, Spring 1988, pp. 57-73. --Freedman, D.H., "Is Management Still a Science," Harvard Business Review, November-December 1992, pp. 26-38. --Goldstein, J., "A Far-from-Equilibrium Systems Approach to Resistance to Change," Organization Dynamics, Vol. 17, No. 2, 1988, pp. 16-26. --Leifer, R., "Understanding Organizational Transformation Using a Dissipative Structure Model," Human Relations, Vol. 42, No. 10, 1989, pp. 899-916. IEOR 5445--Topics in Management Science--The Theory Behind the Deming Management Method, Winter 1993 Quarterly Assignments Homework 1 "Team building" is an essential part of most quality training programs, and is a typical starting point for many industrial groups. 1. What are some of the guidelines/rules of thumb that can help determine the amount of team building a group should go through? In other words, should the amount and type of material that a group is exposed to, and the exercises they are facilitated through be customized, and if so, according to what criteria? (2 par. max) 2. Suppose that you were facilitating a product development team working on a new product of some technical complexity. The team was going to be working together a lot over the next year, and was cross-functional in its make-up. With respect to material specifically related to the group process and associated dynamics, (a) outline a 3 hr. "first session" with the group (you can assume the group has already in place some specific "technical" objectives)--include a statement noting the purpose of the session. (b) write a "summary" page which would be used in your session which summarizes the basic issues in group design and group process (not more than ten items of 1-2 sentences each). Homework 2 1. Hypothesize 10 "theories" that you learned via the "Teams in Chaos" exercise. They should be general (applicable to organizations in general, not just groups of students making paper airplanes). For example, a theory might be: "When customer requirements are made explicit, the production learning curve is accelerated." 2. When Western executives have visited Japan, or for that fact other Western companies, they have been accused of "looking for the wrong things." For example, one lesson (supposedly) learned by these executives was that workers could be "brought together" more via social activities, such as everyone singing a company song, or doing exercises together. Such solutions tend to fall into the category of what Deming would call "instant pudding". Lewis says there is no learning without an a priori (pre-established theory). What do you think were these executives' a priori? Why was this a priori potentially faulty? 3. Benchmarking is a much used approach in industry today -- an attempt to learn of practices and performance from other companies. Specific to benchmarking of processes and practices (as opposed to numerical results), put yourself in the shoes of C.I. Lewis and write an editorial to Quality Progress magazine (magazine aimed at quality practitioners) expressing your opinions about benchmarking. Homework #3 Related to the Shewhart text... 1. Write down (in common language) guidelines for the proper application of statistical control. 2. On page 43 of the book... "An inference based upon specified evidence E may be reasonable or valid upon the basis of that evidence even after one has learned that the prediction is false." What are the practical implications of this statement? In your opinion do organizations of today believe this statement (support your opinion)? What differences might exist between organizations who believe and don't believe in this statement? ================================================ Do ONE of the following five: 3a. Find specific examples in the literature (or from work) which demonstrate poor application of SPC relative to the guidelines put forth in question 1. Give data, analysis, and alternative solutions. 3b. Study an advanced SPC tool (you can find them written about in J. of Quality Technology or Technometrics for instance) like cusum or EWMA charts and report on how its used, why and when its used, comparison to standard Shewhart charts, etc. 3c. Specify how degree of belief (as specified by Shewhart) is taken into account in probabilistic reasoning (a working knowledge of Bayesian statistics or AI reasoning is needed here...). 3d. The third chapter of Shewhart discusses how quality-related data should be presented. Use this to develop guidelines for design and operation of a quality information system. 3e. Remember the logistics equations is: xn+1 = k xn (1-xn) for 0