RE: Statistical Control and Purpose, with a different twist.

[Miller Charles L SSSD <MillerCL@SUPSHIP.NAVY.MIL>]

  First, I want to apologize to Jim Clauson for leaving this message in
tact.  The reason is that my whole response covers the whole letter.  
  Jim, you can do as you wish with this letter.
  Thank you for being there.

  My theory is Statistical Control and Purpose will require commitment of
CEO's to communicate more effectively among the organizational leaders.  The
theory of the CEO, the aim of the CEO,  the process steps identified by the
CEO and leaders of the organization, the matrix system used to portray cause
or influence, all come from chaos towards control.
  The control is a given control, not a taken control.  The prediction, that
gives a business the best chance at survival, is the prediction developed in
a giving of control organization.

Example of activities I have experienced:
  1. The set up;
  We look at control as the end when maybe it is chaos that is the end.  We,
at the work site, just do not get the whole processes.
  - The human is to come to work and all of a sudden be in a void?  
  - How many managers or sellers can predict output or sales with no
variation?
  Any time we have variation we have special cause if the end is control.
If the end is chaos, then we have common causes, because we work on
prediction, not control.
  2. The example; 
  We humans search for that which gives us value and that which validates
our actions.  We dance in the dance of income gathering by first getting a
ticket (our degree) then learning as we go.  The steps of dance are changing
quicker so if we attended events for socializing (seminars) we will keep up
on the dance step changes.  
  In some circles it is the social activity away from the seminar that
teaches the changes.  In some circles it is the seminar.  In some circles it
is both.
  3. The summary;  
  The point being that the scheduled seminars give a chance for renewal.
Renewal away from the business place.  Sub consciously or consciously we are
becoming outsiders for a while.  We are going to sample chaos, because the
seminar is the end not the business.  We thrive on chaos not control, let
alone prediction.  Prediction is the balance of chaos and control.  The
beginning of harmony.  
  4. The questions;
   - What do we teach our children about maturing?
   - What do we model to show maturity (control, chaos or prediction)?
   - Do we want predictable children or controlled children or chaotic
children?
   - Education does what for our children?
   - Harmony does what for us and our children?
   - What is the purpose of business in our world?
  5. The conclusion;
  I can tell you all of my answers.  When are we going to work on our
answers for the world?
  World business associations are still thriving on chaos and yet asking for
mature predictable behavior from others.  They do not see this because of
the concentration on the dance steps and seminars.
  We do have abundance and we can change.  I believe that change starts with
being predictable on small scales then working on joint predictability.
That leads us back to what the purpose of business is in our world. 
  Respectfully,
  Charlie 
  miller@exchange.sssd.navy.mil
  

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Meekings [mailto:alan@meekings.demon.co.uk]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 10:38 AM
To: den.list@deming.ces.clemson.edu
Subject: Re: Statistical Control and Purpose


Steve,

I your recent post you wrote:

>With respect to Dan's comments, I do find myself in a position somewhat
>contrary to Dr. Deming's, Shewhart's and Wheeler's predictions.  The issue
>is - does an "uncontrolled" process eventually gravitate towards stability
>and statistical control, or does it go chaotic?

I'm with you on this one, Steve.  

For example, it's my observation that in rail maintenance depots across
Europe, the non-availability of parts at the moment they're needed has
historically tended to settle in the range of 18-25%.

This is an industry with a common history that has pretty much escaped
the fundamentals of quality and systems thinking in the post-war era.
Push-scheduling, in a reactive "find-and-fix" culture, is the norm.

In these circumstances, people react as best they can to get the job
done.  For instance, supervisors start squirreling away stores to keep
the work working, and store keepers scrounge parts from colleagues in
other depots without updating their computer records, and so on.  Things
settle down to an inherent level of inefficiency.

It's not good, but, on the other hand it's not chaos.  People intervene
to keep things ticking over, but they do so from a misguided mindset.

It's not their fault.  It's just that no-one has shown them a better
way, or given them the chance to apply what we would call the Deming
management philosophy.

If you were to draw a control chart of the non-availability of parts,
I'm sure it would show the process was "in control".  Inefficient, yes.
Out of control, no.

I agree with you, Steve, that, in the world of work as we know it today,
systems tend to settle down to an inherent level of inefficiency.  It
typically needs new thinking (like quality means on-target with minimum
variation, rather than conformance to specifications) to prompt a leap
to a higher level of performance.

Regards,

Alan Meekings
+44 (0)171 340 3277
+44 (0)385 258741
alan@meekings.demon.co.uk
=========================================================================