RE: STUDENT REQUEST: Deming & performance appraisals

["Templeton, Peter" <ptemplet@alarismed.com>]

David

Reading the exchange below has re-awoken a thought that I'd be grateful for
you to comment on.

If I understand correctly, from Red Beads and the like, we work on the
assumption that variation 
cannot be attributed with confidence to the individual (the basis of PRP).
Instead, attributing such
variation to the system, we regard it as being, for our purposes random and
unattributable.

There are two areas I'd like to probe:

- I think I can recall that Deming acknowledged that some people would
clearly have 'outlier' (special cause) status,
for which they would require individual attention.  If they were well below
average, the need was for support.  I presume
that those significantly above average were justifiably worthy of
recognition.

- I am particularly interested in those that sustain a position above or
below the average.  Do you think it is valid, as
I think happens in SPC, to acknowledge that this indicates a trend, or a
signal that the individual is genuinely at such
a point in the ranking.  The Red Beads analogy highlights the folly of
recognition for short-term performance.  However,
if one of the workers repeatedly delivered below average red bead count,
presumably we would begin to suspect that
there was something of a causal nature involved.

Interested in your thoughts.

Peter Templeton
ptempleton@iee.org
===========================================================================