Method or Recipe?**

[David Kerridge <dfkerridge@mac.com>]

(Was Human Processes Absent, but has moved on)


Vic Forte says:

>I'm sorry David, but I am still not clear about the difference between
>a method and a recipe.

Sorry to have caused confusion, as I see that I did from several messages.
I think this is something we all agree about, but we find it difficult to
express.

I was trying to use the word "method" in the same sense that WED did
when he said "By what method?" The reason that I try to use Deming's
language is that I suppose this to be the nearest to a common language that
we have. We do not always realise how different our usages are, coming
from many countries as well as many backgrounds, and it takes too long
if we have to explain every time.


My dictionary says a method is "a systematic or orderly approach". But
that is no excuse - who reads dictionaries? The purpose of language is
to convey meaning, and I haven't done it.

It is used in the sense I mean when Shewhart calls his book "Statistical
Method From the viewpoint of Quality Control". Statistical method, taught
by hacks, *is* a list of recipes, but Shewhart was talking about action based
on understanding.

Again, we talk of "Scientific Method". There is no step by step procedure
which will guarantee a Nobel prize, if we follow it to the letter. We
have a flexible but systematic approach, but not a "recipe".

The distinction I am trying to make is between a recipe, which must
be followed strictly, and a method, which requires understanding,
adaptation, and thought. (A chef will now tell me that I don't understand
recipes, and that will probably be right.)

Take the use of Operational Definitions as an example.

It is true that once we have an operational definition, we must follow
it exactly, or it is no use. But before we set up an operational definition,
we should have gone through many stages involving considerable
thought.

1  Is this a suitable case for the use of operational definitions?
     (some things are better left indefinite)

2  For what purpose will it be used?

3  Can we find an operational definition that satisfies all the following?

     (i)  It really does fit the purpose
           (In my early days in medical research we used different operational
             definitions of the same disease, depending on the purpose).

     (ii) Measurements made using it have predictive value

     (iii) People will agree to use it

     (iv) It will not be too expensive or complicated to use

     (v) Different people, using the definition, get results that agree
          sufficiently well for the purpose.

I would call the setting up of an Operational Definition that satisfies all
the above a method. But once the definition is agreed, following it is
a recipe.

So in the sense I mean, the 14 points provide a method for achieving
transformation. But they are certainly not to be followed blindly. Nothing
in the Deming Philosophy should ever be followed blindly.

Sometimes the fact that Deming insisted on setting out a systematic
approach rather than "recipes" leads hearers to suppose that the Deming
Philosophy is not "practical". I was at one of his 4 day seminars, when at
the end a member of the audience said (with a note of despair) "But what
should we do?"

Deming roared "You've not been listening!!"

On another occasion someone said to me "Deming told us what to
aim for, but not how to get there".

I believe that in both cases the misunderstanding is natural. We are
use to hacks, and Deming's approach to method comes as a shock.
So the distinction I am trying to make is, I believe, very important.
But perhaps someone can suggest a better pair of words.

Best wishes
David
dfkerridge@mac.com
=======================================================================