Re: Homer Sarasohn (fwd)

["Robert X. Cringely" <bob@cringely.com>]

DENizens,

I sent a copy of John Dowd's message about the subject article to the author,
Robert Cringely.  Below is a) his response, b) my message to him, and c) the
original message from John.

Bob:

Mr. Dowd, who could use some QC work himself in the spelling department (my 
name is spelled C-r-i-n-g-e-l-y), is right that much of this story has been 
written before.... by me.  It was a 1992 cover story in UpSide 
magazine.  At the urging of an associate I decided to reprint it in my web 
column for a whole new audience.  So if I am guilty of plagiarism, I am 
plagiarising only myself.

Any direct quotes from Sarasohn are correct.  I don't make things up and he 
recently reviewed the article and found no problem with it.

Given that he ended his career as the chief engineer at IBM, I'd hardly say 
Sarasohn lacks accomplishment.  He doesn't make a point of putting-down 
Deming, nor does he shy from the topic.  To him it is just a fact of life.

What does concern me about the reaction to this article, both now and when 
it first appeared in 1992, is the rabid reaction of Deming groupies.  They 
keep talking about Deming's lectures in Japan as though they sent shock 
waves of inspiration through Japanese industry.  It just wasn't that 
way.  Most Japanese managers never heard of Deming while tens of thousands 
took Sarasohn's course.  But in both cases what stands out is not the 
success of one man over the other but the peculiar lack of success they 
both shared.  As the article says, Japan spent 30 years discovering the 
values taught by both men and only embraced quality on a broad front when 
the alternative was probable economic failure of the country.  I owned a 
1972 Toyota and know what I am talking about.

Now I have to get back to work.


All the best,


Bob Cringely
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

My message to Bob:


>Bob,
>
>I am the Moderator of the Deming Electronic Network and one of our 
>subscribers\
>referenced your recent article on Homer Sarasohn - which has subsequently
>generated a bit of debate - I believe at least one of our 900 +/- subscribers
>has contacted you directly.
>
>Most have been of the "I said-you said" variety.
>
>The following takes a bit of a stronger stand and I felt that, as Moderator,
>I at least needed to forward it to you and offer you the opportunity to
>respond.
>
>If you would like to respond, send your response to me and I
>will post it to the list.
>
>Jim Clauson
>Deming Electronic Network
>List Moderator and Webmaster
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

John's original message:

>
>Interesting article on Mr. Sarasohn.  He undoubtedly played an important
>role in the development of the Japanese industrial success after the war and
>he deserves as much credit as many others (including Deming) for his good
>work.
>
>A few historical notes are worth mentioning.  Sarasohn himself says that he
>developed his management course following the development of the electronic
>testing facility which he began in 1949, so presumably his courses in
>management for electronics companies began circa 1950.  Deming's first visit
>to Japan was, I believe in 1948.  It would appear to me that rather than
>think of one person 'building' on another's work it might be more accurate
>to say that they worked in parallel.  Undoubtedly their work overlapped.
>
>I have seen materials from the Sarasohn courses and they are quite good in a
>general way.  Among other things quality is dealt with in a pretty
>traditional ASQC kind of way.  Certainly there is not the emphasis in those
>materials that are present in Deming's presentations to management in Japan.
>For example, at the now famous Hakone conference, Deming's message is
>clearly intended for 'top management' and not particularly about statistics.
>(I can forward a copy of his talk to anyone who hasn't seen it.  I got it
>(in Japanese which I had translated) from JUSE some time ago.
>
>Moreover,  Japanese quality success is far more widespread than the
>electronic industry. In fact, the earlier successes were in heavier
>industries such as steel making, Chemical manufacture, heavy equipment
>making,  ship building and the like.  Also, the automobile, and
>pharmaceutical industries have benefited from the Japanese approach to
>quality.  The Japanese dominate many industries beyond the electronic
>industry such as heavy equipment, optics, automobiles, etc.
>
>In the article, Sarasohn seems to express some bitterness that Deming 'got
>credit' that somehow was undeserved.  I don't know if he expressed this or
>Cringley just wrote it.  Whatever.  I think this is just a matter of
>hindsight speaking.  Deming didn't really reach any kind of public
>prominence in the quality field until around 1980/1981 nearly 30 years after
>the classes each of them held took place.  It's a bit of a stretch to claim
>that Deming went into Japan seeking fame and fortune.  He too, was requested
>to go to Japan by the Department of the Army (in his case to help, if I
>recall, with a census).
>
>The following quotes are from the Cringley article:
>
>"So why haven't we ever heard of Homer Sarasohn or Charles Protzman? Because
>we have heard of American quality guru W. Edwards Deming, a master of
>self-promotion who was brought to Japan to continue their work after these
>two men returned to the U.S. at the end of 1950. Deming, who did early work
>in statistical quality control at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census
>Bureau, and War Department has been, in large part, taking credit for the
>work of others."
>
>These are the words of Cringley and not Sarasohn.  To call Deming a 'master
>of self-promotion' and to claim that he had been 'taking credit for the work
>of others' totally discredits Cringley in my opinion.  Of course, there is
>no requirement in American journalism that stories be based on anything
>other than their ability to sell and that, apparently, is what Cringley is
>about.
>
>He obviously has no regard for the facts nor did he bother to try to
>research Deming's background.  Perhaps slandering dead people is safe
>territory; they seldom sue.  Certainly his claim that Deming took credit for
>the work of others is defamatory.  If he got his ideas from Sarasohn (which
>I doubt) that is unfortunate.
>
>In fact this looks like a rehash of an article I saw on the same subject a
>few years back in another electronic industry publication.  I wonder if
>Cringley bothered to check any of this or just re-wrote that article.  Both
>articles contain the same factual inaccuracies.  Talk about taking credit
>for the work of others, does plagiarism qualify under that heading.... maybe
>he wrote the first one as well...
>
>In another quote from the article:
>
>"Deming was actually our second choice," Sarasohn recalled. "We wanted
>Walter Shewart from AT&T Bell Labs to be our quality guru, because he
>virtually invented statistical quality control in the 1930s, but Shewart
>wasn't available at the time -- he was in poor health -- so we settled for
>Deming. He's capitalized on it. I was too dumb or naive, or too busy earning
>a living to bother."
>
>I've heard this before.  (As a matter of fact, if memory serves, the same
>exact quote was in that other article.  I'll have to look for it.) It was
>not Sarasohn's call.  Deming was invited first to Japan to help with the
>census (he also went at the behest of the Dept. of the Army to Greece and
>India).  He was an expert in the census and sampling.  He was invited back
>to Japan by JUSE, not by Sarasohn.  These facts can be easily checked with
>JUSE and Cringley should have done so before publishing his article.  That's
>just good journalism.  But perhaps Cringley wouldn't call himself a
>journalist; an entertainer perhaps...Certainly a salesman.
>
>I personally, don't believe Deming sought out the 'spotlight', but once he
>became more well known (primarily through the now famous NBC White Paper TV
>show which he certainly didn't produce or create) he was smart enough to use
>the opportunity to get attention for his message.  Perhaps Mr. Sarasohn now
>wishes he had capitalized more on his work, but that bridge has been
>crossed.  Mr. Sarasohn, like most people at that time, was called by his
>country, performed an excellent service and then returned and went on about
>his life.  A lot of Americans did the same, and the world is better for it.
>
>As an aside, I worked at Nashua Corp. during the period the TV show was made
>and can tell this group Nashua's choice to work with Deming was virtually
>accidental.  If anyone is interested, email me and I'll tell you the story.
>It has been told before by Bill Conway, then CEO of Nashua.  A review of the
>tape will, in fact, show that Deming had what might be considered a 'minor'
>role in it.  Automation was given a bigger play as a component of Japanese
>success, if I recall.
>
>Personally, I think what got Deming well known was his association with
>Ford.  Again, that is not something he sought out.  Ford came to Nashua
>after the NBC tape came out.  I remember well because I attended most of the
>meetings.  A lot of the key meeting was Bill Conway talking and his remarks
>were video-taped.  For a while the tapes were circulated widely within Ford,
>but I don't know what's become of them .  Perhaps Bill Scherkenbach or Ed
>Baker might know.  I remember them as being compelling.
>
>This posting did get me thinking again about a subject that has plagued me.
>
>Mr. Cringley is trying to promote himself and his service (whatever that is,
>I only read the article and didn't really pay much attention to whatever
>else was on the page).  But his comments raise an interesting question that
>has been on my mind for a while and perhaps some of you may find it
>interesting as well.
>
>Why do we create an artificial scarcity of goodness?
>
>Forced ranking, discussions (such as the Sarasohn/Deming discussion about
>who 'deserves' the most credit) school grading, etc. seem to me to create an
>artificial scarcity of goodness.  Certainly Deming and Sarasohn made key
>contributions as did Juran, Feigenbaum and other Americans.  The key
>contributors to the Japanese success were, of course, the Japanese.
>
>This artificial scarcity of goodness idea is allied to the aspect of
>competitiveness (Win at all costs) that I, personally, find most
>objectionable.  Winning isn't the only thing.  How you do it matters too.
>Selling articles on a web page is not the only gauge of worth.  Shouldn't
>they also be accurate?
>
>Why make a zero sum game out of something that doesn't need to be?  Why can
>only some folks 'win' only if others 'lose'?   Why make an either/or
>situation of something that doesn't need to be?  Why insist that only one
>person or one group be labeled as best?  What is the gain?
>
>I think this whole area is related to motivation, but seems to me to go
>deeper than that.  There is a well known phenomenon of putting the other
>down to build oneself up.  Perhaps this is at the root.  A lot of heavy
>moralizing seems to be rooted in this as well.
>
>Thoughts, comments, etc. are welcome on this artificial scarcity idea.  It's
>been on my mind lately.
>
>With regard to the Sarasohn/Deming discussion.  It seems to me to be
>fruitless to try to figure out 40 years later who did what to whom.
>Couldn't time spent on this be better spent?
>
>John Dowd
>jsdwd@netcom.com
==========================================================================