Re: The value of the DEN

[Bob Adsett <bob.adsett@lineone.net>]

On 14/6/01 16:24, "David Kerridge" <dfkerridge@mac.com> wrote:
> 
> Email is essentially a short-term medium. It tends to favour
> short, readable messages, rather than full, deeply researched
> accounts. Does that make it useless?

Useless, no I don't believe I is, but it is  sometimes frustrating. As we so
often remind ourselves size isn't everything :0), but brevity does not mean
that short contributions are not valuable, as they can viewed as a
'trim-tab' to our patterns of thought which can be stimulating and
rewarding. I never under-estimate the value of a sounding board to reflect
concepts and theories as an aid to deeper understanding.
> 
> Think back to the days when we attended Deming's 4-day
> seminar. The discussion sessions at the end of each day
> were a very important part of the experience.
> 
> We spent the day listening and learning: often baffled and
> confused. In the evening we tried to put what we had heard
> into our own words, and illustrate it by anecdotes from our
> own experience. That helped us to grasp the deep concepts
> involved.
> 
> This group has a similar value, which we may not always
> be able to see at the time.

David, I would wholly agree with this point.
> 
> Profound knowledge is concerned with seeing the world
> in a new way. It is difficult, confusing, and often painful.
> By sharing our stumbles towards understanding, we help
> each other to make it "real" and "visible". We so easily
> accept things intellectually, but do not really understand
> them.
> 
> Our discussion is only valuable because we are working
> towards an understanding of what we have already accepted.
> The discussion sessions at the 4-day seminars would
> have been useless, perhaps harmful, without the seminar
> itself. We cannot expect Profound Knowledge to emerge
> from discussion. "Enlargement of a committee does not
> produce profound knowledge."
> 
> To increase our understanding we need a balance of structured
> learning - knowledge from outside - and practice in relating the
> ideas to our own experience, and restating it in our own words.

Restating in my own words is for me is a very valuable aspect of the DEN as
it gives me the opportunity to explore my learning against some of, dare I
say it, the anecdotes that are shared. It also is an aid to help me to
explore my understanding of the application of the SOPK and gives me a
chance to explore in my own mind, or by replies to the DEN my limited (but
hopefully growing) understanding.

> The structured learning is best provided by study - or attending
> the 4-day seminar, which is offered, based on video tapes, after
> each Deming Institute conference. But then we need the discussion.
> 
> I am not suggesting that this is the only value of the DEN, but
> it is one we might overlook. Here is another. Most of us live
> in a world that is hostile to the Deming Philosophy. So our
> community helps us to feel less isolated.
> 
> We start, perhaps, by feeling that we now know more than
> those about us. As we develop, we become more and more
> overwhelmed by how little we know. Without encouragement
> from others in the same boat, we might give up altogether.

This is not a point that I would underestimate, in the light of considerable
resistance to some of my recent not virtual discussions (only last week) I
have gained significant re-affirmation from feedback of colleagues on the
DEN which I have found very valuable in keeping the faith!
> 
> Others may like to say how they see the value of the DEN.
> We are more likely, I believe, to increase its value by being
> positive, than by a negative, critical approach. And remember,
> "A system cannot understand itself."
> 
>