Re: Ford and ranking

[Kromkowski@aol.com]

<< Removing the requirement to rate 5% of people in the bottom
 category probably qualifies as getting rid of "forced" ranking,
 but continuing to divide people into multiple categories is
 still ranking.  The concern is not so much with the "forced"
 part as with the "ranking" part.   -- Wayne Mack >>

However, I am of the perhaps nuanced opinion that "categories" in and of 
itself are not a problem so long as the categories are "in the system", 
"above the system to the high side", and "below the system to the low side", 
and that characterization is based upon a statistically sound operational 
definition, namely, the control chart.  

I'm sure we could look up the Deming text to support my assertion. (texts not 
handy.)

What Deming also implied was that without a statistically sound operation 
definition of these three categories, then there should be a presumption that 
all are in the system. 

But, he indicated, as I recall, that it was also management responsibility to 
have a method for discerning these three categories (in system, or out to 
either side)!  And the responsibility for have a plan based in sound theory 
for 1) assisting those to one side, 2) learning from those to the other 
through investigation of the special cause at work and 3) moving the whole 
system toward improvement by the investigation of common causes.

Categorization in and of itself is not ranking. It would seem that failure to 
make any effort to discern these three groups is also a failure of 
management.  Again the issue comes down to economically minimizing the amount 
of Mistake 1 AND Mistake 2 -- steering a course between Scilla and Charybdis.

JDKromkowski
Kromkowski@aol.com