Cause source - system v. employee*

[David Kerridge <dfkerridge@mac.com>]

I remember something that may throw light on the reason why
Drs Juran and Deming quoted different figures - and may both
be right. In later years, WED said "99% of the potential for
improvement lies in the system". So we have 85%, 95%, and 99%

Like Myron, I am sure no one intended these figures to be more
than a general guide, based on experience. But there are other
reasons for the differences.

As Wayne Mack says, many "problems" can be counted
as *either* due to the individual, or due to the system.

But in addition, a percentage of the "potential for improvement"
is very different from a percentage of "total problems". It represents
a change from looking backward - What causes these problems?
to looking forward - What action should we take?

Even when WED talked about a cause, I believe that he thought
of "cause" as operationally defined by Shewhart "If I do A, then
B will happen." But that is not how most people use the idea of
cause. Few speak Shewhart's language.

When we think operationally, we count things according to the action
to be taken, not according to a vague notion of their origin. But action
changes with deeper understanding.

A novice would be well advised to leave the system alone. Change
is too often tampering. But with sufficient understanding, system
change is safer and more effective than trying to change people.
This changes the numerator. But the denominator can be counted
differently too.

Most of the "potential for improvement" comes from innovation
in product, process, and system" not from the fine tuning of the
system as it is. So the divisor in WED's percentage depends not on
what the current system would do, but what *future* systems will do.


Now here is a paradox. Innovation comes from people. A system
cannot innovate. So we *could* say, quite meaningfully, that
99% of the potential for improvement comes from the workforce,
if we include managers and researchers as workforce, which I do.

But if we ask "What action will produce innovation?" it has to
be action on the system, to release the natural creative forces that
are strangled by traditional systems. Blame, inertia, fear - just
about everything.

In fact, direct action to increase the creativity of people may be
dangerous, unless the system is changed first. A rigid system
will be strained to breaking point by innovation.

There is little point in arguing about the exact percentage. The
basic idea is what matters. Is it better to look backward or forward?
And "What action should we take first?"