RE: Defining a "Management" system

[Dirk_van_Putten@3com.com]

In no way do I claim to be an expert in Deming philosophy.

However, if key process indicators are damaging, then why do we study
statistics? What would we analyze with statistics if we do not have key
indicator points for the process? Would we analyze what ever we feel like
analyzing just for the fun of playing with numbers? (I am referring to
KPI's in a general sense here.)

Also, isn't an aim a goal? How does the PDCA work if we should not compare
the system output to the aim/goal/objective?

What about the scientific process? One makes an observation, defines a
hypothesis (a defined theory on how to attain an aim/objective), plans the
experiment (using theory), isolates as many variables as possible, runs the
experiment, measures the key variables as the experiment runs, and then
compares the output to the hypothesis.

This really confuses me. I am pretty sure all of this has been discussed
before. There is probably some theoretical, abstract difference between
aim, goal, and objective. I guess the difference would be defined in the
theory we use to attain the aim.

I am thinking of trying to explain all of this to those that work within
the system especially in a manufacturing environment. I think we should
always remember to consider the audience. Who's behavior are we trying to
influence. From a rookie stand point, I think I see contradictions in
theories used to attain the aim.

Regards, Dirk van Putten