Defining a "management" system.

["John Constantine" <thesfg1@cox.net>]

Dirk Van Putten asked "...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."

I am as much a neophyte as Dirk.

In my frame of reference, MBO as generally applied appears to be an
extension of the basic org chart, for the purpose of passing out portions to
each box, with the expectation that if each does their part, then everybody
will get to keep their jobs and maybe have a party at year's end. Bad humor
aside, as Deming puts it, the need for interdependence works against the
box-style approach often used in MBO or it's derivative MBR, Management By
Results (can you imagine?)

Unfortunately, KPI's are often used by managers to identify who did what and
why. This may be more suitable for mechanical systems, but not for human
systems. In my experience it leads to separation of people, ranking and so
forth, but surely not cohesiveness. I've seen reams of papers with the most
detailed, elegant, useless drivel known to man and beast, put forth for the
purpose of identifying what is probably already known to a decent manager -
that being that certain employees are "performing better" than others.
Through whose eyes? For what purpose?

When it comes to human beings, and human interactions, it can't be
emphasized enough, that you cannot measure performance of individuals, as
Deming stated in TNE. 

How creative a process can you have if a manager defines the limits of that
creativity? I believe it was Ackoff who mentioned how children learn what to
say, how to answer a question. This reminds me of the caution to attorneys
that they always know the answer to the question they are asking, in order
to avoid the unexpected and possibly damaging response. Not a very creative
process, I fear.

As for aim, goal and objective...an aim, as defined by Deming anyway, is an
agreed upon value judgment, meant to be "just over the horizon" and not
easily attained. A goal is just that, another way of saying "target", fine
if you get there, not fine if you don't. Hence, another form of
specification. Again from TNE, "A numerical goal accomplishes nothing. Only
the method is important, not the goal."

Sad to say, I must admit that I've used the above words (and others)
interchangeably over the years. At least I can say in the past decade that
I'm starting to see the light, however dimly.

I'm very glad for Dirk's questions and other recent posts.
________________
John Constantine
thesfg1@home.com
Phoenix, AZ