Re: FW: Cause source - system v. employee*

[David Kerridge <dfkerridge@mac.com>]

At 7:57 am -0500 29/3/02, Mack, Wayne wrote:
>If you attempt a change to a system and do not see a resulting data change
>on a control chart, there is no evidence to support the change as effective.


That is often true, but under what circumstances do you need (or can
you get) evidence of this kind?

If you are comparing various equally reasonable alternatives, using the
PDSA cycle,  you can only rely on observation. But "the most important
figures in any business are unknown and unknowable". So you can't rely on
direct evidence in all cases. Many actions, such as the reduction of
fear, may not produce an identifiable special cause on any chart. They
may, but it can't be guaranteed. The resulting increase in creativity,
for example, will take time to appear, and so the special cause will
be invisible among the many other changes taking place.

I remember WED discussing education. When asked how you judge
the success of a change, he said "You have to rely on theory." The
reason, I believe, is that the time between action and result is so long.
He said at least ten years. That doesn't mean the effect is small,
but that you cannot wait for the results of one change before
you make another.

Of course, when you rely on theory, you must make very sure the
theory is correct. A lot of theory, in education as in management,
is *not* correct. But to rely on short term, visible, results is equally
dangerous. In fact, it may well be the reason why so many bad
theories flourish.

The Deming Philosophy rarely deals in absolutes. Our actions should
be based on understanding, rather than following rules. We can
usually tell when the evidence we can get will be useful, and we
should understand, when we rely on theory, how well-tested that
theory is. Even when evidence is not strictly necessary, it is a
good idea to get if we can. If nothing else, it helps to raise morale.


-- 
Best wishes

David

dfkerridge@mac.com