DEN -- Heal thy self.

[Kromkowski@aol.com]

>>Well, we have seen several recent inputs to the DEN by 
some who apparently have never studied, or understood, the
good doctor's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) (any of the four elements).
<<

As I started this thread, I can only hope that you are not accusing me of having never studied or understood Deming.  
I think the archives will back me up on this.  As to the 
rather strange "support" I received from one particular 
poster   I would say that the archives would suggest that 
he has exhibited a complete disdain for actually reading Deming; consequently, I ignore most of what he writes.

>>How can we say that? Well, as Dr. Deming used to so loudly
state, "Show me the data!" So, here is some data (none of which is offered by the postings to which I refer, above):

1. The first element of the SoPK, Appreciation of a System,
requires that you know what the purpose of the system is.
For the DEN, all we need to do is reference our moderator's posting guidelines of 10-25-02: " the focus of this discussion list is the Deming Philosophy; with the stated
AIM of: 'Learn, apply, and extend the teachings of Dr. W. 
Edwards Deming and to help others do the same.' " I have 
seen many, many DEN messages that do just that. On the 
contrary, the guidelines note, "Do not send
argumentative or belittling messages; this is a 
professional learning forum and professional language 
is expected." And that, unfortunately, appears to be the 
focus of several of the recent inputs referenced above. 
Indeed, (and it may be my lack of understanding) but I 
fail to see how those inputs are helping us "learn, apply, and extend" Dr. D.'s teachings and to better appreciate his 
system.<<

I certainly agree with what you are saying.  Indeed, I think that it is really not possible to "learn" and apply Deming's philosophy of management with reading, studying and referring to his "texts". So in that regard, I think Mr. Bacal's suggestion that there should be less emphasis on citing Deming is barking up the wrong tree.

I guess there is a question of what we might mean by "extend". Do we mean applying Deming's philosophy to 
circumstances beyond those contemplated by Deming or do we mean "extending" the learning forum to as many people as possible? Or both? Or something different?

<<2. The second element of the SoPK requires an Understanding of Variation and Statistics. I believe Myron's response to the supply of raw data offered in one of the inputs illustrates that this element is also missing.<<

This I think you need to clarify what you are implying.  Even Myron's analysis   (see also my other post) clearly indicates that there has been a signal that it would be worth the time to investigate what is happening.  Are you suggesting that I don't have an Understanding of variation?  I'll rest on the evidence of my past posts in
the archives. Talking about a "belittling" post.  See your
point 1.


>>3. The 3rd element of the SoPK, Psychology, is, again, addressed in the DEN  guidelines related to the way in 
which input is worded, "Remember that there is  an incredible diversity in the DENizen subscriber list -- as of 01JUL02, there are 889 +/- subscribers in 25+ countries. Some are just becoming acquainted with Dr. Deming's 
teachings, some worked with Dr. Deming for years, and
for many English is their second language," and "avoid (or 
explain) terms or slang not common to other cultures," 
and "Use text-only as your e-mail content preference. 
Likewise, do not send any form of attachment to the DEN. 
This low-tech approach ensures the widest possible 
international readership." This is later repeated as:
"Do not sent your message as html or text/html. We use text only to ensure maximum readership." Then, to, again, help in gaining understanding and avoid argumentation, "Try to 
state ideas and theories as conditional opinions as opposed to absolutes - this produces better dialogue. As one 
DENizen stated: 'I try to use words such as 
"sometimes", "may", "maybe", "might", "could",
etc.'"<<

889 subscribers in the context of the Internet is barely a burp.  As to ensuring the "widest possible readership" 
or "maximum readership", under the current method this 
could only mean maximum readership from among subscribers.  
That 400 people out of 900 are reading and caring about a post as opposed 50 out of 900, really isn't saying much.

As to the notion that people are just learning about Deming, this is a noteworthy point.  How does the DEN currently provide Deming's text to newcomers so that they begin from the original source rather than 2, 3 or 10 steps removed? (What does the funnel look like under Rule 4.)  
In the early days, Jean-Marie Gogue serialized parts of the 
OTC.  An effort that was well worth it.  I serialized and 
collected for the DEN all of Deming's writings about leadership as a more focused attempt at our following
our stated "aim".  To what end or success?  Who knows.  As to text v. html email. People with current versions (the last 3versions) of AOL are not able to make such a choice to send only text.  So they have to find the correct place on the web to submit via form. The idea that people, today, have access to email but don't have access to the
Web, is just a bunch of nonsense.  

But, to get back to pyschology: What are the factors in how people accept and get to information on the Internet? What makes people hit the delete key on mail? What encourages people to look at a web page or find the information on the Internet.  I cited Barabasi's work to encourage people to consider those questions in light of by what methods we attempt to fulfill our aim.

Lastly, is an email list a very good way (in light of the psychology of how people learn) to facilitate "learning, applying and extending" Deming's philosophy?  I am asking a question, not making a statement.

<< Finally, of course, our progress to "new knowledge" is achieved through the Theory of Knowledge, by which we use what we believe we have learned from applying the first 
three elements of the SoPK, to predict what the future will 
bring, and then compare the actual happenings to our predictions so that we may continually update and improve 
them, and our knowledge. Now Dr. Deming was VERY clear, in 
all his presentations, that without the presence of all the 4 elements of the SoPK, all you could do was "tamper" and 
make it worse. And his 4 Day seminars were filled with 
examples from the world around us of such tampering, i.e.,
actions taken by managers and "leaders" (of companies and
countries) who did not have Profound Knowledge, and who only
made things progressively worse. Indeed, I believe all of us can see examples every day of this continuing trend.  
Now I can accept that the "intent' of many of the author's of the referenced messages was positive. Unfortunately, I do not see the presence or application of Profound Knowledge (as I believe I have seen in our moderator's
inputs and comments). In other words, in my opinion, they are "tampering," and, unfortunately, only going to make the situation worse. >>

Fear of tampering is all well and good, but it shouldn't be used as a justification for never changing or examing the status quo.  Especially, when we have signals that there is something different going on.

As to making it worse -- what would worse look like?

>>Am I saying we, in the DEN, "could not get better?" Of course not! Anyone who follows the path of the SoPK understands that it is a path of "Never-Ending-Improvement." And some will be slow and gradual, and some will be breakthrough.  I am only suggesting that we "get on 
with it," and those who do not wish to take this path are
welcome to go elsewhere. We wish you well. As for us in
the DEN? Back to the future!!!!!>>

There is something that rubs me the wrong way about this part of the post.   First, the "DEN, of course can improve itself" comment really rings like an empty slogan.  Second the "get on with it" comment I presume means get on with improving.  But didn't Deming write about from where systemic improvement.  It must come from the Top Leadership 
and Management that has the power to actually change 
things.  Finally, "those who do not wish to take this
path are welcome to go elsewhere. We wish you well."  No you
don't.  There is nothing in the tone of your post that suggests that. 

What exactly is "this path": the DEN unchanged forever.

My call for examination of the DEN is neither an attack on 
Deming nor need it be considered an attack on the moderator/
owners of the list.  I resist your efforts to frame it that
way.

JDK



Message posting through the Clemson CQI Web Server.