Re: The DEN -- Heal thyself

["Robert Bacal" <ceo@work911.com>]

I'm going to respond to this in the interests of stimulating 
discussion, but I will be the first to admit that I cannot figure out 
exactly what your points are, or what the "purpose" of your post 
might be.

On 26 Jun 2003 at 0:37, TQNELSON@aol.com wrote:

> 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). 

I think this may be an example of the problems involved in the Deming 
community. I understand your commitment to SoPK and Deming's work. I 
do not think that it is useful or appropriate to assume anything 
about posters who you might disagree with, and even less useful to 
suggest that they do not understand the system you embrace.

...at least it's not useful to me. And, I think that for those that 
are not converts this kind of post sounds like the kind of arrogance 
that may in fact have already killed Deming's work.

Further, I believe one of the reasons Deming's work is being lost is 
the inability of people to use any other methods of thinking, 
reasoning or understanding the world besides the Deming dogma (which 
is better than a lot of other dogma but still dogma). Even if I/we 
(those that post in ways you do not agree with know NOTHING bout 
SoPK, does that mean we do not bring new ideas to the table that you 
can integrate? Or is that not allowed? Is that heresy?

> 
> 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):

Could you explain the use of this data, and what makes it important? 
To me it's a set of quotes.
> 
> 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.

It's unfortunate that you didn't get specific here. While you refer 
to this as "data", I see this as your conclusions, based on no data 
at all. If you believe that posts have been argumentative (I don't), 
that could be a reflection on you and your rigidity or it could be a 
reflection on posters' tone, or you could be spot on. Who knows. The 
data lies in the behavior, not your characterization of the behavior.

Feel free to quote me and criticize me specifically. 

> 
> 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.

I ask you: Why should anybody on this list, including myself, be 
obligated to post according to SoPK? I mean that as a serious 
question. Sometimes, in fact often, one needs to step outside a 
system of thought to understand its weaknesses. For example, the 
weaknesses of a political system (e.g. communism) are much easier to 
see when you are in a capitalist system, then when limit yourself to 
the dogma of Marx and Lenin.

I believe that it is absolutely essential, if Deming's work is to 
continue to live, that those with the understanding of Deming's 
system (within the system) are willing to see from outside, to 
generate criticism of the work, and accept and even invite criticism 
from without. I think Myron is an example of someone who works both 
within Deming, and within other ways of thinking. Which is probably 
why he is so universally respected.

...or of course you can continue to do exactly what you've been doing 
on the list.


> 
> 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.' "

I've lost you here. Sometimes communication works better when people 
say what they really want to say, and stop beating around the bush. 
Out of opposite opinions comes new growth. What is it you are asking 
here?

> 
> 4. 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.

Notice the phrasing. You don't write "our progress to "new knowledge" 
MIGHT be achieved..." Your write "progress to new knowledge IS 
achieved..." Now you might truly believe that it IS the way, and the 
only way, but I don't. After your mentioning the use of "sometimes, 
may, maybe, I find it odd that you can say one thing, then violate it 
in the next paragraph. 

I believe this kind of thinking on the part of a good portion of the 
disciples of Deming is what has killed what should have been a 
valuable work for the future.

Your phrasing is pretty absolute, and whether you intend it to be so 
or not, I hear it as dogmatic. There are many ways to achieve new 
knowledge. Each has strengths and weaknesses. There are many 
intellectual leaders who have made and can make contributions to new 
knowledge. Doesn't it make sense to recognize what seems pretty 
straight-forward, and draw from other thought leaders?

Doesn't it make sense to recognize that Deming, as a regular human 
being (but perhaps a gifted one), could not possibly have been expert 
in everything? The one area where Deming is severely lacking and 
where he is oft mentioned is in the area of psychology. With NO 
training in psychology, it's hard to grasp the complexities of the 
discipline. Can Deming's work be extended by incorporating work from 
other disciplines, or must we reject other discipline because they do 
not subscribe to a "Theory of Knowledge"? 

If we are going to refer to psychology why is it that Deming and his 
followers can talk about psychology without providing data, 
particularly when there are literally hundreds of thousands of data-
based research (albeit many so flawed as to be useless).

> 
> 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.

That Deming said what he said is quite frankly, absolutely irrelevant 
to those people who have not been converted. It is like quoting Jesus 
to Moslems, and expecting them to believe what Jesus said 
because...well because he was Jesus.

When you go that route you are going, all you are going to get is a 
small number of people who can sit around and talk among themselves 
so they can congratulate themselves on how smart they have been to 
choose the right "way of thinking", and who have zero influence 
outside of that group. You are pretty much there now. Isn't what this 
list is?
> 
> 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. 

Why should I apply YOUR way of looking at the world, when in fact, my 
point is that no ONE way of looking at the world has a monopoly. And 
that insistence on the application of a single model, apparently 
above criticism, is the very reason the field has expired.

If you want to reach people talk from within THEIR models and 
introduce your model to link up to where they are at. Otherwise you 
are wasting your time.
 
> 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?

I'm quite willing to go elsewhere. I've been elsewhere for several 
years, having tired of the constant flow of narrow dogma, knowing 
that it means the death of the body of work. No doubt I will go 
elsewhere again, particularly if I start repeating myself. There are 
too many ideas to build, thoughts to explore, and books to write in 
the service of building new knowledge. I'd rather do that than read 
the same dogma and quotes when I can go to the Deming as the source.

So, soldier on. Demean those that disagree. Insist that we 
communicate from within your chosen model. Broach no criticism. Don't 
extend the "holy" works.  Then you and the few hundred Deming 
followers that will be left in the world can spend the rest of your 
lives reminiscing about the seminars and the good old days.

PS. I know what I've written is blunt. I wouldn't bother writing this 
if I didn't think that Deming's work deserves to be held in high 
esteem, and that it deserves to form the basis of new ways of 
thinking about improving business and improving life for all.

The trends have been clear for years now. The Deming "movement" must 
change. Or it's stone cold dead. 


> 
> Back to the future!!!!!

I'd rather look forward to the future and create new ways of 
thinking. But the future is in our hands, not in the hands of Deming, 
or Deming's books or Deming's wisdom. I'd hate for Deming's work to 
be like betamax. Great system, superior technology. Completely 
destroyed by narrow thinking.

Is Deming's work to be the intellectual betamax of the 20th century?

Robert Bacal
http://performance-appraisals.org, Performance Management Resource 
Center. http://articles911.com - Over 2000 work related articles 
listed. http://relationships911.org for the relationships library.