DEN and the Deming Philosophy*

[David Kerridge <dfkerridge@mac.com>]

From time to time we realise yet again how difficult it is to
get the message across, and wonder if it is something wrong
with us, with the methods we use, or even with the Deming
Philosophy itself.

But if we thought it would be easy, we didn't understand it.
Shewhart saw the problem  as long ago as 1931.  He wrote that
his new approach requires "certain modern physical concepts."
(Do we all know what these are?)

And long after this WED was saying: "Another half century
may pass before the world understands all that Shewhart has
done...."

It is natural that we should be impatient, and right that we
should try to prove Deming wrong, in this, and in everything else.
That's the way to improve any scientific theory. But the obstacles
are real, and not all of our making. How many people even
recognise that the Deming Philosophy *is* a scientific theory,
rather than a personal view, however great the originators?

Even when it is recognised as a scientific theory, there is a long
way to go. Yesterday I opened a new copy of the Scientific
American, and found the following statement, in an article on
the "Roots of Cancer"

"A cause, by definition, leads invariably to its effect."

It seems that many scientists have not caught up with Aristotle, let
alone Einstein or Shewhart. And if  scientists can be that blinkered,
we can hardly expect better of the general public.

We cannot prove Deming right. No *scientific* theory can be proved
right. All we can do is to try (and usually fail) to prove him wrong.
That does not rule out improvement and innovation in the theory,
just as in management.

I believe that scientific advance is unstoppable in the long run.
It is driven by the systemic forces of curiosity and accidental
discovery, as well as human ingenuity.

One force that supports the drive to spread this new science is
that we are willing to cooperate. We do make mistakes - probably
we all try too hard. Shewhart's first and most fundamental discovery
remains the hardest to apply. Is the problem of the DEN that we
try too hard? I believe I do.

The related fundamental idea is that success depends on removing
barriers, rather than on "solving problems". One barrier in the
past was that it was too easy to succeed in the post-war economy.
Maybe the current economic difficulties remove one barrier, even
as they create another.

Yes, there are barriers. But just think how unusual it is that any group
which has knowledge with an immediate commercial value should be
so willing to share it freely. The natural reaction, if you know something
that others don't, is to keep it to yourself, to make a bigger profit.
Fortunately that selfish (but very common) attitude is almost ruled
out by the nature of the Deming Philosophy. If you don't practice it,
you can't understand it.
--
Best wishes

David

dfkerridge@mac.com