Re: DEN and the Deming Philosophy

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

On 6 Jul 2003 at 16:08, David Kerridge wrote:

> 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?

My point may not be germaine (I think it probably is), but I think 
some of Deming's work is as you describe it -- a scientific theory. 
Or an epistemological method.

One challenge with the entire body of work is that while some is 
scientifically methodical, much of what he said is not, and it's tied 
up in the same package (or at least that's my general impression).

There's some science, and there's a lot of personal opinions. Some of 
the personal opinions and short sayings may in fact have some science 
behind them, and some may not.

That's a challenge. Deming's work is part science, part statistics, 
part philosophy, part management, part epistemological, part 
psychological.

Deming was not equally competent in all of the areas where he left 
footprints, and that's a major problem. That's why I think it's so 
important to capitalize on the best parts, and build and extend what 
might be weaker. And to be able to separate what is science in his 
work, and what is not.

I really don't have the time to be more specific and don't have 
source materials in front of me, so that's my general take.

> 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 agree. But to add - one question we have to ask about Deming's 
assertions, opinions is whether they are indeed testable. When we 
find those that are not disprovable, then we need to ask ourselves 
whether the ideas are consistent with work in other fields, and 
whether they are free of logical flaws (being that science is not the 
only way to approach the work).
> 
For example, the concept of system is a powerful one, but also one 
frought with danger. It works particularly well when we look at a 
small system, define it with tight boundaries, and ignore the system 
it is embedded in, and the system that system is embedded in.

This is not a scientific issue, but a philosophical one. That said, 
it's a very practical one. 

One of the very strong sources of resistance, I think to the issues 
of cooperation, and sub-optimization that results is that while an 
one system/company can control (theoretically), its internal system, 
and how it interacts with, let's say a system of suppliers, it cannot 
control the larger economic system in which it exists.

And that's a fundamental logical/philisophical issue that affects 
acceptance.

It's much like disarmament. One can unilaterally disarm, but the U.S. 
hasn't done that because it recognizes (for better or worse), that it 
exists in a larger world system where the players don't play by 
cooperative rules.

Another example is assertiveness training and communication. It's 
always amused me that we train people to be assertive, only to 
realize that while that may be a good thing, when they interact with 
other people, those other people don't respond the way the books say 
they should.

I'm rambling here, but to point out that there are some very real 
flaws here - and that we need to address the concerns of people who 
perceive them (again rightly or wrongly) if the ideas are going to be 
"spreadable". 


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.