RE: Lack of Deming Philosophy in Education

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

On 25 Sep 2003 at 10:45, Rip Stauffer wrote:

> I would have to sadly agree with Robert Bacal's second and third
> points. 
> 
> That Deming's work was "seriously flawed" carries an emotional
> component, in my view. I would agree that the psychological component
> of the SoPK was probably the least developed (and I think that was his
> view, as well, wasn't it?). But I'm still struggling with Robert's
> view, expressed many times over the years, that it doesn't represent
> reality. 

Maybe this can help. Despite the general acceptance of "Adult 
Learning Theory", there has been some suggestion that it doesn't 
represent how adults really function but is an idealized version of 
how the leading lights in adult education believed they ought to 
function. That they started with premises and embedded beliefs, then 
set out to prove those beliefs. Adult learning theory is not so much 
a theory derived from data as it is a belief system about what should 
be, confused with what is, and affected by a zeitgeist which made it 
"obviously accurate".

That's not to say the entire body of work is invalid. The danger is 
that there are enough real truths to make it attractive as an 
accurate representation of how adults function, with the assumption 
that because some of it is accurate, so is it all.

How much have we lost because of acceptance and confusion of what is 
and what a belief system posits about adults' "nature".

Similarly, I'm not the first to suggest that Deming's work is utopian 
(at least in some small degree). While the statistical aspects are 
one part of it, the parts that deal with how human beings work, and 
exist is largely based on a belief system that is hard to test, and 
must be "bought into" by those wanting to use Deming's work.

So, when one asks why Deming's work doesn't get the focus and use it 
deserves, one answer is that people look at it, compare the belief 
system it embodies with what they believe, and reject it as utopian. 

One can suggest that they have limited vision. One can also suggest 
that Deming was wrong about certain aspects of how people work, and 
how organizations work. I think both are possibilities and there may 
be others.



Certainly Deming's views on performance appraisal don't
> represent what's practiced at most organizations, but anyone who has
> experience with performance appraisal systems (for instance) can
> attest to his basic assertions about the harm that they do. 

I agree. But that's really not what I am referring to. For example, 
in the human domain, the sentence "Drive out fear" is an impossible 
task. It assumes that fear comes from the environment, and while the 
environment is one factor, fear is determined by the individual.

Another flaw, and one that I think is somewhat fatal is that one 
cannot understand a system unless one understands the system in which 
it exists, and the bigger one beyond that and so on. While it is 
worthwhile improving a local system, without affecting the larger 
systems in which the local one is embedded, only very limited 
progress is possible.

Hence, back to the notion of a utopian based belief system.


> I think that if we really want to "extend" Dr. Deming's work, we need
> to find those areas that are weak or perceived as weak and shore them
> up with some acceptable research. I'm not sure whether we can find
> some common ground with which all the different psychology schools
> will agree, but maybe we should entertain the idea. Probably to
> Robert's point, I am not qualified to discuss psychology in any great
> depth. We certainly have some qualified folks in this forum, though,
> don't we?

I agree. And, at least, on this list there has been a pronounced 
shift in that direction (small but noticeable) compared to 5 years 
ago.

gotta run...supper

Robert Bacal