FW: Lack of Deming Philosophy in Education

["Mack, Wayne" <wayne.mack@pec.com>]

> On 1 Oct 2003 at 7:38, Mack, Wayne wrote:
> > Why is limiting the scope of a system a problem?
> 
From:	Robert Bacal [SMTP:ceo@work911.com]
Sent:	Thursday, October 09, 2003 10:01 AM
> > Because you can't understand any one system without understanding all 
> > of the systems that system is related to -- either the bigger systems 
> > in which it is embedded, or other systems that interact with it as 
> > "peers".
> 
> > PS. Lest we forget, a "system" is a human construct with arbitrary 
> > boundaries.
> 
I am not certain I agree with the idea that a system boundary is "arbitrary"
and hence with the statement that one cannot understand a system without
understanding what lies outside the system.

The first item may be merely a disagreement over semantics (I can see
multiple interpretations of the PS comment).  According to my understanding
of Dr. Deming's definition of systems, the boundaries of a system are well
defined (the aim defines the system) and the system has a long lifetime
(constancy of purpose).  With the lack of guidance given to establishing an
aim, one could argue that the definition of the boundaries for a particular
system are set arbitrarily, but the boundaries themselves are defined and
fixed.

Assuming one accepts the above, then the argument for independence of
systems becomes much more pragmatic.  One, either as an outsider or member
of a system, cannot understand the entire universe that lies outside the
system.  To the members of a system, the outside world is the unknown.  The
problem with the "system of systems" concept is addressed in one of the
diagrams in "New Economics" where Dr. Deming's original system diagram is
modified by separating the components into lower level subsystems; and also
the discussion of subsystem optimization.

Assuming that a system can be partitioned into subsystems, actions taken
within a subsystem are understandable within the context of the subsystem;
however their affects on the larger system are unknown by the subsystem.
This effectively means that the larger system does not exist for the
subsystem.

In practice, I see the above on a day to day basis.  Software development
teams do the best for the team, without regard to how it may affect the
larger project.  Individual software developers do what is best for their
individual tasks, without regard to how it may affect the team as a whole.
Within these individually defined systems, the decisions are logical and
understandable, but the notion of a larger system is destroyed.

I am not sure whether my disagreement with Mr. Bacal is one over concept or
one over terminology.  I think we can come to a better understanding of
differences through continued discussion and would welcome others to provide
their own variations of understanding of a system.  I hope the above
explains what I mean when I say that a system is independent of the outside
world and would like to hear the viewpoint of others.

Wayne Mack
Wayne.Mack@PEC.com