RE: Lack of Deming Philosophy in Education

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

On 9 Oct 2003 at 22:45, Richard E. Zultner wrote:

 REZ> There is another possibility: that people reject
> Deming not because he is "wrong", but because they simply don't know
> how to apply, or how to accomplish, the aims he proposes. Isn't one
> meaning of "utopian" simply "I don't know how to do that" or "I don't
> know how to get there'? Education that sets goals people don't know
> how to achieve does not spread or survive. Where are the "Deming
> engineers" using new methods to actually accomplish Deming's aims?

Yes, I think all of us have heard a number of systems criticized as 
utopian because people don't have the wherewithal to make it work.

But, I'm thinking of logical flaws here rather than actual 
implementation. In particular, I'm thinking about the issue of 
embedded systems, and that the utopian part is that if you track 
upwards from the system you are interested in to the one that 
encloses it, you will very quickly come to the wall -- that to 
improve the one you are interested, you have to somehow influence the 
system around it, and the system areound that one, and on and on.

That barrier may in fact explain why there is resistance to the 
content of Deming's work. For example, I want to implement Deming in 
my company. But the problem is that some of the tenets may work only 
if the entire system of the industry also embraces it and that may 
only work if the world economic system embraces it, and so on.

> 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. REZ> While this "systemic" version of Zeno's paradox is
> interesting on the surface, in practice "engineers" have little
> difficulty identifying the appropriate scope for systems analysis. If
> I want to understand you, how much time do I really need to spend
> looking at your family, your neighborhood, and your society? It
> depends on the purpose of my study. Sometimes the appropriate scope is
> the system several levels above, and sometimes those systems are
> irrelevant. If this were not the case, Systems Analysis would be
> impossible -- and it is a field that is alive and well. 

I'm not talking about "studying", and to be blunt, most managers, 
execs., etc aren't interested in studying, but action to a particular 
set of goals. Quite simply, to succeed through action sometimes 
requires the ability to change the bigger system, and that's the 
utopian part. 

If my corporate board of directors is concerned only with shareholder 
return, then my ability to do things Deming is considerably limited, 
because I don't have control over that. If I want to reduce fear of 
job loss (see Myron), but the economy is so poorly run that there are 
unpredictable troughs and booms, then I am somewhat limited locally.

So, not trying to be facetious here, but to make the 
point...ultimately the only person that can actually change all the 
systems so it's not "tinkering" is god. Which is why the word 
utopian.

That's NOT to say one should give up. It's just to explain why 
Deming's work is seen as largely irrelevant (wrongly or rightly) by 
many people, and why it needs to be extended, and modified to cover 
areas which have not been addressed.

Robert Bacal