FW: Lack of Deming Philosophy in Education, bounding of systems

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

In reference to the comment:
> Here are a few ideas about whether or not it is necessary to understand
> any 
> system as occurring with a series of interlocking, and sometimes larger
> and 
> encompassing systems, before one can "make substantial progress."
> 
> It seems to me that any system can be "black boxed", or defined as a set
> of 
> rules that take a set of inputs and generate a set of outputs, the nature
> of 
> which is defined by the set of rules within the black box.
---- 

I believe the above comment may highlight where my confusion may arise.  I
do not see the underlying assumption that a system can be black boxed and
have external inputs and outputs.  I do not see how the inputs and outputs
of a system can be displayed graphically, or how the definition of the
system can allow for external inputs or outputs.  I believe the black box,
process, or function model cannot replace the system model and as alternate
models, the system model is the more accurate.

For the graphical representation of a system, please refer to either the
diagram on page 4 of "Out of the Crisis" or the slightly modified version on
page 58 of "The New Economics" 2nd Edition.  The key item to notice is that
none of the arrows shown is unterminated.  There are no arrows going out
into the unknown, nor arrows coming in from outside.  There is simply
nothing within the system to generate nor handle the hanging arrows from the
black box model.  For Dr. Deming's argument against such hanging arrows, see
pages 175 - 178 of "Out of the Crisis."

The definition of a system is the aim of the system.  The system is not
defined as a set of rules that take a set of inputs and generate a set of
outputs.  In a mathematical, black box model, the output of the black box is
simply the output.  There is no way to evaluate the quality or usefulness of
the output.  There is no purpose to the output, it simply exists.  In a
system, the result of an operation is dependent upon the needs of consumer
of the operation.  Likewise, the system is dependent upon the supplier of
the inputs; the aim cannot be fulfilled without knowing the source of the
inputs.  The operation A + B = C is only meaningful within the system of
mathematics.  If we try and use Apples and Bison as inputs, the operation is
meaningless.  The concepts of Apples and Bison are outside the system of
mathematics and are completely unknown within that system.

For an aim to be meaningful, it must define what is done, who it is done
for, and who provides the resources to accomplish it.  The result of an
operation can only be evaluated in the context of the user of the output.
The feasibility of an operation can only be determined based on the supplier
of the input.  Hence, the aim must define the suppliers and users for any
operation.

I also believe that the system model is a much more practical model than the
black box model.  If we assume a system is nested within an ever expanding
network of systems, understanding is impossible.  Every time one begins to
understand a system, the boundaries are pushed back and more components are
added.  Without boundaries, understanding is not possible; the system must
be bounded.  Once one understands the aim for a system, one can evaluate the
effectiveness of the system in meeting its aim.  By understanding the bounds
of the system, one can evaluate why the system does what it does, and one
can determine what  to do to bring the components of the system in better
alignment with the aim.  

To me, the only rationale for "understanding" a system as it exists today is
to improve the system the system for tomorrow.  The black box model only
serves to document what is currently happening; it does not provide any
guidance towards the future.  I do not see the argument that the black box
model serves as an equivalent to the system model, hence it does not serve
as an argument for  interconnected systems.  Perhaps there is another
argument to show how interconnection of systems might be meaningful and
useful?

Wayne Mack
Wayne.Mack@PEC.com