DEN Discussion List Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Target Setting
- Subject: Re: Target Setting
- From: John Hunter <managementimprovement@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 14:05:05 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=UiyfA86on+wRyynnmggmYbjFk6ierrDfY1JXO1eAXnY7WN1N6QtmhTAmsqJbBTv9jSFTR6LLPHki9lvtYLvwyo9hdC9H0Ve3++XcyKsR9W42l3tIf1V4R8EtSFRrp4jxbzrCE1z9eqGkbY1nbj1STGuKY1c+YSu82fBc1COvxaY=
Thanks for this message. I think at times we forget the type of
precision Deming included with his ideas. There is a big difference
between *arbitrary numerical* targets and targets.
We might want to avoid disagrements over what is arbitrary by saying
no targets at all, but that is not accurate. I find it helpful to
rememember the complexity required to effectively manage using
Deming's ideas, even if it makes our jobs more complicated.
John Hunter
www.johnhunter.com
On 9/12/05, David Kerridge <dfkerridge@mac.com> wrote:
> We must bear in mind that the objection is not to targets as such, but
> to *arbitrary numerical* targets.
DEN Home |
Main Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index