Response

[John <jsdwd@ispwest.com>]

Hello,

One of Petter's posts intrigued me.

It is an issue I have some thoughts on, so I thought I'd share them.

In this post and others he has asked us to think about the meaning of the
so-called Deming Revolution.  A wonderful question and it's certainly gotten
folks thinking and some good replies.

I think there may be a slight tendency to interweave the development of his
philosophy with a kind of snapshot view of its meaning.  That is, his
philosophy developed over time and changed quite a bit.  Leaving aside (for
the moment) whether those changes were for the good or not,  this
developmental nature gives an observer differing perspective depending on
the timeframe considered.

That his ideas should change over time is predictable (inevitable, really)
and one has only to compare his Mt. Hakone speech given in August of 1950 in
Japan to the framework envisioned in "The New Economics..." to see the
difference.

I have spent the last few years working primarily in Asia and much of the
psycho//social content of later Deming thinking applies quite differently
than it does in the U. S.   The core ideas of competitive practice, however,
don't change much. (i.e. The Deming Chain Reaction, Process Viewed as a
System, PDCA, etc.).  (for more information see my web page
http://www.jsdstat.com)

As for Petter's question. He asks:

"Is the problem with the Deming philosophy that most Demingites didn't
really understand the Deming philosophy, and got confused by focusing too
much on the psychological issues (Kohn etc) rather than on the engineering
disciplin (sic) of understanding and improving the organization as a
("railway") system?"

(I might suggest dropping the word 'Demingites'.  It conjures up an image of
an obsessive  person - a stereotype - that I'm not sure exists.  I am
knowledgeable about Deming, his theories and his history.  I don't think of
myself as a "Demingite"., I also follow the Red Sox closely :-)

In any case,

 The separation of focus on '...psychological issues..' from the emphasis on
'...engineering discipline of understanding and improving..." is revealing
and a frequently heard comment about Deming.

I would point out that these are not two different things.  There is a lot
of 'psychology' (actually more than just psychology) involved in getting
people to "...(focus) on the '.. Engineering discipline of
understanding...(and so on)'.  There is no science or engineering apart from
psychology.  Science and engineering are conducted by humans, so psychology
is involved and involved to a greater rather than lesser extent.

Deming came to understand this.  As his ideas (and frustration) evolved he
realized that the barriers to wholesale adoption of his theories was not
lack of scientific or statistical knowledge.

The primary source of resistance was in the psychology of individual and
organizational behavior and the fact that the economic system in the United
States rewards behaviors that do not lead to long term competitiveness.

There is a balance to be struck (harmony).  Did Deming get the right
balance?  How would we know?