RE: Web-based, enterprise-wide, SPC-based performance improvement

["Alan Meekings" <alan@landmarkconsulting.co.uk>]

[Moderator's Note:  whether or not you are a fan of Stephen Covey, his admonition
to "Seek first to understand, then be understood" would seem to apply here.  Perhaps
we can move forward with a more balanced dialogue, as Alan suggests?  ]

I note with some dismay the responses, so far, to my earlier posting about
the potential impact of a new genre of web-based, enterprise-wide, SPC-based
performance improvement software (when coupled with other key ingredients).

No-one, so far, has expressed any interest in what I might have to say.
Instead, the default response seems to be to explain - in some detail - why
I'm misguided, instead of trying to explore what might be behind what I was
saying.

I'd have certainly been inspired to say more on this forum if I'd received
even one response along the lines of, "Alan, you appear to be convinced
there's something of merit here. If I had a concern, though, my perspective
is somewhat different. Help me understand [such-and-such, or why do you say
so-and-so]?"

As it is, it feels like I'm pushing water uphill if I try to contribute
something new and different to this forum for discussion and exploration.

For example:

(1) John Dowd says, "I do not favor automated charting." John then goes on
to explain why he's basically right and I'm basically wrong, throwing-in a
particular reference to Toyota (as if that proves anything).

(2) Allen Woods says, "Let me give you two reasons why all singing and
dancing reporting tools are not as capable as their designers would like us
to think." Allen then goes on to talk about stuff that bears no relation to
what I was trying to get across in any case - concluding, perhaps somewhat
generously, "I'll believe it when I see it."

There seems no point in me trying to respond to John or Allen, as discussion
on this forum (at least on this particular topic) appears stuck at the level
of 'assertion'. 

Maybe this is a function of the medium itself, rather than the intent of the
participants.

The good news, though, is that Allen Woods and I do correspond from time to
time. Hence I'm aware that he'll have the opportunity to see this new genre
of software at a Fringe Meeting at this year's Performance Measurement
Association Conference in London on Wed 26 Jul. 

I'm sure we can rely on Allen to report back to this forum, once he's had a
chance to "believe it when I see it." If, after seeing this new genre of
software, and its application in practice, especially in situations of fast
moving operational data, he's unconvinced, then I'll be the first to admit
that at least his contribution will be an informed critique.

Meanwhile, I find the responses to my message so far doubly sad, in the
light of Phil Hooper's earlier contribution, tracing its roots direct to Dr
Deming.

Phil said, "I still believe strongly that the Theory of Variation is the
Cornerstone of Deming's teachings. I don't believe one can come close to
understanding the basis of what Dr. Deming had to say without an
understanding of the Theory of Variation. You might disagree, that is okay.
I will relate to you that one evening in Los Angeles back in about 1985 when
we were having Dr. Deming's favourite vanilla ice cream in his room (31
Flavors). I asked him directly if it would be accurate to say that the
Theory of Variation is the Cornerstone of his thinking and teachings. He
asked me to repeat my question which I did. Then he looked up at me and
said, "Sounds about right to me.""

Is there any chance that this forum may be able to discuss the implications
of the new genre of software I mentioned? Or is this forum stuck with the
benefits of manual charting, as John Dowd suggests?

Regards as ever,
Alan
Email: alan@landmarkconsulting.co.uk
Mobile: 07785 258 741