Re: Nonstatistical improvement

["Anton O. Tolman, Ph.D." <ANTON@wsh.state.wy.us>]

I said:

> >>I think at least in Deming's approach, he *emphasized* that most of the
> improvement would NOT come via statistical means but through other routes.<<

Kromkowski replied, really raising two separate issues.  First:

> I think I that I can come up with an acceptable idea of what I think you
> mean.  But I think that it is more likely than not that this kind of
> statement will be twisted into  an apology for failure to use data with
understanding of variation.  Especially when coupled, as you did, with a
cut against Taylor. >

JD then spoke about operational definitions and use of control charts.

I have no quarrel with the use of statistical tools.  I think they are vital
to understanding quality and are rightly one of the four pillars of the SoPK.
My point was to echo Deming's point that really we are talking about two
issues:  1) process and system improvement, and 2) quality management.  The
two go hand in hand, but different aspects of the SoPK apply to different
elements.  Understanding variation is critical to process and system
improvement; it is also part of quality management -- understanding what you
know and what you do not, etc.

Deming is clear in his books and discussions that improvement of processes
and systems *alone* (which is what many companies try to do) falls short; to
me it is clear from what he said that the Deming philosophy is MOSTLY about
quality management.  If you can shift the way management thinks about people,
about systems, and about aim, purpose, etc. *then* statistical improvement is
a valuable tool in the armamentarium of the manager/executive.  Without
understanding quality management (and I don't mean to get into discussions
about jargon and whether Deming liked those terms or not), statistical
information is impotent in the long run.  That was my point.  We need both.

My recent example of improvements on the Adolescent Unit is illustrative.
Those significant achievements were largely the result of managing by the
SoPK; statistical methods were a sideline -- they were used as part of
the SoPK to determine if the changes we made in fact made a difference, but
they did not *drive* the improvement.  The next step on the unit was
precisely to begin teaching the staff statistical methods so that they could,
on their own, and in their now functioning teams, utilize data in proactive
steps to create cycles of improvement in how the work gets done.

So do not get me wrong -- I believe in statistical methods, I believe in
Understanding Variation, but it is not the be-all of Deming's approach.

> Let's also consider what Deming said about removing barriers that rob people
> of pride of workmanship.  At p. 77, Chapter 2, OOTC, Deming notes:
>
> "How can anyone on the factory floor take pride in his work when he is not
> sure what is acceptable workmanship, and what is not, and cannot find out?
> Right yesterday; wrong today. What is my job?"
>
> Don't you think that Taylor was trying to address this issue.

Yes and no.  In this case Deming is talking about operational definitions,
and certainly no one could argue that Taylor at the minimum provided
operational definitions of acceptable work!  The problem is with the 2nd part
of what Deming was saying -- pride in his work.  Taylor was part of the
reason that pride was removed.  Who decided what the job was?  Who decided
what the operational definition of "acceptable" was?  The workers had NO say -
- they had NO input; they were told by the "experts" what was acceptable and
what was not.  Taylor was convinced that *he* was right and the workers did
not, could not understand how to contribute.  One has only to review his
writings or his testimony before Congress where he repeatedly compares
workers to animals to get a sense of his view of the worker's input.

I think that Taylor WAS addressing the issue of what was possible for a
worker to do.  Taylor was also intent on breaking the guild system and the
"soldiering" that was going on at the time.  He was NOT intent on "joy in
work" or upon pride in workmanship or in quality of outputs.  Take some time
to read Kanigel's "The One Best Way" to get a really good understanding of
Taylor's life and impact.

In contrast, and consistent with his emphasis on systems, Deming was
concerned with the whole system; with geniune pride in workmanship AND
efficiency, with concern and involvement of those who did the work.

Anton Tolman, PhD, CPHQ, Psychological Services Manager &
Quality Management Coordinator, Wyoming State Hospital
P.O. Box 177, Evanston, WY  82931-0177
Anton@wsh.state.wy.us    (307) 789-3464
========================================================================