Re: Rule of Thumb?

[Kromkowski@aol.com]

JDK wrote:

> I have no problem with the use of professional judgment where there is risk
> of life or serious injury.  (No need for the use of any statistics, just say
> I'm a professional and this is what my judgment is.)  But otherwise, I see
> what you have described as the same kind of rationale for tampering as well
> as labeling and self-fulfilling prophecies in industry, government and
> education.  By what method does one tell the difference between professional
> management judgment and management lack of understanding of variation?

Anton replied in part:

"Well, we are discussing different contexts here.  The purpose of an
evaluation is to make treatment recommendations or inform the court, or
something like that, about specific issues (in my case, the presence or 
absence of mental illness, the degree of functioning of the person), in order
to provide customized care."

My understanding of the purpose, stated by you above, for the evaluations was 
clear when I wrote my post. (As you and the DEN may recall, I am an attorney 
who routinely uses and cross-examines medical experts.)

Anton further noted:

"My understanding of Deming's term "tampering" was that management was in the
habit of making decision in the absence of data, OR in the presence of data,
but without an understanding of variation.  When I do an evaluation, I am
specifically aware of variation; I can quantify the likely variation in a
person's test performance over time; if I have access to prior test data, I
can make more accurate predictions about the validity of the tests and the
person's stability in functioning.  A good assessment not only makes use of
the data of the test results, but also evaluates other factors in the
environment and in the history in a search for multi-modal conclusions
regarding functioning.  In my opinion, all of this is way, way beyond what
managers typically do in making management decisions.

[JDK comment -- A lot of managers think they are just as professional and 
sophisticated in their fields as doctors, lawyers, architects, etc., are in 
their respective fields.  "Other factors in the environment and in the 
history and in the search for multi-modal conclusions regarding functioning" 
-- this must explain why I have personally had thousands of cases in which 
two medical experts disagree!]

"To me this is not that substantially different from managers or employees
making decisions based upon process data and *process knowledge* that they
have gathered and learned over time.  It is very much a PDSA cycle or
multiple cycles occurring during the course of an evaluation.

"I think we are moving away from the original "rule of thumb" discussion here
(which I saw as related to Theory of Knowledge issues) and wonder if further
discussion on this thread is useful......? "

I don't see this thread as turning away from ideas about "rejecting 
management or evaluation by rule of thumb" in the least.  You seem to want to 
stop the thread before I have really even begun my cross-examination!  

First, let's consider the following four items: 

1.  Deming's example in OOTC (too lazy right now to look it up), where WED 
presented data to a manager in a control chart and the manager suggested that 
we "just draw the limit lines closer together".

2.  Deming's statement that eyeballing will generally be wrong.  I also 
suggest here that "rules of thumb" are often just "eyeballing" by someone who 
has "power" and who can rationalize "this method" by saying that his/her 
basis is "knowledge", when in reality the power is primarily derived from 
"authority of office" and "personality and persuasive ability".
(I draw a distinction here between what Deming says about the fact that 
knowledge of the underlying subject is necessary; he gives the chemical 
process as an example.  In the chemical process, there is a specific 
predictive theory about how certain compounds react over time, under 
pressure, and in the presence of which solvents and catalysts.  
Unfortunately, medicine and your subfield are really way behind the chemists 
and physicists in predictive theory. Sort of a redunant redunancy -- 
"predictive theory".)

3.  The funnel experiment, with a new Rule 2.1.  Rule 2.1 is as follows: 

At each drop, ONLY move the funnel from its last position to compensate in 
the following manner and under the following circumstances:

IF the amount of error was in the 90th or greater percentile (you might pick 
some other number based one's "knowledge" of the funnel experiment) as 
compare with previous drops, * and

make the adjustment by the following example:  if the marble comes to rest X 
cm northeast of the target, move the funnel (X / 2) cm (this equation might 
also be change according to one's "knowledge" of the funnel experiment) 
southwest from where it was.

Is this proposed "rule of thumb" tampering or indicative of an understanding 
of variation?

[* Cf, TNE 207, numerical illustration of the funnel using the bead data, one 
might have made adjustments per Rule 2.1 on drops 5, 6, 15, 16, and 21. Of 
course after the first adjustment is made, who knows!?]

4. My very specific question in my original post:  "By what method does one 
tell the difference between professional management judgment and management 
lack of understanding of variation?"

--
John David Kromkowski
Attorney at Law
6600 York Road - Suite 108
Baltimore, Maryland   21212-2028
Kromkowski@aol.comTelephone:  (410) 377-6248Facsimile:  (410) 372-0624
========================================================================