Re: Harrington

[WDSG@aol.com]

[Moderator's Note: for those of you familiar with programming -- install a 
"do loop" on this message - so that you will read it several times...  ;-)
It says alot!


I would like to say that I think it is good that we have disagreements on the 
DEN.  I think it is a strength of the DEN not a weakness.  However, I think 
we sometimes get to person with no real purpose.  One example of this for me 
is: "Well, I guess we knew different Demings. Mine was a teacher named Dr. W. 
Edwards Deming."  I doubt this statement is meant to be taken literally, and 
if it is not I do not see what it adds to the discussion.  I point this out 
not because I think this is some bad act that should be punished but that I 
think we need to continue to develop a sense of how we wish to express our 
disagreements and I think that we should try to do so more constructively.

>>> "For the past 60 years we've been looking for the magic bullet that will 
improve the quality of our products, services and lives. In the 1940s, we 
applied statistics through sampling, SPC and design of experiments to improve 
our products. In the 1950s, we used quality cost and total quality control to 
bring about quality improvement. In the 1960s, zero defects and MIL-Q-9858A 
drove the quality improvement process. In the 1970s, quality circles, process 
qualification and supplier qualification became key quality issues. In the 
1980s, employee training in problem solving, team activities and just-in-time 
inventory were the things to do."
<<<

I find this statement so far from the truth that it would seriously damage 
any PDSA with this as an accepted assessment of history.  I do not believe 
Deming had such an inaccurate view (of course I may be wrong).  I do believe 
we need to improve our practice of Quality (and to do that we need to 
understand what happened in the past and why it was not more successful). 

The idea that Design of Experiment was at the core of some Quality Movement 
to me is not at all accurate.  In my experience only a few Quality 
professionals today understand what it means and how it should be applied.  
The idea that it was common place in the 40's I seriously doubt (though I 
don't have first hand knowledge of this).  I find it difficult to believe we 
would have decided to stop using DoE if it was commonly done previously.  The 
understanding I have from those that should know (like George Box and 
previously my father - Bill Hunter) is that it was not at all common practice 
and still is not outside of a few industries and even there it is isolated in 
the domain of a few experts.

I do have first hand knowledge of the 80's and the idea that we did "employee 
training in problem solving, team activities and just-in-time inventory" well 
is not even close to accurate.  We sent people to training on these things 
but other than JIT inventory the effectiveness of these efforts were poor 
(with a few exceptions that really did well).

"Quality" is not being practiced anywhere close to the level with which I am 
satisfied with in more than a few organizations.  We have huge improvements 
to make in the practice of DoE, SPC, process improvement, having decisions 
made by the appropriate level (as close to the issue as possible), 
leadership, teamwork, data based decision making, the use of basically all 
the Quality tools, systems thinking, transformation...  We are much closer to 
the 3rd grade level in the practice of Quality Management than we are to 
doing so well that we now need to shift our focus to new problems (I also 
think Deming understood that we have not come close to applying his ideas as 
they should be applied - within a system…).

In my opinion, the main reason 6 sigma is doing so well is because it does a 
better job at actually getting the tools used (it would be best to transform 
the organization but if that is not going to happen - which is a safe bet for 
most every organization - 6 sigma does a good job of getting the tools used 
successfully).  I have problems with 6 sigma but overall I think the reason 
it is popular is precisely because the paragraph above is wrong.  We talked a 
good deal about some of those issues in some of those decades but we did not 
come close to adopting them as our way of doing business.

If someone missed out on the idea that creating joy in work and other 
"obligations to humanity" were part of quality in the 80's and 90's I don't 
see how casting it as some new idea is going to get us to focus on it.  One 
of my problems with 6 sigma is what I think is a lack of focus on these 
important ideas, I could keep going but I have to end sometime so I will.


                John Hunter
                Curious Cat Deming Connections
                http://www.curiouscat.com/guides/deming.htm

===========================================================================