Re: on the word---Profound

[WyoCheek@aol.com]

Del writes 
<< <<The purpose is to use the technique of dialogue to let  the all people 
involved to begin the journey to Profound Knowledge, and,  themselves, "bring 
forth"/develop the plan needed to implement the Deming  approach in "THEIR" 
organization. >>

In a message dated 10/6/99 10:14:33 PM Mountain Daylight Time, FVoehl@aol.com 
writes:-----
While I agree with DEl's approach, I must caution you to be careful to avoid 
the phrase *profound knowledge* with a new and unfamiliar audience or group 
as it is a turn-off every time.
  
------So I write,

This is so true so to break down communication and understanding barriers, I 
have PSDA'ed the use of the phrase "eventual mastery of the necessary 
knowledge in certain subject areas."  I get a far better reaction what I want 
them to learn and why now and  what WED taught over all than the other way. 
This idea of something being "profound" scares many away from even trying to 
start to learn. It conjures up an image of having to be a far superior 
student to start in order to someday grasp it, in my mind 

Frankly even if WED called it a "System of...",  I've never seen or treated 
it as being a system at all. One only has to contrast it to Appreciation of a 
System where people, equipment, environment, methods and material exist as 
elements with an aim and theory to see where I am coming from. The two could 
not be more unlike as I see them.    

That is unless one treats a system as a process which means a method. This I 
have seen on a regular bases....I recall the one post where the issue was 
"tripping over the system" using the hardware store and his dog. In any case, 
 it was clear in the post that the process did not represent the system.  

If anyone agrees/disagrees with me I welcome the debate because wasn't it his 
use of the Red Bead Exp. other than being a study in variation where he 
showed it was the 'system" causing the problem while the Funnel was used to 
show that the people caused the larger problem by tampering?" And in both 
experiment a system (PEEMM) with an aim and theory existed?

I rest my case that "A System of Profound Knowledge", which he came to late 
in life, is not a system at all but an interconnect set of knowledge areas to 
be mastered as the key part of the management knowledge process necessary for 
forming a lens to see through before doing anything else on the problem at 
hand. 

We all have used the "earth is flat' theory proven incorrect before, so I ask 
then why we can not do the same with WED's use of  Profound and system. Could 
he have misused the word and thus an incorrect operational definition entered 
into the language which thus has lead people off to the Milky Way?  I believe 
this has been the case because even he said, "Management is a process with 
the output quality."  How can a process be a system then? The desired output 
of any system is the system's aim and this is described in terms of its 
quality....the producers and the customer based upon a price agreeable to the 
customer, not the producer.    

SCheek DDS
==========================================================================