System/Variation discussion

[Rip Stauffer <ripstaur@vabch.com>]

It seems we are discussing something of profound import, but we are getting away
from constructive dialogue and into argument. I believe that in this particular
thread, it may be useful to "suspend our assumptions" in the sense that Peter
Senge suggests: hold them up for examination, as we talk about this subject.

The reason I say that is that everyone seems to be in agreement some things. One,
that Dr. Deming knew a great deal about variation. Two, that Dr. Deming did see
the world through the lens of the System of Profound Knowledge. Three, that the
System of Knowledge is a system.

My assumptions:

- A system can be understood through analysis, but not completely. Some aspects
of the components or subsystems can be understood through analysis. A system can
also be understood through synthesis, but again not completely. A system's aim
and its place in suprasystems can be understood through synthesis, and therefore
the ability of the interactions within the system toward the aim can be
understood. I agree with Ackoff that synthesis and analysis, "like the head and
tail of a coin, can be considered separately, but cannot be separated."
("Creating the Coporate Future," p. 16).

- Dr. Deming's knowledge of variation was prodigious. However, he had a different
view of variation from that of many other highly intelligent and skilled
statisticians. Where many statisticians are educated in enumerative studies, Dr.
Deming had learned from Dr. Shewhart that there was another type of problem that
required a different approach. This gave him a greater breadth of understanding
about variation than that enjoyed by some others.

- Dr. Deming's theory of knowledge was based on the pragmatic epistemology of C.
I. Lewis, which in turn had origins in C. S. Peirce. Both these philosophers made
strong cases for the probabilistic nature of knowledge.

- One could make a case that, since Dr. Deming was educated as a physicist, he
had considerable appreciation for a system (most of his early papers were on the
properties of gases, electromagnetic relations, etc..).

These are my assumptions as I make the following case for reconciliation of the
various viewpoints brought out during this discussion over the past few days.
Remember that I never got to have a conversation with him. I can only go by what
I have studied, and by what other people have reported.

My belief is that it is OK for Phil to state that "the Theory of Variation was
the 'cornerstone' of Dr. Deming's teachings." I don't know anything about the
equality of any of the other parts; I think that would depend on what we mean by
equal, and I don't want to open that can of worms at the moment.

However, I think it is vital to note that Dr. Deming's theory of variation was
highly influenced by his theory of knowledge and his understanding of systems. I
believe that he did not think anyone could truly understand the theory of
variation in isolation from the theory of knowledge or an appreciation of
systems. I also think that he didn't think anyone could have an appreciation for
a system, or know what knowledge was,  without understanding variation. His
appreciation for a system was also the foundation for the understanding that
people are a large part of any social system, so psychology is inextricably woven
into the mixture.

So I think it is possible to increase knowledge by, say, studying statistics. It
is also possible to increase your level of profound knowledge that way. However,
if you don't view what you are studying through the lens of a the other
components, you will only be increasing your knowledge of statistics, and you
will not increase your profound knowledge. Profound knowledge happens in the
interactions. When you realize that knowledge is prediction; you understand the
limits of your ability to predict;  you understand that those limits are set by
the boundaries of the system about which you are making a prediction; and you are
able to articulate how and why you are able to make that prediction; then, I
believe, you have the beginnings of profound knowledge.

So arguing over which one might be more important might be kind of silly. I think
the important question is, "what do YOU need to understand more?" Is it one
particular component, is it the aim, is it an interaction? In my own case,
variation has been most important to me, because that was the biggest gap in my
education. So I have spent most of my study hours over the past several years
studying math and statistics. I haven't learned nearly enough. But in the last
couple of years, I have begun to read a lot more philosophy, because there were
things in statistical theory that didn't make sense until I began to understand
the predictive nature of knowledge in general.

That is my understanding, as of this date, of the evidence I have studied so far.
Or, as Dennis Miller says, "Of course, that's just my opinion; I could be wrong."

Rip Stauffer
BlueFire Partners (nee Process Management International)
rstauffer@nhbpr.com
============================================================================