Re: Leaving out the "Q"

["Richard Hulse" <RHulse@radionz.co.nz>]

One of Douglas Adam's characters said that "the best way not to be
unhappy is not to have a word for it."

In my work I deliberately try to avoid using the jargon of any
particular 'theory of management' where that might cause what I am doing
or saying to be pigeon-holed.

When someone attaches a label to what THEY do, and we use the same
label for something WE know is different, we are seen by an outsider as
being guilty by association. 

For example, if I use the term re-engineering, TQM, QC Circles or
whatever when trying to improve a process, people will prejudge the
outcome based on their perceptions of what these terms mean. If we
instead lead people through a method, described in plain English, they
are more likely to focus on what needs to be done, rather than their
perception of what the outcome might be.

If we continually improve our theories and practices as Dr Deming did,
it seems reasonable to resist the use of Labels on the grounds that it
gives us the freedom to improve what we are doing without others
criticizing what we have done because it no longer fits the 'label'.

If one applies the SOPK in evaluating the SOPK then it follows that it
must also be improved over time. Perhaps that is why the philosophical
term 'profound knowledge' was used.

Regards,

Richard Hulse
=========================================================================