Re: Profound Knowledge is... (?)

[David Kerridge <dfk@mwfree.net>]

J D Kromkowski proposes a very large programme of research
on Profound Knowledge. He says:

>This is how I think we should really be proceeding:
>
>Over the course of Deming's work, a hypothesis is implicitly proposed as
>follows:
>IF top management understands and values certain ideas or concepts
>(V1,V2,V3,V4,V5,V6, ... Vn),
>THEN certain practices and approaches will be used or not used
>(P1,P2,P3, ......Pn)
>AND as a result there will be certain favorable outcomes
>(O1,O2,O3 ..... On).
>

This kind of study is my main research interest. So naturally I
agree that it is important, and that more people should work on
it. But I don't think that this is identical with Profound Knowledge,
though there is an overlap.

In business, knowledge of accountancy and law is essential knowledge,
but not Profound Knowledge. Some parts of statistics and psychology
are useful, but not profound, in the sense that (I believe) Deming meant.

As I see it, in the SoPK, WED did not try to list all the knowledge
that is needed by a manager. Instead he concentrated on things
that we have a strong tendency to get wrong, and *cannot* learn
in the ways we are used to: by experience or academic study.

What exactly makes us go wrong is another matter for research.
But we all, on occasions, try too hard, even when we know it
is wrong. And we all tamper. I can't even write this email without
tampering. (This is about the tenth draft).

Equally, I do not believe that WED included, or even tried to include
*all* the things that our instinct, or culture, or whatever it is, makes
us do wrong. Based on his studies and experience, he concentrated
on a few things that will give us a powerful start on this journey of
mental transformation, which we all have to complete for ourselves.

So a different list might have helped you or me more: we are all
different. We might be able to put together a different list that would
help more people on average. And for academic analysis of the sort that
J D K proposes, it would be different again. But for most purposes I doubt
whether it matters precisely what we include, so long as we recognise
the real problem - ourselves.

The real problem is not knowledge, but insight. If we cannot accept
that our "common sense", or education, or whatever it is, makes us
do stupid things, we cannot make progress. But we are intelligent people,
who pride ourselves on our business acumen, and reasoning power.
So the SoPK is a great blow to our self-esteem. Naturally, we fight it,
and it may be necessary to fight it, if we want to really understand it.

The surest way to miss the point is to just say "That's all obvious" and
pass on. Or, perhaps, to treat it like any other kind of knowledge.

Best wishes

David

dfk@mwfree.net
========================================================================