2015 ASA Deming Lecture by William Meeker – Reliability: The Other Dimension of Quality:
William Meeker begins the presentations discussing his experience with W. Edwards Deming in relation to a paper by Meeker and Gerald Hahn. The core issue related to the issues around problems in how analytic studies are treated. We have a previous post on this blog on this topic: Enumerative and Analytic Studies.
William also mentions Dr. Deming’s paper, On Probability As a Basis for Action, which we make available through our website. William summarizes what he took from the paper in reference to analytic studies:
Enumerative study: Making inferences about a static population after sampling from a corresponding frame. Analytic study: Everything else and especially sampling from a process.
Dr. Meeker showed a letter Gerald Hahn received from Dr. Deming on their paper:
Your paper is great. You refer to a new book that you published. I should be pleased to have a copy. To go on, your paper pleases me very much. In the first place, almost nobody seems to be interested in the difference between enumerative studies and statistical inference, which I called analytic problems. It pleases me much to see not only your interest in the distinction but great contribution thereto.
Dr. Deming subsequently invited Meeker and Hahn to present their paper at an upcoming Deming seminar for statisticians. During their presentation there was a great deal of vigorous debating – much of it from Dr. Deming himself. I think this is an example of some of Dr. Deming’s strengths: his lifelong interest in continually learning (you can follow his lead and read the paper he spoke so highly of, which I linked to earlier in this post) and a willingness to explore new ideas even while challenging some of the ideas being presented.
Dr. Deming said your sources of power come from primarily 3 sources. The first source is your formal position, as a student you don’t have a lot of formal position, you can’t just walk into a professor’s class and just say you’re really screwed up lets change this – just not going to work out well for you. The second source of power is knowledge. The third source of power is personality.
You may have worked with people in the past, very knowledgable people, I mean extremely brilliant people [but] have no personality. You can’t get anything done because you can’t work with them. Or you may have worked with people in the past and he is just a great guy to be around or she is just a fun person to be around and everything else but they are just clueless, they have no knowledge. Or you have someone in a formal position but they have no knowledge or personality, they have a real problem there.
Deming often said, hey you want to affect change, don’t use your formal position: that is the least effective methodology for changing the situation.
We have this concept we have to motivate people… when you understand the brain research and understand the psychological research you understand that you can’t motivate anybody. We are already well motivated…
The only thing you can do as a manager is demotivate people. When you start thinking like that you start thinking how am I operating, what am I doing that is causing people around me to be demotivated? Am I preventing them from thinking?
I believe that a manager can also take action to reduce the systemic demotivation present in the workplace (and I believe David agrees). There is a big shift in thinking from thinking that a manager must motivate people to thinking a manager needs to remove the barriers to people’s intrinsic motivation (this of course was explained by Douglas McGregor in 1960 with theory x and theory y thinking in his book The Human Side of Enterprise).
TJ Gokcen,CEO of Acquate, shared a presentation at our 2015 International Deming Research Seminar on Aim as a System.
In the presentation TJ says that one of management’s responsibilities is to coordinate communication between the interconnected components of a system.
Ensuring that feedback is shared with the parts of the system that need that information is something that sounds obvious and may not seem complicated but it is a challenge that many organizations have great difficulty with.
The effort to make this happen adds costs to the organization. Determining which costs are worth taking on and which (while they potentially may be worthwhile) should be avoided (because the benefit is not worth the cost) is a challenge.
The aim of the system sometimes may require management to change the boundaries of the components and therefore redefine them. And this is important because every system has a boundary and you determine these boundaries. These boundaries are not natural, actually management defines them.
It is also [of] utmost importance not to wait until a crisis or problem arises or merely react to circumstances to define the boundaries of a subsystem.
Often we resort to looking at the organization chart to “define” boundaries (really it isn’t defining boundaries, rather it is just defaulting decisions and blame to parts of the hierarchy without understanding the systems involved). This is easy but it is not a wise way to manage when you understand system thinking concepts and instead view the organization as a system.
The video shows the presentation by Christine Simpson and Sarah Ambrus at the 2015 Deming research seminar: Empowering Students to Lead Change. They gave a similar, and a bit longer, presentation at the 2015 Deming in Education conference on Student Led Change.
Quoting a student:
Would you ask a dentist to fix your car.
Students at the school are taught critical thinking skills while learning to apply quality tools to improve the system of education in Leander schools. That creates a culture where thinking systemically is natural (for not just teachers but students as well).
Start somewhere. Start somewhere with continuos improvement. Start somewhere… It is ok if you don’t have everybody on board, your acts and your progress will take on a life of its own and you will gain supporters and you will transform your school. It will happen.
The video shows the presentation by Ron Moen, Prediction is the Problem, at our 2012 annual conference. A previous post on our blog in 2013 included a clip from this talk and explored Ron’s thoughts which might be of interest if you enjoy this presentation.
You may benefit from reading my previous post on enumerative and analytic studies before you watch the video (if you don’t clearly understand the importance of knowing when to use analytic thinking).
use statistics to support the learning of subject matter knowledge. That was a breakthrough in the book. We were always trying to use statistics to enhance the subject matter knowledge. That was the key.
This idea seems simple and maybe unimportant but if you question how data is used in your organization you will often find it separated from subject matter knowledge. When you try to act on data alone, rather that use data to enhance your deep understanding of the specific processes and systems in your organization you can quickly misuse statistics to lead you astray.
Keep the data in its rawest form… Plot the data in the order it was generated… Make changes and use the data to decide if the change was an improvement. Any sort of aggregation and sort of symmetric function, summary statistics, you lose the power of the information.
One challenge is to create a culture that expects data to be used to improve learning and decision making. However, the use of data is not sufficient. The data must be used properly and this point is much more frequently an issue than I would hope. It is important to create systems that not only encourage the use of data but do so in a way that avoids the problems so often seen without an understanding of variation, or the difference between analytic and enumerative data, or without an understanding of other risks to misuse data.
2017 ASA Deming Lecture, W. Edwards Deming – A Kaizen Statistician, by Fritz Scheuren, NORC-University of Chicago. In his presentation, Fritz provides a personal view of W. Edwards Deming the man and Deming’s ideas.
That’s the way people understood Deming. As a critic, not as a person that gave you the opportunity to improve. That’s a problem we still have, not as much as we did then though.
Such an attitude provides an easy escape for those executives that don’t want to change. Instead of accepting the challenge to improve, just position the ideas as criticism without suggested steps to improve. Then it is easy to keep doing what you have always done.
Obviously, Fritz is not saying that everyone held such a view. The many examples of organizations adopting Deming’s ideas to improve illustrate that not everyone did; but Fritz does provide an explanation for how some people miss the opportunity to improve when they dismiss Deming’s ideas only as criticism.
As long as we do an investigation of the root cause, and there is only 1 root cause of course*, as long as we can eliminate that root cause then we will only have good parts and that is the model.
A Boeing airplane, or rocket engine, is not a bunch of parts that fly in close formation. But that [view] is how the organizations are managed.
Over the last couple of years it’s become clear to me that this paragraph from his book is a critical key to a truly sustainable economy and health for the people working in it (physical, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual).
The aim proposed here for any organization is for everybody to gain—stockholders, employees, suppliers, customers, community, the environment—over the long term. For example, with respect to employees, the aim might be to provide for them good management, opportunities for training and education for further growth, plus other contributors to joy in work and quality of life.
Note that Deming does advocate personal growth, which I think of as development.
Deming named his book The New Economics for a reason. He must have imagined a world where the aim was to provide meaningful, long term work for people, giving them the opportunity to take pride in their work.
Think about what this new economy might look like. It’s purpose driven, not money/growth driven, so as long as we can afford to pay people well enough so they aren’t worried about money, we can provide a high quality service at a much lower price. Capital sources that follow this model wouldn’t expect crazy growth, simply a modest return on their investment, similar to a credit union. Jimmy Stewart makes the case for them in the classic movie, It’s a Wonderful Life.
Daniel Quinn, in the Ishmael trilogy, hinted that it’s entirely possible to create subcultures with an aim like Deming’s recommendation. Quinn calls them tribes, and they are essentially groups of people who form purpose-based organizations. These people have chosen to step off the corporate treadmill and focus on doing meaningful, fulfilling work instead of chasing the big paycheck.
I recently discovered a film that documents a handful of purpose-based organizations as they figure out the details, interspersed with wisdom from experts. Anyone who has studied Deming will appreciate the themes, from the musical quartet that the camera constantly returns to (Deming used an orchestra to explain cooperation), scientific experimentation as a means of learning, focus on processes, and freedom of ideas. It’s exciting to see people experimenting in this space.
The film is called A New Economy, and you can stream it on Netflix as of this writing.
I wish Dr. Deming were alive to see it. I think it would have made him smile.
This webcast shows Bob Browne’s presentation, Profound Knowledge of the Real Thing, at the 2012 Annual Deming Conference. Bob is the former CEO of the Great Plains Coca Cola Bottling Company.
Among other things, this presentation is a good option for those seeking an example that provides historical business results of an organization practicing Deming management methods. Bob provides an overview of inventory (they use Just in Time inventory methods to create efficient processes and systems) and typical financial metrics to examine how their business has done using Deming’s ideas (along with theory of constraints).
If you are an established organization and something new comes along, you are more than likely going to want to use it to do what you did in the past as apposed to use it to disrupt.
The difficulty in changing is often mostly about our psychology (not the technical difficulty of operating under changed systems and processes after making adjustments to adapt to take advantage of new opportunities). Bob quotes:
It ain’t what you don’t know that hurts, it’s what you know that ain’t so.
Reality is in the process, it isn’t in the results.
This is something that is very difficult for many people to understand. Variation, risk and chance within a system mean that individual results are a poor measuring stick. Results matter but within a context of the process. If I double profits by wagering all the cash we can borrow on the roulette wheel that result isn’t a sign that we are doing much better. Using data wisely requires understanding what the data tells you and what it does not tell you.
Guest post by Lori Fry, Principal with Navigator Management Partners, originally featured as a post at https://dignityatworkproject.com/. Follow this link to listen to our first podcast with Lori.
Writer’s block – the struggle is REAL. People who know me will insist that I’m rarely at a loss for words – so what gives? Thankfully, I had a two-week break to figure out I was in a rut. Stagnant. I’d let my consulting work encroach on my personal development. My personal learning organization was suffering.
Dr. Deming’s 13th Point for Management tells us to institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement for everyone. There’s no way to put a positive spin on stagnation. Whether you are an organization of one, one thousand (or one million – we know who you are), join me in encouraging ourselves and others to practice essential behaviors that drive a culture of organizational learning.
Not long ago I hired a fairly inexperienced business analyst I’ll call Mark. What Mark lacked in polish he made up for for in initiative. He’s also the poster child for office fly-bys and lots of questions. Twice a day. Every day. “Quick” questions. Distracting? Sometimes. I try to meet his curiosity with my own. Sometimes we figure out he’s asking the wrong question. Sometimes his questions lead to new insights for both of us. I know without a doubt what he’s learned by his own initiative and curiosity is more valuable than any training or orientation program I could have developed. Organizational learning is a two-way street; curiosity helps us navigate existing streets and pave new ones.
In Point 8 of Dr. Deming’s 14 Points for Management, we’re admonished to drive outfear. Fear is the enemy of curiosity. As leaders and managers (and frankly, as human beings), we have a responsibility to support the growth and development of those around us. As a young consultant, I was asked to prepare a briefing for a very senior partner in our firm. I spent days preparing for our initial meeting and was excited for the opportunity to learn from him. His first words to me were, “I have no idea why you’re here or what we’re supposed to be doing.” Not only was I completely demoralized; from that moment, I avoided that guy like the plague. On the flip side, I’m very aware of how my words, tone, and body language can affect others. We – each of us – have the power to encourage organizational learning or squash it.
Ride the wave of true learning moments.
Have you ever been on the verge of a breakthrough and suddenly become unsettled – so much so that you have to just stop whatever it is that’s happening? Jerry Harvey, in his book How Come Every Time I get Stabbed in the Back My Fingerprints are on the Knife? (and Other Meditations on Management), calls engaging in the “prayer of communication” a means to achieve organizational learning. It’s spontaneous – it’s there before we are even aware of it – and can lead to those unsettling breakthrough moments. He elaborates through the story of a young woman who suffers with severe depression. Invited by her friend to a prayer group, she sits in silence for the full hour, and then through her tears, musters the courage to admit that she has considered suicide. Two minutes of silence pass like hours. (The moment of opportunity.) Then the Deacon breaks the silence and with a chipper and optimistic tone says, “Well, since all of us have a lot of things to do and nobody else has anything more to say, let’s all stand, bow our heads, and close the meeting with a prayer.” Harvey wants us to understand that the prayer was in progress up to the moment when the Deacon shut it down, unwilling to ride that wave to a breakthrough. So it is with learning. When the water gets rough, tighten your grip, press on, and be curious for what comes next.
Here’s to growth and new insights in the upcoming year.