David discusses how they use data to understand what is working and what needs improvement with an understanding of variation. One of the tricky aspects of using data is how easy it is to be misled and jump to conclusions that are not justified. It is easy, when an understanding of variation is missing, to see the natural variation in data and jump to beliefs about success or failure when that is not a justified conclusion based on the data.
That challenge doesn’t mean that we should avoid using data. But it does mean that while data is important it is critical is to know what conclusions can and cannot be justified with the available data. It is critical to examine data with an understanding of variation.
99% of behavior is coming from the system itself. So until you are analyzing what are we doing in the system that is causing kids to have bad behavior you are never going to get anywhere.
This idea ties together psychology (neuroscience) and systems thinking to help Ingenium school to seek systemic fixes that create systems that allow students to regain the joy and meaning in learning that so many schools do not support today. Instead of trying to force compliance from kids they seek to understand the underlying conditions that lead to behavior that is not effective and change the system to allow kids to do what they naturally do: learn.
In February 1990, W. Edwards Deming traveled to Western Connecticut State University (WCSU) in Danbury, CT to deliver three lectures, an afternoon session with students, immediately followed by one with faculty and staff of the business school, followed by an evening lecture to the general public. Dr. Deming, a self-described “Consultant in Statistical Studies” approaching ninety years of age, was invited to WCSU a year earlier, yet lacked an opening in his demanding travel schedule for an appearance at the university until a year later. Throughout the day, I joined several hundred attendees for an introduction to his “System of Profound Knowledge,” the name he chose for his theory of management, yet deferred to each audience with a kind request, “if you have a better name, please help me.”
During the Q&A period of the evening session, one attendee was seeking insight on the issue of staff cutting. His question went something like this, “Dr. Deming, what do you think about the recent trend towards reducing the number of levels of management?” Before presenting Dr. Deming’s answer, consider the options. Then again, pause and reconsider the question. Although I was not a middle-level manager, I was captivated by the prospects of Dr. Deming’s answer, for it would offer another piece to the puzzle of a better understanding his theory of management. With little hesitation, Dr. Deming answered, “Why have more levels than you need?”
As for me, it was not the answer I had anticipated, nor the direction I had expected Dr. Deming to move. For some reason, I was expecting a response with advice on how many levels of management were appropriate. Perhaps 5. Perhaps 3. Instead, Dr. Deming, in his classic Socratic style, re-framed the issue with a question revealing a contextual appreciation of organizational interactions. In time, I could recognize that this was a standard reply from Dr. Deming, to answer a probing question with a probing question, always inviting inquirers to think.
My interpretation of Dr. Deming’s answer was that the number of levels of management would be dependent on the specifics of the organization, not “one size fits all.” Given a specific situation or system (which includes one’s level of thinking), one would need an appropriate number of levels. More than this would be costly. Less than this would be costly. Trial-and-error often leads to an answer. Should the situation change, I might expect the solution to change as well. Instead of a “one size fits all” solution, this activity could be defined as “managing the system,” with its inherent interdependencies.
Why Deming / Why Now – Thinking About Systems
Now, 28 years later and 25 years after his passing in 1993, consider what questions one might ask Dr. Deming, were he alive today. Perhaps a series of questions, such as;
“Dr. Deming, what do you think about the recent trend towards reducing the waste in our operations?”, or
“Dr. Deming, what do you think about the recent trend towards reducing variation in our
“Dr. Deming, what do you think about the recent trend towards reducing costs in our
“Dr. Deming, what do you think about the recent trend towards standardizing our operations?”
I would anticipate Dr. Deming approaching each of these questions with an understanding of the nature of organizational dynamics. In each case, he would suggest the need for understanding the nature of the systemic behaviors. He would suggest the value of having no more than necessary and not less. As with the prescient title of his 1993 book, The New Economics, his proposal offers a new economics, one in which the focus is on the relationships (interdependencies) between the elements of the system and not the elements taken separately (independently).
As a real-life example, one widely applicable in organizations today, Dr. Deming’s presentations at WCSU included a classic story of how an employee’s travel costs were saved by an organization’s travel department by requiring same day travel. But, the need for the employee to awake at 3am to prepare for a 6am flight from Chicago to New York left her too tired to make productive use of her afternoon meeting. Instead of reducing cost, waste, or even variation, everywhere, a more systemic approach would be to manage cost, waste, and variation and provide the appropriate levels throughout the system. He would also remind us that what appears to be waste (hotel expenses) to one observer may not appear as such to another (the traveler). As with a whale or an organization, what might appear to be fat or waste to one observer, could be an essential economic ingredient to the long-term survival of the system.
Likewise, instead of a massive effort to standardize processes within an organization, one might ask which processes should be standardized and which should be non-standard. For example, should language and software be standardized across an organization, including its supplier base, as well as sub-tier suppliers? Is there a place for left-handers? A hospital, for example, could have uniforms for nurses that differ from those for doctors and staff members, thereby making it easier for patients and their families to identify the help they need. While there’s a place for standardization, there is also a systemic limit to what is economically viable when managing the elements of a system.
Why Deming / Why Now – the Deming System of Profound Knowledge®
In appreciation of the management wisdom revealed in The New Economics, the degree to which the system “works together” can be greatly enhanced with a better understanding of Dr. Deming’s management theory, his so-called “System of Profound Knowledge.” The elements of this system consist of the four parts below, and their interrelationships;
Appreciation for a system
Knowledge about variation
Theory of knowledge
In combining these deep bodies of knowledge, Deming’s management philosophy offers a remarkably holistic appreciation of organizations that anticipates the role of systems thinking, linked to variation management, linked to a theory of knowledge (for learning together), further linked to an understanding of people (psychology). While organizations are often content to manage a growing list of symptoms of a lack of appreciation of systems, variation, knowledge, and psychology, extending from low morale to poor quality to frequent cost overruns, to customer and supplier complaints, adoption of the Deming Philosophy enables leaders at all levels to manage with a systems viewpoint, ever conscious of the difference between treating symptoms and managing systems of interdependent elements and activities.
Why Deming / Why Now – A New Economic Age
We are in a new economic age. We can no longer live with commonly accepted levels of delays, mistakes, defective materials and defective workmanship. W. Edwards Deming
Since being introduced to Dr. Deming and his System of Profound Knowledge, I’ve grown to appreciate blind spots which face today’s “Organizations as Usual” environments, with “commonly accepted levels of delays, mistakes, defective materials and defective workmanship” as a symptom of how organizations continue to manage their resources, including time, money, equipment, and people.
One way to test for what is commonly accepted in terms of the level of big problems, including delays, mistakes, and defective workmanship in any organization is to investigate the focus of attention for problems with a question such as, “How much time is spent every day in our organization, discussing parts, tasks, suppliers, customers, activities, and program milestones which are going well?” In probing with this question, through presentations, seminars, and workshops for 20+ years, we have learned that few resources are routinely dedicated to Things Going Well. Rather, they focus on an alternate “TGW,” namely Things Gone Wrong. On occasion, we have made the observation that “continual improvement, with a focus on improving what is good, must not be a priority in your organization,” unless such an effort is dedicated to fixing problems faster, rather than preventing them from occurring.
While introduced in the 1980s as a better way to manage product, process, and service quality, the Deming Philosophy is gaining momentum in the 21st century as a better way to manage systems, with applicability to any organization interested in the endless pursuit of “doing more with less.” What’s missing from the “Organizations as Usual” focus on Things Gone Wrong is the actual variation in Things Going Well, with the ability to monitor this variation as a means to prevent the eventual repeat occurrences of Things Gone Wrong. What’s also missing from “Organizations as Usual” is the ability to wonder where a “stitch in time can save nine, if not five” or ask “where is an ounce of prevention worth a pound of cure?” While these timeless proverbs, with many alterations, are the essence of what it means to manage resources as a system, we credit Dr. Deming with documenting the invisible obstacles which block these profitable pursuits.
Now, more than ever, organizations possess limitless opportunities to improve how they manage resources within a system, with a focus on exploiting interdependency, not unknowingly falling victim to managing tasks, leading to lower travel costs, in isolation. Such a dramatic change requires a transformation in how organizations both understand and manage systems, variation, people (psychology), and knowledge, the four interdependent elements of the Deming System of Profound Knowledge®.
Guest blog by Bob Browne, author of Sys-Tao – Western Logic and Eastern Flow and former Chairman and CEO of the Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Company
The question, “If Japan can, why can’t we?” conjures up the works of W. Edwards Deming. It also begs another question, “If the Japanese so easily understood what Deming was saying, why is it still so difficult for people in western societies to understand?”
The answers to these questions may be that culturally the Japanese are better equipped to understand what Deming meant by his words, “Understanding Psychology.”
In today’s world “Understanding Relationship’s” might be an easier way for us westerners to understand what Deming was trying to tell us. Deming was ahead of his time. The word “Relationships” better explains what the Japanese culture understood so naturally, and what our own modern physicists and neuroscientists are only beginning to understand today.
What follows is taken from a couple pages of my book, Sys-Tao – Western Logic and Eastern Flow. It only begins to explain the importance of relationships. “Understanding Relationships” among people is every bit as important and as hard to master as is “Understanding Variations” among stuff…which is another one of Deming’s basic tenants.
“People don’t care how much you know, until they know how much you care” John C. Maxwell
Deming’s tenet of understanding psychology (or, in my words, understanding relationships) is a prerequisite to transforming traditional (western) leadership philosophies.
A more personal spin on Maxwell’s quote sounds something more like a clever quip that Yogi Berra might have made: If you don’t think about people, how are you going to get them to think about you?
This is not fluff. It is heavy stuff. It is what quantum physicists and neuroscientists are just beginning to sort out and understand. It is a very different paradigm. It’s about the relationships that make up our world more so than the stuff that is in our world.
Newton’s classical physics is all about stuff. Matter is what matters most. It deals with inanimate objects that can be easily measured with our five senses. It is a left-brained reductionist view of the world in which everything can be reduced to its most basic elements, analyzed and reassembled into a mechanistic model that theoretically can predict the outcome of any transaction. It permeates our western culture.
Quantum physics, on the other hand, is all about relationships. It deals less with causal relations, and much more with co-relations of things we cannot perceive with our five senses —things like force fields instead of stuff, waves instead of particles, and energy instead of matter.
They are both good theories, but to understand one you must in some way let go of the other. Unfortunately, in the case of quantum physics there is very little for us to grab on to.
Quantum physics has been around for over 100 years, but just like the teachings of Deming, it is difficult to comprehend because we have so few “just-like” references (metaphors) to visualize what it is telling us. For the most of us, Newton makes perfect sense, and this quantum physics “stuff” sounds like gibberish.
Likewise, modern neuroscience has now determined that even our brains are better explained using this quantum approach.
Let’s save the science for the next chapter. First, let’s just focus on the main point: Relationships are more important than stuff.
John Wooden, the famous basketball coach at UCLA. won ten national championships, yet his coaching advice more often emphasized relationships over winning. For instance, he told his players to always thank the teammate who passed the ball after you made a basket. One player asked him this was possible during a game. Wooden responded, “Just give him a nod or throw him a finger.” The player said, “What if he’s not looking?” Wooden said, “He will be.”
Coach Wooden understood the importance of relationships and his leadership philosophies were a constant reminder. To learn more about Wooden’s leadership philosophies, go to Sys-Tao/links. You will see that he was always telling us: It is the way we play, and not the score, that matters.
“If you don’t go to your friends’ funeral, they won’t come to yours.” Yogi Berra
In this ambitious and wide-ranging book (Sys-Tao), Bob Browne tells the story of the Great Plains Coca-Cola Bottling Company, and of his career-long journey to find a better way—more efficient, more caring, more capable—for the people and the processes under his leadership. Along the way, he explains the principles necessary in order to establish a more lifelike “Process Control Environment”—something very different from the more traditional “Command and Control” structures that are so familiar in western business—and he points to illuminating connections and convergences found everywhere in the world around us, from eastern spirituality, to biological evolution, to modern neuroscience.
On April Fools Day 1980, Bob Browne and his partners invested $7.5 million in a Leveraged Buy Out (LBO) to buy an Oklahoma based Coca-Cola bottling company. When they sold the company in 2011, they had recouped over $400 million in after-tax dollars!
Ask Bob if this was his crowning achievement, and he will quickly say, “No”.
On April Fools Day 2010, Bob stepped down as President of what had become his life’s work. Privately, he began plans to sell the business and write a book in order to answer this question.
The book, Sys-Tao – Western Logic & Eastern Flow, is about the journey…not the results. The answer to this question is about a transformation…a transformation that Bob believes would make W. Edwards Deming very proud.
2010 ASA Deming Lecture – “Dr. Deming Consults on Quality for Sir William Osler” by Brent James, Institute for Health Care Delivery Research. Brent James has worked at Intermountain Healthcare for several decades. I wrote a previous post on this blog about a paper he wrote about using Deming’s ideas at Intermountain Healthcare.
The beginning of the talk provides an overview of the huge macroeconomic risks of the health care system in the USA. As those familiar with Deming’s ideas know, Dr. Deming added excessive health care costs to his 7 deadly diseases of Western management. The last 2 deadly diseases he added specifically about problems in the USA: excessive health care costs and excessive legal damage awards swelled by lawyers working on contingency fees.
Next, Brent James looks at the long term history of health care in the USA and the great gains achieved during the 1900s. On this success Brent says
As he explained earlier that vision was to learn what was working and what wasn’t by collecting and studying data on patients and experimenting using the scientific method to improve health care results.
The presentation then explores the enormous opportunities for improvement in the current health care system. One of the many very interesting ideas Brent presents is the problem of spreading new medical knowledge to the people working in the healthcare system.
[People] couldn’t keep up. He [researcher] found that 3 to 4 years 14 to 15 years after initial board certification 2/3 of internists couldn’t pass the qualifying exam. Even better work came from John Williamson at Hopkins, Williamson demonstrated that for a major new research finding to make it into widespread practice across the United State takes about 17 to 20 years.
I hear a lot of talk about companies wanting to hire the best and the brightest (I’m going to abbreviate this as BaB for this article). But I wonder if that’s a great long-term strategy? Is there something better?
When building a business, we’re often so focused on the parts that make up the system of our business that we forget that our business is itself a part of a bigger system. Is it selfish for a business to hire only BaBs? Would it be better for that business, in the long haul, to hire average people and help them become great? Would that be a short term sacrifice that would benefit the bigger system and thus ultimately the business itself?
It’s interesting that there’s a book designed to teach managers how to keep the BaBs that they hired. That’s a fear isn’t it, with hiring a BaB – the fear of their mobility. Compare the loyalty of the BaB you just hired from another company versus someone who your company helped develop into a BaB.
“For all the hype that surrounds stars, human resources experts have rarely studied their performance over time. Six years ago, we started tracking high-flying CEOs, researchers, and software developers, as well as leading professionals in investment banking, advertising, public relations, management consulting, and the law. We observed that top performers in all those groups were more like comets than stars. They were blazing successes for a while but quickly faded out when they left one company for another.”
Why might this be? One of the key reasons cited has to do with systems. The performance of any individual is a combination of her own individual performance plus her interaction with the system in which she works. The equation looks like this, where P is performance, I is the individual’s contribution, and SI is the contribution due to the individual’s interaction within the system: P = I + SI
Even if you knew P, you’ve still got a single equation with two variables. And the SI term is constantly changing over time, so it’s ultimately impossible to measure. When you remove the BaB from their system and bring them into yours, you’ve really no idea what P will become.
A business that takes the long term view need not be in a rush to hire BaBs. Because it believes in strengthening the system in which it is a part, a business with long term vision will develop its employees. It will help its employees continue their education (and here I don’t necessarily mean a traditional college education). It will constantly bring in new knowledge from the outside and share that knowledge with any employee interested in learning.
When I look back on my life, the happiest, most energetic and productive times were when I was in a development spurt. I was eager to challenge myself, venturing outside my comfort zone little by little, and getting better every day. And it’s not just my experience. Listen to Liz Wiseman talk about the power of rookies. But people won’t take themselves out of their comfort zone, learn, and develop, unless they feel safe.
Many business environments are not suitable for inspiring learning. We only learn by making mistakes, and when mistakes are not tolerated, or there’s an environment of fear, or short term thinking, forget it – you’re not going to have much luck growing BaBs from within.
If, however, you build an environment free from these things, safe and conducive to exploration and learning, this is a very sustainable model. This leads me to one last great reason to build your own BaBs instead of hiring them from the outside: those BaBs know how important it is to preserve the environment in which they flourished. A rock star from the outside won’t have this important understanding, and what’s worse, they may bring along baggage from their previous company which tends to threaten that safe environment you’ve worked so hard to build.
Guest post by David Kachoui (previously published in Quality Progress, August 2014): Director of Business Development at Natech Plastics
To celebrate “Restaurant Week,” my daughter’s first-grade class recently turned its classroom into a restaurant for a day. Parents were patrons. Students ran operations. Upon arrival, we were greeted by a polite, 6-year-old host with a white shirt and bowtie. He checked our names on the reservation list, walked us to our table and handed us our menu. A shy girl served drinks. The waitress, who happened to be our daughter, took orders. Later, she picked up the orders from the first-grade chefs and served our table.
As I sat eating my taco, I noticed every parent had wide smiles. I did, too. The sight was cute: We were all proud of our children and the experience of getting served by them was fun. When we finished, we gave our bill to the little cashier and paid him $5, which he tucked into the proper compartment of the cash register. My wife was so impressed that no one spilled anything. This got me thinking that this was actually impressive on a much deeper level.
Edwards Deming, the father of the quality movement, defined quality as “pride in workmanship.”1He proposed that the root cause of the lack of quality lies, in part, with our educational system.2The necessary behaviors for quality are innate in children, but generally are crushed over time.3
In other words, something we are doing is sabotaging a national culture of quality. I cannot disagree. I have gone through the recruiting process with hundreds of college graduates and have been struck by the general lack of some key fundamentals that are necessary regardless of industry. Basics like self-education, self-initiative and self-discipline are too rare. As a result, organizations must devote considerable resources to teach these fundamentals.
But what I saw in the first-grade restaurant was something different. Fujio Cho, the former Toyota president, identified respect for people and continuous improvement as the automaker’s two core pillars.4 On this day, I saw both of these pillars to the point that these did not feel like 6 and 7-year-olds. In a surreal way, this seemed more like an actual restaurant—which happened to be run by miniature adults.
I noticed that unlike the parents, the children were not smiling. This was serious business for them. They had a sense of self-respect, respect for one another and ownership over performing their jobs well. Nobody was teaching them what they were supposed to learn. They were figuring things out and making improvements on their own while they went along. At first, the busboy picked up dishes by hand and carried them to his tray. By the end, he was carrying the tray to tables so he did not have to keep walking back and forth.
I cannot help but wonder how many of these children will maintain this level of pride in their work during the next five to 10 years, and how many will have it crushed somewhere along the way. We must move beyond quality in the product, the individual and the organization, and toward a broader cultural movement as a society, and that starts with our children.
Much has been learned in the professional world about quality, which could be useful to our educational system. At some point, should industry take responsibility and make a commitment for progress toward a societal quality culture? If our schools were to output children with this level of pride in their work as the norm rather than the exception, all industries would benefit. Looking through the lens of a business professional with a passion for quality, the deeper reasons for the success of restaurant day provide useful insight toward what a quality culture really means and how to get closer to achieving it.
Motivation and age integration
One thing that restaurant day got right was age mixing: Children were not segregated with only children of their own age. Teachers were in the mix working with the children. One oversaw the cash register, and another watched the kitchen. Both were engaged in activities and available to guide as needed. Parents played the roles of diners. So here we had children working with adults to serve adults. As a result, the children were motivated to perform their important tasks to the best of their abilities.
Deming said that competition squeezes out intrinsic motivation while collaboration nurtures intrinsic motivation, curiosity and joy in learning.5 According to Peter Gray, age segregation of children contributes to competition, while age mixing contributes to self-education, learning and supportive teaching.6 This means that if learning activities were to expand to children of multiple ages, the collaboration and intrinsic motivation would increase.
The pursuit of gratification
The children had a greater sense of importance than they normally would in a typical classroom lecture. These children were not having fun, goofing off, getting bored, whining or doing the things we would normally expect from kids. They felt a sense of importance through meaningful work. They were attentive. I saw pride in the work of every student. The busboy hovered over my wife like a hawk until she finished her drink so he could clear her cup right away. Nothing was getting in between him and his job. The children might have been happier watching TV, but they would have felt no sense of accomplishment.
Rather than just wanting to have fun all the time, children actually get intrinsically motivated by mastering new activities.7 Intrinsic motivation to achieve a sense of accomplishment is more closely associated with the emotion of gratification than happiness. This warrants a closer look at the difference between the two emotions.
Andrew Ortony defines happiness as a simple emotional reaction where one is “pleased about a desirable event.” The more desirable the event, the greater the intensity of happiness.8 Gratification, on the other hand, is a more complex emotion where one “approves of one’s own praiseworthy action and is pleased about the related desirable event.” The intensity of gratification experienced depends on the levels of praiseworthiness, unexpectedness and desirability.9
In other words, the harder you work at something and the less likely you are to achieve it, the greater the feeling of gratification after you actually succeed. Eating a tasty meal brings happiness, but not gratification. Climbing Mount Everest yields high gratification accompanied by intense misery along the way.
Lessons from history show us that children derive great gratification by impressing adults. As an 11-year-old locksmith apprentice, Harry Houdini impressed his boss and a large prisoner by unlocking a set of handcuffs without a key.10 Albert Einstein impressed his uncle who would give him math challenges he playfully doubted he could solve.11 The rest is history.
Back to the classroom: The scene was just as chaotic as a real restaurant yet just as productive on more than one level. For the most part, the children had to figure out how to solve problems on their own or together. The teachers were not authoritarians in complete control of obedient children. They were available—not to control, but to guide when necessary. Rather than compete with one another, everyone had to support one another to keep figuring out how to deal with the new challenges. They were continually improving as a team.
Continual improvement requires continual learning. In the pre-mass production era, craft production was the method of teaching. The master craftsperson would continually improve while teaching the apprentice in a plan, do, teach and improve cycle.12 Toyota has achieved impressive continual improvement with this model,13 which is the envy of many organizations across many industries. Incorporating this craftsperson-apprentice model into education would alter the typical teacher-student relationship to a model that is more conducive to continual improvement.
Spread the learning
A restaurant run by first graders could go horribly wrong. The children, teachers and administrative staff deserve credit for succeeding. This should be treated as a beginning to a successful pilot worth expanding. The spreading of best practices entails spreading learning and understanding, not just replicating the solution as a tool.14
In other words, making every day restaurant day would not guarantee that every child graduates with pride in workmanship. This could be expanded in either time (regular restaurant days) or content (other variations of the classic lemonade stand). Running different “businesses” would impart different skills and knowledge.
In whatever form an expanded pilot takes, the educational leaders must have a full understanding of the deeper purpose. The results should be observed specifically from the perspective of learning the essentials of quality. In such a scenario, children would figure out so much more than they could ever be taught in the traditionally structured classroom.
These suggestions actually apply to professionals of any age. Starting at first grade gets us closer toward finding the root cause of the problem. Industry can help provide the solution for our educational problems. But ultimately, education will provide the solution for our industry problems.
Rafael Aguayo, Deming: The American Who Taught the Japanese About Quality,Simon & Schuster, 1990, p. xi.
Edwards Deming, The New Economics,Massachusetts Institute of Technology Center for Advanced Engineering Study, 1994, p. 6.
Ibid, p. 122.
Warren R. Plunkett, Raymond Attner and Gemmy Allen, Management: Meeting and Exceeding Customer Expectations,Thomson South-Western, 2008, p. 95.
Deming, The New Economics,see reference 2, p. 121.
Peter Gray, “Why We Should Stop Segregating Children by Age: Part II—The Unique Educative Qualities of Age-Mixed Play,” Freedom to Learn, 17, 2008.
Deming, The New Economics,see reference 2, p. 111.
Andrew Ortony, Gerald L. Clore and Allan Collins, The Cognitive Structure of Emotions,Cambridge University Press, 1990, p. 86.
Ibid, p. 148.
William Kalush and Larry Sloman, The Secret Life of Houdini: The Making of America’s First Superhero,Atria Books, 2006.
Walter Isaacson, Einstein: His Life and Universe,Simon & Schuster, 2007, p. 45.
Jeffrey K. Liker and James K. Franz, The Toyota Way to Continuous Improvement,McGraw-Hill, 2011, pp. 21-22.
In the new way, management introduces, through consumer research, a 4th step, and runs through the 4 steps is a cycle, over and over
Design the product (with appropriate tests).
Make it; test it in the production line and in the laboratory.
Put it on the market.
Test it in service; through market research, find out what the user thinks of it, and why the non-user has not bought it.
Re-design the product, in the light of consumer reactions to quality and price.
Continue around and around the cycle.
This iterative idea that puts the customer at the center of focus is often stated today. Even today though the practices of many companies don’t demonstrate a priority for iterative learning based on customer experiences and a concern for why non-users have not become users.
Like many of Deming’s ideas the idea of iterative customer focus can seem too simple to be very powerful. But in fact that idea is extremely powerful. Those familiar with agile software development can see the idea of delivering working software quickly and iterating based on actual customer use illustrated in Dr. Deming’s “new way” iterative cycle shown in his paper published in 1952.
The importance of learning about non-users is something that still today is often overlooked.
Another quote from the article:
The W. Edwards Deming Institute makes this paper, and many more, available on our website. As you would expect from a non-profit focused on promoting the application of his ideas, these articles are freely available with no barriers to downloading them.
Kat Vanden Heuvel, Executive Director at Sawtooth Botanical Garden, shares how Deming principles have changed the way people think and work at her organization in this video with Nicole Luisi of Aileron.
Kat discusses how the 2 1/2 day Deming seminar she attended helped her to appreciate the importance of making things visible and interactions between components of a system. She came to the seminar already practicing these ideas in her work but the seminar helped her refine and enhance how she made those ideas effective in her organization.
She mentioned how while she appreciated the importance of interactions within a system she also believed in giving people independence in how they did their work. And while that freedom to act as they believe is best is good, without the proper appreciation by everyone for the systemic impacts of their decisions such independence can lead to systemic problems.
Leaders should create a management system that lets people take pride in their work (which includes giving them the tools, education and management system that let them be successful). The balance between trusting people and setting the stage properly to help them succeed that isn’t given enough focus in my opinion. Letting decisions be made by those closest to the work is great but you need to prepare those people with the tools and understanding of the organization as a system. Doing so puts in place a strong and effective management system that reliably produces great results.