Dr. W. Edwards Deming

One Standard and Proven Framework?

This post is from a comment I made in LinkedIn in a discussion. Within a day I found that other discussions came to the same issue and so I started linking back to it. Finally, in anticipation, I decided to post it here so I could link back to this. As introdution, let me say that the issue was about trying to find the best method to use for process improvement. Below are my comments.

I don't think there is one standard and proven Business Process Improvement Framework that works in all situations. DMAIC works top-down for a while in industrial settings. DFSS us useful for design efforts and DOE for complex situations. Lean works bottom-up for many physical processes and is now being applied to office operations. In IT people often jump to Agile adoption as a cure for their problems.

These might work, they might not. Unless one has a good grasp of the situation and the people and problems involved there is little hope. Dr. W. Edwards Deming did provide us with a lens to do this. His System of Profound Knowledge provides a framework with which to see.

It's components are 1) appreciation for a system, 2) knowledge about variation, 3) theory of knowledge, and 4) psychology. "One need not be eminent in any part nor in all four parts in order to understand it and to apply it." says Dr. Deming on page 93 of "The New Economics". I heartily recommend this book to all practitioners of process improvement.

I have seen many efforts operate their framework without awareness and application of this SoPK. They run into all sorts of trouble. Without appreciation of a system they build or maintain stovepipe organizations with their sub-optimization. Without knowledge of variation they chase errant data points and invent local solutions that have no chance of fixing system-wide problems.

Lacking any simple theory of knowledge they follow false measures into nonsensical decisions. Without applying simple psychology they invent crazy incentive systems that only work for a short term and then corrupt long term behaviors with unintended consequences.

Understand the situation more correctly and be able to experiment. Then choose a program. All the methods today seem based on Deming's Plan-Do-Study-Act. But, since you will need upper management approval, pick a popular one and follow its paperwork model. But, use SoPK to make sure it works. That's my method.

Ticket, please!

Often, people are hesitant to try new things. They think about the risks and dangers, and forget about what they might gain or learn. There is never stasis in the world of business. If you are not growing, you are dying.

Growing requires learning, which implies risks. Dying is much more comfortable. It often takes a very long time and the decline can be hardly noticeable. Learning can be just as dramatic, if not more so. And, it is certainly more rewarding.

To make the point I tell a story. People sometimes doubt how much they can learn from just doing something once. Actually, a lot is learned from the first doing. Maybe more than from the second. Or, the third. Perhaps the most. So, I encourage you to do something at least once, even in a little way, and not rejecting it out of hand.

As I tell the story I always ask the audience what groups they dislike inside their own organizations. It is often their legal or accounting departments. So, let's pick on lawyers today.

The story starts with a group of engineers or people like those in the audience. (I just ask.) There are three of them. For convenience lets say they are all female. They are to work with a team of three lawyers (males) from their legal department. The project will take them to another city along the Eastern Seaboard via a train.

After buying their outbound tickets in the station the group met in one of the train cars and made introductions all around. One of the lawyers noticed that not all the engineers had tickets. Upon asking for details an engineer admitted that they only had the one ticket between them. Pressing for an answer on how this could be only elicited the comment "You'll see!"

Soon enough the conductor was done collecting tickets in the next car. And, before the conductor came through the door then engineers all got up and went to the front of the car. They then squeezed into one of the two restrooms and closed the door. The conductor collected tickets from the lawyers and other people in the car and noticed the restroom was occupied.

He knocked on the door and said "Ticket, please." Promptly a ticket was pushed out from beneath the door. The conductor took it, punched it, pushed it back under the door and saw it disappear. He then proceeded to the next car forward.

"Fantastic!", said the lawyers afterwards. "We must try that on the return trip."

So, on the return trip the lawyers only bought one ticket. Laughing about the trick they were going to pull on the railroad, they noticed that the engineers did not have even one ticket. Pressing for an answer on how this could be only elicited the comment "You'll see!"

So, when the conductor was in sight, the lawyers all jumped up and squeezed into one of the restrooms. They were puzzled why the engineers were not doing the same. But, closed their door as they needed.

Immediately, the engineers moved forward and into the other restroom. But, not before the last one went to the other restroom and knocked on the door.

"Ticket, please.", she said.

Re-piano

There was once, I hear, a company, (who shall not be named), who wanted to improve their margins, (and who doesn't?) They made wood cabinetry. And, they were good at it. So, at one point they decided to make something new. Something they might be capable of making. And, that was not yet a commodity. They chose to make fine quality pianos.

"How does one become a maker of fine pianos?", they asked. "Emulation", they answered. And, they decided to emulate the best. They were going to make pianos as fine as Steinway. So, right away they went out a bought a Steinway Grand Piano. The player they hired tested it and it sounded Grand. (Was there any doubt?)

Sure in their abilities they dissembled the piano and measured every aspect and tested every material. After a great many months they were confident they had reproduced every part exactly. Carefully,  they assembled a new piano and the tester sat at the keyboard. The tester played.

It was terrible! How could this be? They had copied every aspect perfectly! What could be the matter? They must discover the cause. Comparison with the Steinway was required. They had kept the parts. So, they reassembled it. The tester sat down at the keyboard. The tester played.

It also was terrible! They could not reproduce a Steinway. They could not even make a Steinway piano from Steinway parts. So, they gave up and went back to just making cabinets.

What did they do wrong? Well, their first mistake was copying. Doing it like this does not usually work. But, there was also a second mistake. Maybe even worse. They gave up.

What they did not realize, and most people don't, is that Steinway did not always make great pianos. They started making not-great pianos and improved them and their process to make them over the years. Only after years of making pianos can you make great pianos.

This is where one would normally expect the author to wax philosophic and launch into criticism of current economic activities, industries and organizations. Such a simple extrapolation of the story, however, I leave to the reader.

Look around. Who is copying? Who is making bad pianos, but with a purpose to do better? Only organizations with the yearning and possibility of change can improve. Change involves risk and making mistakes. The organization that tolerates mistakes can grow. The one that does not is already a walking corpse.

Start making bad pianos.

 

Cargo Cults

At the end of WWII, the US Air Force abandoned their many airfields on islands in the Pacific. Their presence often destroyed the local economy. Runways were built over crop fields and villages moved. The locals did not starve, however. Food brought in for the airmen was shared with the villagers. But, then this made them dependent on the cargo that arrive by ship and plane.

When the planes and airmen departed the villagers were left with a problem. Should they try to re-establish their original way of life? Or, should they bring back the planes. Many took the second route. They had observed what the airmen did and believed it caused the planes to land and bring supplies. So, they simply tried to reproduce it. They sat at bamboo desks and wore wooden headsets while repeating into bamboo microphones what they heard the airmen say. The incantations being part of their 'cargo cult'.

Those of us in process improvement recognize this folly of operating without a theory. In regular management consulting, however, this is what is known as a 'best practice'.