Conference 7.286::digital

    Well, I don't know about Deming, but I absolutely agree that the
    break-up of AT&T and deregulation of the airlines was a major, major
    mistake.  It has cost us billions and lowered the level of service.

    I, too, went to Dr. Demings lecture... I didn't get the idea that he
    was for ALL companies being monopolies.  I liked the way he told
    people, when asked about ...how to go about changing?  he replied, Just
    DO IT!  Being a Personnel person, I especially liked his thoughts on
    employees... they are NOT assets, they are GEMS/JEWELS and should be
    treated as such.  I also liked his thoughts on eliminate Performance
    appraisals and Pay for Performance... it really doesn't work.  His
    examples of how management makes short term "profit" decisions at the
    expense of long term productivity gains were typical.  I also
    especially liked his idea that we should focus on COOPERATION vs.
    COMPETITION.  
    
    I agree that the Japanese culture was probably more accepting of his
    ideas... especially when companies got together to see how they could
    ensure that people stayed working, as they recognized that
    unemployement is BAD for the country -- no tax dollars coming in.
    
    In summary, I thought his ideas were good -- I really would have liked
    to have heard him speak 50 years ago, when he was in his prime!
    
    cj
    

re: .2

I don't know about ALL companies but he certanily was in favor of cartel or
monopoly in all major industrial sectors.  As far as pay for performance,
your statement is exactly the kind of thing I had heard 2nd or 3rd hand which
I wanted to hear 1st hand.  It was very clear that pay for performance IS 
supported, the key is "how do you measure performance?" Demming seemed to be
saying that the performance of the company was the relevant metric so that 
everyone got the same performance rating.  However, his ideas seemed to rest
on the presumption of virtually infallible top management.

Again, there are implications in Demming's ideas that he did not address. For
example: In a cartel or monopoly based economy how do individuals move from
an intolerable position? They can't easily offer themselves on an open labor
market, there is none. They can't start their own business easily because the
cartel controls the industry; etc.  Demming seemed to deal with this by saying
that such situations couldn't exist because the top management had "learned"
his way and would always act in the best interests of everyone.

There, once more, is the repetitive notion that everyone in a society has the
same ideas as to what is in their best interests. There seemed to be no allowance
for differences.

Of course things like concentrating on short term profit is not good are correct.
Concentrating on cooperation is good too, BUT, only up to a point!!!!!!

If there is no competition there is no motivating force for improvement besides
the good will of top management. Demming seems to rely on the perfectibility of
mankind (as long as he gets to define perfect). This is absurd and has proven
time and again through history to be a failure. Communisim is based on the same
type of premise: "there will rise the new Communist man, who will gladly work
for the betterment of the state...from each according to his ability...".

Several good questions were asked which Prof. Demming treated with scorn, I was
disappointed about this because it seemed as though he was unwilling to offer
any support for his ideas beyond the "BECAUSE I SAID SO" argument.

Specifically when asked: "Wouldn't this approach tend to stifle individual
creativity?"   Prof. Demming said "Nonsense, if wouldn't do anything of the kind."
And that's all he said.

On another question "How do you relate the current economic crisis in Japan
(the Nikkei index losing 50% of its value in 3 years) to your ideas?" He 
answered "There's no problem in Japan, Americans don't know how to read
their numbers."   That's fine, it might even be true; but, an explanation
of how to read them should have been given. I, for one, refuse to bow to an
"expert" on their own say so.

I, too, would have liked to hear him in his prime. I don't think that his ideas
were good once he took them beyond the scale of a single company. As most utopians
in the past have done; he unsuccessfully tries to apply the type of interpersonal
dynamics that exist in family units far beyond their scope.

re: .1

	Personally, I haven't noticed a degradation in phone service, but,
	since I hate argument by anecdote I don't give that much weight.
	I have noticed, however, a huge proliferation in telecommunications
	services at very good prices since the break-up.

	As far as the airlines go. I, again don't have much personal experience,
	but, I have seen statistics which seem to show that many more people
	are flying many  more miles for a lot less money than before deregulation
	so I guess I ask you to support your contentions.

	That is not to say, by the way, that there won't be confusion and 
	dislocations in the industry for a number of years while the new
	freedom works itself out.

Alan

    re.2
    
       In regard to Personnel Departments, Mr.Deming has written thus;
    
                            "Fire Personnel"
    
       Now that is a capital idea.  One that I would advocate for DEC.
    
                                                    Ron

    Hey... wait a minute... I don't think THAT's a great idea.  :-)
    
    Believe it or not, there are some very good Personnel departments in
    this company!!  Or course I am biased.
    
    CJ
    

The fact that the ideas are radical doesn't make them less true.  Japan was the
best place for him to get some of those ideas implemented.  I was impressed by
one comment which he made.  He said that, when he met with the Japanese
leaders, he was addressing 80% of the control of the capital in Japan.  In the
US, we could not find out who controls 80% because it is so spread out in this
country.  With  control comes responsibility.  In this country, nobody appears
in control so nobody is responsible.  I suspect that Dr. Deming likes
monopolies because then you have someone who you know is responsible.

On to one of his other basic ideas.  The more I listened to the talk, the more
I could see where Digital was heading 180� from his ideas about employing
people.  As stated in an earlier reply, he felt the "Pay for Performance" was a
silly (too strong a word??) concept.  He believed that performance can not be
measured.  He also didn't believe that monetary rewards improve results.

Finally, I really appreciated one of the examples that he used about one
department saving money which costing the company elsewhere.  His example was
of a person who had to get up a 1:30 A.M. in Chicago to be in New York for an
afternoon meeting because the travel department got a great deal on tickets if
she took a 5:30 A.M. flight rather than a mid-morning flight.  He pointed out
that the person would not be in very good condition, mentally or physically,
when attending the meeting.  We, Digital, have this same problem,  I could
waste 2 more hours on a 1 hour flight if I were to follow the travel guidelines
as currently written.

His comments were interesting seeing that Digital was the "sponsor" of the
event.

Wish I could take his four day course,
Lee G.

re: .6

You are right, some of his thoughts are cogent. I think the saying is 
"Penny wise and pound foolish" which descibes his travel anecdote. 


I took a totally different slant on his "80% of the capital...." anecdote.
Personally, I'm thrilled that you couldn't possibly get  that much power 
concentrated in that small a group in this country. I highly value the safety
(and resiliency) that comes from the diversity.  The manner in which he spoke
of this incident was further proof of his anti-democratic, pro-autocratic
philosophy. 

It is quite evident that Prof. Demming is only happy when power is tightly 
controlled by a few at the top. My question is if "with control comes
responsibility." then to whom are the controllers responsible???? What is to
preclude them from running everything to satisfy their own whims?  If there
is any truth at all to the aphorism "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts
absolutely" Demming's system is bound to become a corrupt despotism over time
as have all autoracies throughout history.  Japan is still on it first generation
of Demmingized autocrats. Let's see how the next generation deals with this
power.


Alan

    re .back a few (Personnel Organizations) 
    
    The main problem with DEC's personnel organization is that it isn't. If
    it were a true Personnel Dept, it would career counselors, possibly an
    indiustrial psychologist or two. It would be less process driven, and
    it would have a far greater say in employee related matters.
    
    But then, we can dream, can't we...
    
    q
    

    Re: .-1
    
    >> But then, we can dream, can't we...
    
    Ahhh.  Which way?  More or less Personnel involvement?

RE: .7

Maybe, and only maybe, the Japanese culture is the missing factor.  If you bring
shame on the company, you would resign.  Remember back a while ago when one of
the Japanese industrial powers sold some machine tools to the Russians that the
USA made a big stink about?  I seem to recall that the CEO resigned because of
that.  Did Roger Smith resign when GM's market share dropped thru the floor?
No, he got a bonus!!  

In this country, the owners, stockholders, had no control over the companies.
In Japan, Roger would have had to answer to the bank(s).  So I see the US 
companies to be run by people who have absolute power now!  And I agree that
absolute power does corrupt.

All of the above and what I wrote in .6 does not mean I agree with Dr. Deming.
In fact I disagree with his ATT example.  Where I see his position making more
sense is with things like standards.  Why are all of the computer clone companies
so successful?  Because they are all building to the same blueprint, i.e. a copy
of the IBM PC's.  The power of scale starts to improve the business for everyone.
Digital, HP, IBM, etc. started to see the sense of this when they got together 
on OSF.  The downside is that new ideas have a harder time breaking into this
type of environment.

Nobody is 100% right.  But so much of what DR. Deming has said has been shown to
work for one country, why couldn't it work for us?

Lee G.

Why couldn't it work for us?  Cause we are not Japanese!

Again, some of his ideas will work and should be implemented. This is at a company
level. I disagree with Dr. Demming when he tries to extrapolate to a societal
level (monopolistic, cartels, etc.) Our entire philosophical tradition is based
on the rights and responsibilities of the individual. 

IMHO, we can't and shouldn't try to change that. I don't like the picture that
Dr. Demming's "vision" calls up of a "corporatocracy".

Alan

Actually I missed this earlier.  Why does Roger Smith get a bonus? Cause of the
system of interlocking directorates we have where the good ole' boys scratch
each others backs.

Dr. Demming ( is that one or two m's?) proposes the ultimate old boy network. 
He relies on the good will ( aka learning ) of the top management to do the
right thing. It won't work. And I would bet it won't work in Japan once you get
past the first generation of indoctination. 

Alan

RE: .12

To answer the most important question first, it is Deming with one m.

On to the other point.  I think we are saying the same thing or maybe I didn't
say what I meant.  So let me try again.

It is the Japanese culture that is the "control" over there.  As I said in my 
example, if you bring dishonor on your company, you would leave to make up for
doing such a thing.  I agree that it might be a case of the right message at
the right time in the right place which made Dr. Deming's ideas work in Japan. 
The next generation of Japanese might not feel the same way given the amount of 
Westernization that has gone on.

The point of the GM example was that we currently have an absolute power system
in this country!  With no outside control!!  I think that what we need to do is 
to stop pretending that it is otherwise.  

I also think that what Dr. Deming may be saying is that because the benefit of 
large companies is the economy of scale to help to make the product less
costly,  then why not go one more level higher and make entire industries one
company?   To use an example of a current monopoly, would it make sense to have
four electric companies serving one town??  They would all need to have
powerlines, transformers, power stations, etc.  No. It makes sense to have one
power company with one set of lines, etc.  We allow one type of monopoly, why
not others?

The trick, IMHO, is to only make monopolies of those things that make sense
from a economy of scale point of view.  And that would take the wisdom of
Solomon :-).  So I am  happy to allow Dr. Deming's ideas be applied to
individual companies and not to whole industries.

Any clearer?
Lee G.

    Re:  pay for performance
    
    As I understand it (based on an article that was circulated by email),
    he is against payment based on performance because performance is often
    a measure of the _process_ rather than the employee.

    
    
    	To address .12
    
    	You referred to our interlocking directorates wherein
    	our good old boys scratch each others backs. I believe
    	Japan has something similar even though their culture
    	does have some great differences with ours. They have
    	what are called the Amakudari. The Amakudari refers to
    	the group made up of the big business, top management
    	men who all "share" power. This is contrasted with the
    	Keiretsu which is a grouping of the 8 largest corporations
    	and is quite powerful.  In the Amakudari, power is widely shared
    	but only within this group. I believe the Amakudari are
    	loosely similar in character to the system of directorates we
    	have here in the United States. These men move around at
    	the very high level and essentially trade places with one
    	another forever. They interface closely with the Habatsu
    	which is a powerful political clique. Also, we have the Japanese
    	Diet which is equally powerful and is kind of like our Senate
    	(structure-wise anyhow). Power there is diffuse but it is still
    	controlled by a privileged number. Their ethics and morals up
    	till now have prevented a "Roger Smith" from happening.
    
    	As a separate note on how much control and effect Deming could 
    	have, I believe that the Japanese businessmen are beginning
    	to succumb to one of our American maladies. Greed. Have you
    	been keeping track of some of the recent problems they have 
    	experienced with stock brokers, unfair trading, etc? I understand 
    	that their culture is shifting even now in a Westerly direction.
    	I say this with some sadness because I really like to think
    	that honor and respect for others is not mutually exclusive
    	to making personal gain. 
    
    	I enjoy reading Deming and believe in many things he says
    	but I also think that unless conditions are just right, the
    	effectiveness of his methods will be diluted. I don't know
    	how long the Deming effect is going to keep them going with
    	some of the changes happening there. I also don't think
    	the answer to our problems will come from any one book, be
    	it Deming or Drucker or Frederick W. Taylor. I think we are 
    	going to have to study what has worked in the past, see 
    	where we are and where we are going and then apply modifications 
    	to our system incessantly. Pay for performance? Yes. The 
    	performance should be measured not only in revenue growth 
    	at a macroscopic level but at the individual level as well. 
    	Those who produce well should be rewarded accordingly. Those 
    	who don't...out. Ideally, Roger Smith should *not* have gotten that
    	bonus (imo).
    						kim 
                                  			kim

    I'm not sure what this digression into Deming has to do with the way
    we work at Digital, but I'll continue it to correct some impressions.

    First of all, W. Edwards Deming is an old man.  He developed his ideas
    in the thirties, implemented them and was despised for them in the
    forties, and found a refuge for them in Japan in the fifties.  Because
    of his age, he is not the sharpest, most rapid-fire thinker around.

    Secondly, you have to read his books, and the books about his ideas in
    order under understand his views of quality which cannot be done
    justice in 60 seconds.�

    A readable book by Deming himself is Quality, Productivity, and
    Competitive Position.

    A quick idea of what's Deming is about can be found in the bestseller
    on the automobile industry "The Reckoning" by David Halberstam.

re: .15

	You have expounded my own feelings very well, see 1864.3. Our good old
boy network worked pretty darn well (from the viewpoint of productivity, growth
etc.) when our first generation "robber barons" were running things. I think
that the Japanese are in that position now. As you mentioned the people are 
just starting to realize they've been getting the short end of the stick and
will react as, more and more, greed becomes evident as beating honor at the highest
levels. 

re: .16

First of all thanks for the pointer to Deming's book. I'll put it on my reading
list, though at the rate it's growing I'll be an old man before I get to it.

Second, I don't think this is a digression. The lecture I attended was at the
behest of DEC and there were many Deccies there so I think that a discussion of 
the subject is very suitable.

Also I didn't mean to run down Deming's ideas on quality control, he didn't 
discuss them and I haven't read them explicitly. I did and do have much concern
about the macroscopic application of his ideas however.

    Short question:
    
    If deming doesn't want management to "measure" employees, how does he
    believe the measurement of individual contribution be done?
    
    -Terry 

      <<< Note 1863.18 by AGENT::LYKENS "Manage business, Lead people" >>>
                             -< measurement how? >-
>    Short question:
>    
>    If deming doesn't want management to "measure" employees, how does he
>    believe the measurement of individual contribution be done?

    how about asking the employees to evaluate themselves? after all, they
    more than anyone else know exactly how well they did or not, and how
    to improve. 

    what a brilliant concept !

    /nasser

    
    Re: VAULT::CRAMER
    
    If you're going to pronounce some of Deming's ideas as absurd,
    please do read one or two of his books and/or one or two other books
    about written about him.  It is true that there are many advocates
    of Deming's ideas, myself among them, here in Digital who would like
    to see those ideas implemented.  I understand your concern about some
    of those ideas and how they might be implemented for our benefit, but
    to fully understand what Deming proposes and what the many implications
    would be for a company like Digital, you're going to have to do more
    than go to one talk by the man.  There is one thing that no one can
    argue with, he has been able to produce results for an economy that
    was literally in shambles.  Can we afford not to at least listen and
    learn?
    
    Steve
    

.2>    ...  I also liked his thoughts on eliminate Performance
.2>    appraisals and Pay for Performance... it really doesn't work.
    
    We should try implementing them before we presume to comment on their
    efficacy. :-)
    
    ------------
    
    The only Deming idea that has ever rung true for me was the use of
    statistical analysis and feedback to improve process. We haven't been
    able to do that right, either.
    

re: .20

I haven't labeled Deming's ideas which apply to an individual company as absurd 
as I am not familiar enough with them. However, he was quite clear in how
his ideas should be applied for a society/economy as a whole. His ideas are not
new, they are AT THIS LEVEL minor variations on the Utopian schemes that have
been proposed for thousands of years. The defining characteristics are 
1) everyone cooperates 2) no competition 3) benevolent overlords, 4) common goals,
etc.

The underlying premise is that mankind is "perfectable" (with him defining 
perfection) in a way that will support his grand scheme. In Japan he found a 
society that was a blank slate (as a result of WW II) with certain pre-
dispositions as a culture which lent them to accepting his ideas. It has only
been a very short time, from a macro perspective, that Demingism has been 
the guiding force in Japan. We will see if it survives the initial enthusiasm
of the original generation.  Marxism/Leninism lasted for 70 years before the
internal abiguities crumbled it.  The ideas of Prof. Deming may or may not survive
in Japan for that long.


Alan

PS Don't forget the role Gen. Douglas McArthur played in the restructuring of
   Japan.

    
    Re: .22
    
    > I haven't labeled Deming's ideas which apply to an individual company
    > as absurd as I am not familiar enough with them.
    
    OK, the word "absurd" was my characterization of some of the things you
    wrote, but they amount to the same thing.
    
    What you wrote about "Utopian schemes" and "grand schemes" doesn't
    sound like anything I've seen by Deming and I've read two books on the
    subject, viewed the entire collection of Deming tapes, and worked with
    the stuff for the last two years.  It sounds more like your
    interpretation of what Deming said.  He definitely does not advocate no
    competition.  In fact much of what he advises his clients to do is
    precisely *because* he so well understands the nature of global
    competition today.  You can't learn what Deming is all about and
    understand it all from attending one talk.  I think before you blow it
    off as unworkable, that you look more into it.
    
    Steve
    

    Steve, you are missing his point.
    
    The point is that Deming is trying to fix SOCIETY, not a company.
    The noter is saying that Deming's stuff, applied to companies, can
    be goodness.  But that his ideas, applied to a whole society/country,
    is lunacy (or whatever appropriate word you want to use.)
    
    I have no idea how true all that is.  I do know that, as far as DEC
    is concerned, we should be doing lots more Deming stuff that we ain't.
    
    K.

Thanks, that's exactly what I would have said. Including the bit about doing 
things in DEC that we ain't doing now.


BTW  Just as I think that a "benevolent dictatorship" of any kind is a lousy way
to run a country; I think that true democracy is a lousy way to run a company.


Alan

    
    	to me, Demings key point on the measurement angle is that if you
    concentrate your efforts on finding blame on individuals when the
    process is screwed up, you are more likely going to suffer greatly
    due to a screwed up process that should have been evaluated first.
    
    	Process weenies in America love to engineer a system, when it
    works, they are loath to tinker with it.  This occurs when Process
    becomes the target, the goal, instead of a tool to reach a goal. It
    is so easy for us to fall for that illusion(dellusion?).  Process
    always needs to be re-examined, evaluated, and changed based on the
    results it produces.  If a process requires a team, than like all teams
    (sporting and otherwise) you need cooperation and a proper mix of
    skills to make it work. Since all people bring different abilities,
    it is really a management error when the skills mix is wrong, not
    the employees.
    
    	Culturally, as a nation we always take great comfort in identifing
    a villan - we are much to wrapped up in good guy/bad guy nonsense
    and we don't cope very well in the world due to it.  We forget that
    the United States emerged as a world leader only after the competition
    annihilated themselves (twice in 30 years). Well, it is now 28 years
    later, and Europe and the far east have rebuilt, and so far survived.
    We now have formidable competion at the economic level where we really
    had none before, and gee guess what?
    
    	We have been further hurt internally by the ethics and practices
    of our political leaders of the last 12 years with their everyman
    for themselves message.  We are getting our butts kicked by systems
    that realize they need the best goods at the best prices to succeed.
    We are having our arrogance rubbed in the dirt, and it is time we
    wake up to this fact, and do what we need to do inorder to preserve
    some semblance of our standard of living.
    
    
    	bob
    

    
    Re: .24
    
    > Steve, you are missing his point.
    > The point is that Deming is trying to fix SOCIETY, not a
    > company.  The noter is saying that Deming's stuff, applied
    > companies, can be goodness.  But that his ideas, applied to
    > to a whole society/country, is lunacy (or whatever word that
    > you want to use.)
    
    I understood his point.  My point is the one being missed:  He is
    wrong about Deming trying to fix society.  I don't think attending
    one evening talk leaves one able to understand Deming enough to 
    reach the conclusion that Alan did.
    
    > I do know that, as far as DEC is concerned, we should be doing
    > lots more Deming stuff that we ain't.
    
    100% agreement on that one.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
      
    
    

    Deming is trying to fix American Industry. However, when his principles
    are applied to everyday life, they tend to help there too. Like any
    worthy philosophy. After all, he is basically preaching win-win
    non-adversarial interaction.
    
    Gregg

    <win-win non-adversarial interaction>
    
    not a very common American (male?) attitude.
    
    
    				herb

    
    Re: .29

    >> <win-win non-adversarial interaction>
    
    > not a very common American (male?) attitude.
    
    Precisely.  Which is at least one reason why Deming's ideas are
    often threatening in our society.  We are so conditioned to think
    that "For me to win means you have to lose" that we're going to be
    a long time coming to realize that we both can win.
    
    Steve
    

RE:.30

Could it be that one of the reasons that car salesmen have such a bad
image is that they (and the buyer) are trying to win on every deal??
I think that if there were more people looking for the win-win 
situation, the country/world would be better off.  

To take the car example: if I am looking to buy a car, I want to not
overpay but I also want the dealership to stay in business so that
they can service the car.  So I allow them to make a profit on the
car and, in exchange, I am able to get quality service on the car.  
They make money and I get what I want.  Looking at the other two 
outcomes, if I overpay, I will not be happy or if I underpay (like 
that is going to happen :-), the dealership might go out of business 
or cut back on its service.

Obviously, if you are looking for a long term business relationship,
both sides must be happy with the results.  Dr. Deming is saying that
Japan does understand this.  US has not caught on except for a few 
folks like L.L. Bean, Lands End, and, dare I say it, IBM where the
customer is king or at least, thinks that they are.

Lee G.

    
    The Japanese are the American YUPPIES of the 80's.  Past Success 
    does not necessarily lead to future success. Literally and figura- 
    tively speaking, Japan is an island.  Until the Japanese apply the
    collaborative teachings of Deming to their relations with the United
    States, they will remain an island.  Japan is like all the individual
    YUPPIE over-achievers of the 80's, who rose to the top only to find
    that they needed a new set of tools, skills, and mindset to stay 
    there. 
    
    Deming, Juran, Crosby, and others' methods and principles are being 
    taught and applied within Digital today.  Beyond this we must have
    focused, responsible, leaders, who actively seek and promote state
    of the art continuous improvement methodologies.
      
    Given the current state of our company, internal competition is to be 
    expected.  On the other hand, Digital is making temendous progress with 
    external collaboration in the form of joint ventures and strategic bus-
    iness alliances. The Japanese must diligently work on external colla-
    boration to ensure future success.  Digital must diligently work on 
    internal collaboration and stike an internal/external balance, which 
    ensures future success.  Restoring focused, responsible, leadership, 
    will provide the foundation for a strong recovery.
     
    Regards,
    Dave
    
      
    
    
    

    
    Re: .32
    
    Now this I will agree with totally!  Deming brought some very good
    things to Japan, and they have had great success with them.
    
    That does not, however, mean that those same things are what it will
    take to sustain that success.  To stay there, Japan will have to
    constantly re-evaluate what they are doing and where necessary make
    adjustments.  Digital will have to do the same thing.
    
    Steve
    

    I saw Deming the other day also. I have also read a book on him which I
    found very interesting. 
    
    Applied to a company they will work well I think. 
    
    Applied to a country, that is a different story. He used the example of
    the Japanese contractors getting together and divying up all the
    construction jobs in Japan. Now apply this to the US. We EXCLUDE all
    non-US companies. Do we do this with cars? Clothes? Stereos? Obviously
    people would call us protectionist.
    
    The country has problems, but I don't think his solution is the answer.
    For a company probably yes, a country no.
    
    Steve

    Re .-1,
    
 >  Applied to a country, that is a different story. He used the example of
 >  the Japanese contractors getting together and divying up all the
 >  construction jobs in Japan. Now apply this to the US. We EXCLUDE all
 >  non-US companies. Do we do this with cars? Clothes? Stereos? 
                     
    I don't follow this at all. 
    
    Do you think Japan allows non-Japanese contractors to get construction
    jobs in Japan?  
     
>   Obviously people would call us protectionist.                          
    
    Eh?

    Deming used this construction thing as an example. As I recall, the US
    was trying to 'break' into that closed market a couple of years ago.
    His point was that they divide up all construction work among the
    companies. Everybody wins (assuming no outside competition and enough
    work to keep everyone employed.
    
    Steve

    Re .36
    
>              Everybody wins (assuming no outside competition and enough
>   work to keep everyone employed.
    
    But, everybody doesn't win. If Japanese companies divide up all the
    construction work, non-Japanese companies are by definition excluded.
    They are the losers.

    The only way there will be enough work to keep everyone employed is to
    limit the number of potential contractors by some artificial means,
    such as exclusion of non-Japanese companies.
    
    Making an assumption of no outside competition renders the concept
    pointless, I think.  
    
    Neil

    I thought that was completely AGAINST the Deming idea - dividing the
    present pie.
    
     I thought he suggested EXPANSION of the market by introducing new,
    inovative products and services. Don't compete for the small pie. Make
    the pie bigger.....
    
    This was from his own lips on TV. Also, he said that consumers do not
    know what they want. They cannot forsee their needs. No one, he said,
    asked for the telephone, television, or airplane.
    
    Gregg

	My recollection is that Dr. Deming advertised his services as
	a statistical consultant.  He didn't advertise as a political
	economist, so it's no surprise his politico-economic views in
	general draw debate.

	Hows 'bout his statistical-consultant role (specifically, the
	role of manufacturing consultant) ?

	Would we agree Dr. Deming's manufacturing theses are OK?

	It seems to me GM and a few others _still_ don't much get the
	message.  Honda et al didn't eat GM's lunch by price-gouging,
	selling junk, or treating their customers like idiots; in the
	general case the Japanese ate our lunch by doing  what Deming
	told them should work ... they did, we didn't.

	Or did I miss something?


			Charlton Allen

    
    Re: .39
    
    Charlton,  I don't think that you missed anything.  The way
    you understand it is the way that I understand it.
    
    Steve
    

re: .39

Likewise, I'm sure.  You, IMHO, are exactly right. Unfortunately at the lecture 
which generated this note, Dr. Deming spent all too much time pretending to be
a political economist / political philosopher and to little being a statistical
consultant. His expertise in the latter is not directly transferable to the 
former; hence this discussion.

alan

    Deming started out as a stats consultant and remains so....
    
    this does not preclude him from learning things on the way and having
    valid opinions outside of that area.......
    
    I think his notions of expanding the market instead of fighting for a
    share of a tiny market are right on.
    
    Gregg

1. Create constancy of purpose toward improvement of product and service, with
the aim to become competitive and to stay in business, and to provide jobs.

2. Adopt a new philosophy.  We are in a new economic age.  Western management
must awaken to the challenge, must learn their responsibilities, and take on
leadership for change.

3. Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality.  Eliminate the need for
inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first
place.

4. End the practice of awarding business solely on the basis of price. 
Instead, minimize total cost.  Move toward a single supplier for any one item,
on a long-term relationship of loyalty and trust.

5. Improve constantly and forever the system of production and service, to
improve quality and productivity, and thus constantly decrease costs.

6. Institute training on the job to make better use of all employees.

7. Institute leadership (see point 12).  The aim of leadership should be to
help people and machines and gadgets to do a better job.  Leadership of
management is in need of overhaul, as well as leadership of production workers.

8. Drive out fear, so that everyone may work effectively for the company.

9. Break down barriers between departments.  People in research, design, sales,
and production must work as a team to foresee problems of production and in use
that may be encountered with the product or service.

10. Eliminate slogans, exhortations and targets for the work force that ask for
zero defects or ask for new levels of productivity without providing methods.

11.a. Eliminate work standards (quotas) on the factory floor.  Substitute
leadership.
   b. Eliminate management by objective.  Eliminate management by numbers,
numerical goals.  Substitute leadership.

12.a. Remove barriers that rob the hourly worker of his right to pride of
workmanship.  The responsibility of supervisors must be changed from sheer
numbers to quality.
   b. Remove barriers that rob people in management and in engineering of 
their right to pride of workmanship.  This means, inter alia, abolishment of
the annual or merit rating and of management by objective, management by the
numbers.

13. Institute a vigorous program of education and self-improvement.

14. Clearly define top management's permanent commitment to quality and
productivity and its obligation to implement these principles.  Put everybody
in the company to work to accomplish the transformation.  The transformation
is everybody's job.

1. Lack of constancy of purpose to plan product and service that will have a
market and keep the company in business and provide jobs.

2. Emphasis on short-term profits: short term thinking (just the opposite from
constancy of purpose to stay in business), fed by fear of unfriendly takeover,
and by push from bankers and owners, for dividends.

3. Personal review system, or evaluation of performance, merit rating, annual
review, or annual appraisal, by whatever name, for people in management, the
effects of which are devastating.  Management by objective, on a go, no-go
basis, without a method for accomplishment of the objective, is the same thing
by another name.  Management by fear would still be better.

4. Mobility of management: job hopping.

5. Use of visible figures only for management, with little or no consideration
of figures that are unknown or unknowable.

6. Excessive medical costs.

7. Excessive costs of warranty, fueled by lawyers that work contingency fees.

    As noted elsewhere, Dr W Edwards Deming died this week. He was 93
    and had been battling cancer. He died in his sleep surrounded by family
    and friends.

    			Alfred

>>    As noted elsewhere, Dr W Edwards Deming died this week. He was 93
>>    and had been battling cancer. He died in his sleep surrounded by family
>>    and friends.
    OVERHEARD IN THE CAFF.
    1>  Do you like Demming?
    2>  I don't know, I have never demmed.