Edwards Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK)
Currently, the knowledge presented in the works Edwards Deming , without exaggeration, are of utmost importance for the competitiveness of Russian industry.
“We cannot solve our problems at the same level of thinking that created them.”
To simultaneously translate English-language videos into Russian, use the new Yandex Browser feature - real-time video translation.
Source: [1] - Henry R. Neave, "The Organization as a System: Edwards Deming's Principles for Building a Sustainable Business." / "The Deming Dimension. Henry R. Neave"; Per. from English - M.: Alpina Publisher, 2017. Scientific editors: Y. Adler, Y. Rubanik, V. Shper. You can purchase the book from the publisher Alpina Publisher .
Notes and color illustrations: Scientific Director of the AQT Center Sergey P. Grigoryev
Free access to articles does not in any way diminish the value of the materials contained in them.
Deep knowledge. Just two words. But are there two other words that better describe the nature of Deming's philosophy? A substantial portion of this page contains the best translation of Deming's original text. We hope that in the process of reading this page, readers will experience the epiphany that an understanding of Deming's philosophy inevitably leads to.
“Considering how absurd this teaching must seem, I hesitated for a long time to publish my book...”
The system of in-depth knowledge appears in the form of closely related four parts, as well as an introduction and conclusion. The four parts include:
Figure 1. W. E. Deming's System of Profound Knowledge (SoPK) as a Venn diagram.
Knowing that the dominant way of management needs to change is important, but not sufficient. We must understand exactly what changes are required. Every journey has a starting point and an ending point. Our starting point is the dominant management style. The ultimate is its transformation. The transformation will lead to acceptance of the system and optimization of its functioning relative to the purpose of that system. The individual components of a given system, instead of competing with each other, will support each other to optimize and achieve the goal. Such a transformation is needed for industry, for state and local governments, as well as for the education system.
In this journey, we need a system of deep knowledge as a guiding force. As a rule, deep knowledge comes from outside, since the system cannot understand itself.
“A company that seeks deep knowledge assistance is already prepared for transformation.”
The path to transformation requires the presence of a leader. How does a leader achieve transformation? First of all, he has a theory - a vision of the organization that it should become after the transformation. However, we should not limit ourselves to what exists only in the leader’s head. He must understand other people. Have the power of persuasion. Be able to persuade and change enough people in power to make the change possible. We call such a person a transformation leader.
Neither the leader nor anyone else needs to be an expert in any part of the theory of deep knowledge in order to understand it as a system and apply it in practice.
As in any other system, the various components of the deep knowledge system cannot be separated; they are closely related to each other. Thus, knowledge of psychology will be incomplete without understanding the nature of variation. If a psychologist understands the theory of variation as it is interpreted in experiment with red beads , he will no longer be able to participate in improving ranking methods.
The change leader and all leaders involved in change must study personality psychology, social psychology and the psychology of change. Without understanding at least one of these components, it will be impossible to achieve long-term optimization of the system's functioning.
Statistical theory, perhaps more than any other discipline, can contribute to improving management practices in industry, state and local government, and education. A certain level of understanding of the theory of variability, including an understanding of the properties of a stable system, general and special causes of variability, is needed to manage the system and for leadership. Statistical theory is needed to understand the differences between people, the interactions between people, and the interactions between people and the systems in which they work or learn. Statistical theory leads to a clear understanding of the evils of the prevailing concept of management, and it also points the way to better practice.
Statistical theory, when applied correctly using cognitive theory, can be useful in interpreting the results of tests, tests, and experiments. Interpreting the results of tests and experiments is making predictions.
Video. The Shewhart-Deming cycle PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act, Deming Cycle), which underlies the main standard in the field of quality management ISO 9001, as well as a number of industry standards: IATF 16949 (automotive industry), ISO TS 22163 ( IRIS - railway industry), EN/AS 9100 (aviation), GOST RV 15.002 (defense industry), STO GAZPROM 9001, etc. Often referred to as PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act).
"When I was first introduced to the concept of the PDSA cycle, within 15 minutes I thought I knew everything there was to know about this model. Now, after decades of active practice and study, I think that someday I will know enough about this concept ".
The theory of knowledge allows leaders and managers to understand that management in any form is a prediction.
Ratings, as well as grades given by teachers to students, are judgments based on past experience. But it is incorrect and even cruel to use these assessments to predict the future of students in other fields and activities. Similarly, performance appraisal results are used to predict future employee performance.
The theory of knowledge teaches us that any statement carries knowledge when it is capable of predicting future results and corresponds to past experience without any exceptions.
Systems management, management is an action based on prediction. Rational prediction requires theory. And this theory must be adjusted and systematically expanded based on a comparison of actual results and forecasts for the short and long term, developed on the basis of the choice of alternative courses of action. We learn all this using the theory of knowledge.
A. Understanding the system
A system is defined as “a chain of interrelated functions or activities within an organization that work together to achieve the organization's goals.” The use of flowcharts to understand systems is important.
Drawing. Production is considered as a system (materials from lectures by Edwards Deming, 1950, Japan)
“The diagram illustrates the direction of not only the flow of materials, but also the flow of information necessary to manage the company as a system. Using the diagram provides feedback for continuous improvement of the product or service, for continuous learning.”
The diagram presented above provides us with a theoretical basis for optimizing the activity of the entire system by improving the interaction of system components.
Nida Backaitis recently reinforced this comparison by pointing out that a process diagram shows people what their job is, how it fits in with the work of other people in the system, and how they should interact with each other as parts of that system.
Sergey P. Grigoryev: Today, in my opinion, the best solution for describing the interaction of various functions of a company as a system with flows of products and information, resources and control actions (requirements, proposals, standards) is the methodology of functional process modeling IDEF0 , developed in 1981 by the US Department of the Air Force and last revised in 1993 by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology.
When company management tries to describe their processes using IDEF0, they see something they haven't seen before. Moreover, they begin to understand the unconditional interdependence of the performance of various divisions of the company on the degree of their interaction, and this understanding can destroy many false management paradigms.
A hierarchy chart doesn't do any of this, it just says who reports to whom and who reports to whom. In fact, if the hierarchical diagram tells us anything, that information is wrong: for example, that everyone's job is to please their boss (or, in other words, to get a high rating). It is obvious to us that the use of a hierarchical scheme not only does not make it possible to optimize the system, but contributes to its destruction (if anyone even tried to create it).
Drawing. Cartoon version of a hierarchical structure (MANS Association)
For example, the education system—municipal, private, parochial, vocational schools, and universities—is not simply a collection of students, teachers, parents, and school boards. This is an educational system in which students, from first-graders to graduates, enjoy learning and are freed from external motivation in the form of grades, ratings and gold medals. Teachers also enjoy working in these schools, freed from the fear of receiving a low rating. Therefore, it must be a system that takes into account differences between students and differences between teachers (see section D).
What is the purpose of the system? (After all, without a goal there is no system.)
There is no theorem by which we could specify the goal of a system, since the goal is always the result of a qualitative judgment.
The goal proposed in this case is a win for everyone in the long term (this will not happen in the short term). By “for everyone” we mean employees, consumers, suppliers, shareholders, society as a whole, and the environment. An example of a good and consistent set of goals is leadership for employees, opportunities for their training, education and development, other components of joy from work and the quality of the work environment. And again: failure to comply with at least one point will mean a deviation of the system from its optimum in the long term.
Simply put, the purpose of the system must be in agreement with the first of the fourteen points - a consistent goal of continuous improvement .
Rice. 3. The goal of the transformation is a win for everyone.
The purpose of system consideration and the purpose of collaboration are the same: they are needed to optimize the organization as a whole, and not to suboptimize its parts. Optimization is the process of adjusting the “sound” of all components in unison to achieve the goal of the system.
“Without a goal like the one outlined above, there is little point in people cooperating to achieve it.”
Under certain stable conditions, system components can self-organize to achieve their goals.
“The performance of any component of a subprocess system must be assessed in terms of its contribution to the goals of the overall system, and not by its individual productivity or profit or by any other competitive criterion.
It would be a sign of absolute incompetence on the part of managers, for example, to purchase materials and components at the lowest price, or to maximize sales volume, or to minimize the cost of production or development without assessing the impact of such actions on other stages of production and sales. All this would be sub-optimization, causing losses. All these actions must be coordinated in order to optimize the system as a whole.
... isolated profit centers working against the overall purpose of the enterprise."
A good example is a string quartet. Each of its members supports the other three. None of them strive to attract attention specifically to themselves. Four solos played simultaneously do not constitute a string quartet. In order to achieve their goal, all four performers must practice both together and separately. Their goal is to gain personal satisfaction and to please their listeners.
"IKEA made the classic mistake of setting different goals for different groups in the company. But now those responsible for production, logistics, product development and process organization have a common goal - customer retention."
Let us remember that deep knowledge must come from outside. A string quartet can rehearse under the direction of a master. But the master does not have to be present during the performance. The larger the system, the greater the need for communication and cooperation between its members and the greater the need for management of the system as a whole.
An example of a large musical system is an orchestra. Here, the job of each of the 140 musicians in the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra is to support their 139 colleagues. Listeners evaluate an orchestra's performance not so much by how well individual performers perform their parts, but by how they work together. The conductor, as a "manager", creates cooperation between the performers as components of the system so that each musician supports the others. The orchestra also has other goals, such as making the musicians and conductor enjoy their work.
This example illustrates the point that the performance of any system component should be assessed in terms of its contribution to the overall system goal rather than individual competitive goals. Another example is a product that is a loss leader in a store. The store loses money when selling this product, but is expected to more than compensate for these losses by selling other products to the huge mass of customers attracted to the store by this leader.
Thus, for optimization purposes, the system must be managed by someone, and to a greater extent, the more it grows in size and complexity and the higher the speed of this growth.
“An additional task of management is to be prepared to expand the boundaries of the system in order to better achieve its goals.”
Thus, it is a mistake to believe that a change in direction is a sign of poor decisions and weak management. Competent management makes changes as the need arises. The pilot (human or automatic) frequently changes the plane's course. Without such changes, a plane heading west to gorgeous Los Angeles might land in a run-down town to the north, on the Canadian border. It can also be argued that it never stays on a truly correct course: changes in wind, changes in temperature and air density (no matter how thin it may be), changes in the air traffic situation all require changes in course.
The search for optimal control can yield much greater returns than we expect. Achieving the optimum may seem impossible; it may in fact be unattainable, since the exact optimum would be difficult to operationally define, much less achieve. However, according to Taguchi loss function losses associated with deviations near the optimum are small. Small deviations from the optimum in any direction along the horizontal axis lead to almost imperceptible changes along the vertical axis. Thus, precise optimization is not needed; simply getting closer to the optimum is sufficient.
At the same time, there is no doubt that suboptimization is easier to achieve than optimization. However, sub-optimization comes at a cost. Sub-optimization may create the illusion of improvement, but in reality it creates barriers that prevent actual progress. Moreover, suboptimizing one part often harms other parts, so that overall the change does more harm than good. It also makes it difficult to make truly profitable changes.
Among the many examples of sub-optimization in people management are the following: the destructive effect of ranking, from kindergartens and schools to universities; gold medals and prizes in schools; the destructive effect of the so-called system of personal merit and bonus payments; management by objectives; results-based management, planned targets, norms (quotas).
Below we provide a number of other examples of sub-optimization as a result of short-sighted decisions:
- Quarterly Dividends: Make everything look good from this perspective. The goal is to achieve a quick return on investment. High dividends today - and there is no reason to think about what will happen to the company in the future;
- invest in pension funds to provide maximum immediate returns. This leads to rapid movements of huge amounts of money: money is transferred from one company to another;
- Ship everything in stock by the end of the month or quarter. Don’t think about quality: the goods have been shipped, therefore, they can be shown in the report as a future receipt;
- the main thing is to look good in the current quarter. It is better to postpone returns, complaints, repairs and orders of new materials until the next quarter.
Management's inability to recognize the interdependencies between components is the most important reason for losses from using the method. management by objectives (MBO) in the form in which it is common in practice. The efforts of the various departments of the company, each of which has its own goal, are non-additive: their results mutually determine each other. Thus, one of the branches in an attempt to achieve its targets may destroy another.
And that is not all. The destination may change along the way, with the passage of time and the influence of external forces. Management's task is to implement the required change of course.
Managers and leaders face another challenge, namely managing their own future, so as not to become a victim of circumstances. For example, rather than incur losses due to a surge in production caused by peak demand and subsequent losses due to a decline in demand, it may be more profitable to stabilize production. Or perhaps it is worth increasing production capacity to an economically justifiable level.
Another example: Management can change the course of a company, and perhaps an entire industry, based on an understanding of consumer needs for new products and services.
"The efforts of the various departments of the company, each with its own purpose, are non-additive."
Rice. [3] Dr. Louis Letayf, worked at Ford Motor Company, now heads the School of Business at Boston University (adapted to a Venn diagram, S. Grigoryev).
S. Grigoryev: And if the Venn diagram in terms of displaying the interrelations of individual parts of the system does not cause you any objections, then how do these relationships highlighted in yellow (see the figure below) be taken into account in the KPI system of your enterprise? Think about it.
Rice. How does your enterprise’s KPI system take into account the resulting interaction of individual system components?
Peter Drucker warned his readers that the company's overall results did not follow the rule additive addition , and the results of various components of the company are almost always interdependent (see: Peter Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices, Collins, 1993). Unfortunately, people using MVO (Management by Objectives, KPI) in practice, they do not really heed Drucker’s warnings.
Sergey P. Grigoryev: Edwards Deming gives a simple formula for the observed performance of an employee, which I adapted to the Venn diagram in the figure (result=x+xy) below, where [x] is the contribution of the employee, [y] is the contribution of the system (company) to the observable outcome of an employee, which is essentially the result of their interaction.
In the dominant management paradigm, [Employee Performance] is defined as a measure of individual performance attributed only to the employee and does not take into account the contribution of the system [y], which can be either positive or negative.
The equation with two unknowns in the figure below (result=x+xy) has no solution, in other words, it has an infinite number of solutions for the pairs [x] and [y].
For example, if [result = 10]
To solve the equation [10 = x + xy], let's express [x] in terms of [y].
10 = x(1 + y)
Now let's divide both sides of the equation by (1 + y):
10 / (1 + y) = x
Thus the equation takes the following form:
x = 10 / (1 + y)
An infinite number of solutions to this equation can be found by endlessly changing the value of [y]:
| y | x |
|---|---|
| 1 | 5 |
| 4 | 2 |
| 9 | 1 |
| 15 | 0.625 |
| ... | ... |
There is something to think about here for those who like to come up with KPIs for company employees and determine monetary remuneration based on them. Consider also the fact that the same system interacts with different employees in different ways.
Drawing (result=x+xy). Venn diagram and equation for the result of interaction between an individual employee and the system (company). The size of the area where the circles intersect is displayed conditionally.
What Edwards Deming proposed to use as the most fair assessment of the individual productivity of company employees, taking into account their different interactions with the system, as well as best practices in working with people, see the open solution: A critical look at the use of KPIs in the personnel motivation system. Or how management deprives itself of the most important information for managing the company and destroys teamwork . Our software is used as an analytical tool in this article. “Shewhart control charts PRO-Analyst +AI (for Windows, Mac, Linux)” .
If optimization involves cooperation, then competition must lead to suboptimization. If economists understood systems theory and the role of cooperation in optimizing systems, they would not preach salvation through aggressive competition. Instead, they would encourage us to optimize, giving everyone the opportunity to get ahead.
“When there is no agreement among the comrades, their business will not go well, and nothing will come out of it, only torment. One day Swan, Cancer, and Pike took on a load of luggage, and together the three of them harnessed themselves to it; They climbed out of their skins, but the cart still doesn’t move! The luggage would seem light to them: Yes, the Swan is rushing into the clouds, the Cancer is moving back, and the Pike is pulling into the water. It’s not for us to judge who is to blame, who is right;
For everyone whose interests must be respected, optimization must be the basis for negotiations between two people, as well as between departments, unions and management, competitors, countries. Then everyone can win.
Opportunities for optimization will be lost if one of the parties comes to the negotiating table proclaiming the protection of its rights as the goal, puts forward a set of demands and stubbornly defends them, also imposing time restrictions on reaching an agreement. The education system described earlier will be destroyed if some part of the schools collude among themselves in order to achieve advantages in protecting their interests, conditions, and access to funding.
Competition for market share and trade barriers lead to serious losses. Often the main goal of a company is to grab a larger piece of the pie from another company. The same applies to entire states. If this is the only or main goal, then the result will be losses. The goal should be to bake a bigger pie for everyone, which will bring greater benefits to the elements of the system. Everyone will benefit from this. Trade barriers are an obstacle to progress. When this situation occurs, producers of low-quality products have no incentive to improve quality because their market is protected, and producers of high-quality products have no incentive to improve because their market is limited. This is an “everyone loses” situation, not a “everyone wins” situation: “Who can quantify all these losses?”
Dr. Edwards Deming, Dr. Russell Ackoff, and David P. Langford talk about systems and how educators in schools can begin transformative change by developing an understanding of the properties and capabilities of systems-oriented thinking.
Doctor's speech Russell Ackoff about systems thinking (Systems Thinking Speech by Dr. Russell Ackoff). Russell Ackoff explains complex aspects of understanding systems in an accessible way.
B. Some knowledge about the theory of variability
1. We need knowledge about variation because we live in a world filled with variation.
There have always been and will be variations in this world: between people, results, productivity, services, products. We have to find out what the variations are trying to tell us. Should we try to do something about them, and if so, how?
2. We do not know and do not even suspect the existence of most of our losses; we do not recognize them. We must learn to recognize two types of errors, each of which leads to huge, difficult to estimate losses.
MISTAKE 1: Considering as a special case any deficiency, complaint, error, breakdown, incident, shortage, when in fact nothing special happened, i.e. all this turned out to be a manifestation of the action of the system - its random variations due to general reasons.
ERROR 2: Attributing to the general, ordinary variations of the system any shortcoming, complaint, error, breakdown, incident, lack of something, when in fact some special reason appeared.
“Who and how could estimate the losses from not distinguishing between these two types of errors? There are no such figures. Accounting books will not tell you anything about them.”
Knowledge of the theory of variation helps us understand these two types of errors and the losses they cause. Mistake 1 is interference, and the most diligent efforts often turn out to be interference that only makes things worse.
3. There is not and never will be a way to accurately distinguish the nature of the causes of variation. Therefore, we need knowledge about methods to minimize economic losses due to errors in the classification of causes.
How can we minimize economic losses? On what basis can we say about a process whether it is stable or not? This has nothing to do with assessing the probabilities of these two types of errors. They could not be defined even in principle, since, as we saw earlier, “no process remains stable, constant.” But even if they existed, how could we take advantage of them when most of the costs are unknown to us and practically impossible to estimate? What we really need is an operational definition, a universally understood rule about when and how to act. Shewhart created such a rule back in 1924. But many people still do not use it. And many of those who use it still do not understand its essence.
4. We need knowledge about the potential capabilities of systems and an understanding of the losses that arise due to requests, requirements that lie beyond the capabilities of the system; such excess requirements often result from the use of management by objectives.
The level of losses from the use of management by objectives (MBO) methods is also unknown and cannot be calculated, but these are losses that we cannot tolerate. What a stable system can produce is determined by its control limits. If the desired goal is outside these boundaries, the only reasonable way to achieve it is to change the system accordingly, and this is up to the leaders. Just setting a goal is an intervention. If you require people to do something beyond the capabilities of the system, they can only comply with this requirement by deception. Sometimes the goal can indeed be achieved, but only at the cost of increasing variability, with damage to the quality of functioning of the system as a whole.
Rice. A numerical target above or below the control limits for a system in a statistically steady state is meaningless.
Note that it makes no sense to talk about the potential capabilities of a system while it is unstable, that is, while its behavior is unpredictable.
Rice. A numerical target above or below control limits for a process that is in a statistically uncontrollable (unpredictable) state is like reading tea leaves.
The average total costs per unit of products and services, including those that we cannot measure, for processes in an unpredictable state are maximum.
Rice. The average total costs per unit of products and services, including those that we cannot measure, for processes in an unpredictable state are maximum.
Only when the system is brought into a state of statistical control is it possible to determine its potential performance.
5. It is necessary for statisticians to think systematically and understand that statistical theory can play a vital role in system optimization.
6. We need to know how various forces interact with each other, what effect the system has on people’s work.
The interaction of forces can have both positive and negative effects; it can enhance our actions or reduce them to zero.
We need to understand the dependencies and interdependencies between people, groups, departments, firms, industries and countries. Unlike past generations, everything that happens in the world now is significant for us. We must recognize that these dependencies and interdependencies exist and impact our work, products, services and quality. Otherwise, we will have no protection against the dangers of suboptimization.
7. We need to be aware of the different types of uncertainty in statistics and understand the differences between computational and analytical problems.
How was this data obtained? Were there any errors in the sampling processes? Were there any errors in measurements, interviews, or surveys? What errors were there in the answers, what errors were caused by refusal to answer?
Statistical theory is extremely important for numerical research and in the design of experiments in medicine, pharmacology, chemical industry, agriculture, forestry and other industries. However, interpreting the results of tests or experiments is an analytical problem. The conclusion that a particular change in a process or procedure, or, conversely, no change at all, will be a more prudent choice for the future is a prediction.
8. We need knowledge about the loss function, especially the Taguchi loss function.
Taguchi loss function helps us in two ways. First, it teaches that quality cannot be defined in terms of conformance to requirements, tolerances (specifications), or zero defects requirements. Within or outside tolerances, there are always losses that can be reduced by reducing variability. Secondly, by considering the slope of the Taguchi function, we are able to judge which quality indicators require immediate management attention. You can’t do everything at once, so the task of management is to identify critical tasks and work on them.
9. We need knowledge about the creation of chaos and uncontrollable losses arising from the successive effects of random forces or random changes, which individually may not be important.
Here we mean in particular the lessons funnel and target experiment . Suppose we are dealing with a process in which variations due to general causes, although certainly undesirable, are not very dangerous. Good intentions to reduce them, without having the necessary knowledge, can lead to manifestations of rule 2 or rule 3, and quite possibly, rule 4 with the consequences that we observed in the experiment. If the manifestations of variations caused by common causes are more significant, then the negative consequences will appear more quickly or with greater effect, or both.
Firstly, there is the practice of training the worker to be a worker. Secondly (even worse), although leaders and managers work together to develop policies with the best efforts and best intentions, they do not take advantage of in-depth knowledge and, therefore, do everything they can to make the situation worse. The same is true for ministries and various committees and commissions, as many readers will confirm: expanding a committee does not necessarily improve its performance. Expanding a committee is not the way to gain deep knowledge.
The implications of this observation are frightening. The expression of the people's will is a barrier against dictatorship, but does it give the right answers? Does the House of Bishops really govern the Church better than the patriarch, who is entrusted with the highest ecclesiastical authority? History makes us deeply doubt the latter.
B. Elements of the theory of knowledge
"We cannot invest knowledge. Oh, if only it were possible!"
1. Almost every management action requires prediction.
Any rational plan, simple or complex, requires predictions about conditions, behavior, comparisons of the effectiveness of various procedures, materials, etc.
Let's say a person needs a plan for how he will get home today, and for this planning he needs predictions. For example, he predicts that his car will start and drive without breakdowns - he plans accordingly. Or he predicts that the car might break down, which leads to another plan. As part of this other plan, a person may need predictions regarding bus and train schedules.
Or suppose we are using Method A for a particular purpose, but now we have some evidence that Method B is better. Should we abandon method A in favor of method B? Not necessary. If it is better, but not by much, then the game may not be worth the candle. And even if we have some evidence that method B is much better, then, if the evidence is not entirely convincing, we may still retain method A, believing that changing the method may do more harm than good.
2. A statement that does not contain a prediction is useless for a leader.
3. By definition, prediction is impossible in an unstable system.
In a stable system, control limits are used for prediction. In any case, there is a significant difference between past and future tenses when searching for which is better.
4. Interpretation of data from a test or experiment is a prediction: what will happen as a result of applying the conclusions or recommendations made from the test or experiment?
This prediction will depend on knowledge of the subject, not just statistical theory.
5. Theory gives us the ability to predict. Experience or examples without prediction cannot teach us anything.
6. Theory enables us to ask the right questions.
Without asking questions, we can rely only on examples. Copying successful examples if they are not explained using theory can lead to disaster. Something that may be perfect for another person in another situation may not be appropriate for us.
7. No number of examples creates a theory.
But at least one failure in a theory requires its revision or even abandonment.
Video. The Shewhart-Deming cycle PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act, Deming Cycle), which underlies the main standard in the field of quality management ISO 9001, as well as a number of industry standards: IATF 16949 (automotive industry), ISO TS 22163 ( IRIS - railway industry), EN/AS 9100 (aviation), GOST RV 15.002 (defense industry), STO GAZPROM 9001, etc. Often referred to as PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act).
A rooster named Chauntecleer had a theory. He crowed and flapped his wings every morning, putting all his energy into it. And the sun rose. The connection was obvious: his crow made the sun rise. Of course, there was no question about the importance of his rooster role. One day the unexpected happened: one fine morning he forgot to crow. But the sun rose anyway. Discouraged, dejected, Chauntecleer had to reconsider his theory. True, without a theory he had nothing to revise and he would not have learned anything.
Euclidean geometry on a plane faithfully served people on a flat Earth. Every conclusion, every theorem in his book is certainly correct in a certain sense. But the flat earth theory turned out to be wrong as soon as man began to build large buildings and roads beyond the boundaries of one village. Parallel lines on the Earth's surface no longer run at equal distances from each other, and the sum of the angles of a triangle no longer equals 180 degrees. A correction for the sphericity of the surface is needed - and a new geometry arises. But there is nothing wrong with flat Earth geometry, as long as we are on a flat surface. It is the expansion of the scope of application that leads to the discovery of the inadequacy of the theory and creates the need to revise an existing theory or create a new theory.
8. Operational definitions give concepts meaning that can be communicated to others.
In order for any communication or negotiation (for example, between buyer and seller, management and trade unions, as well as individual states) to lead to optimization, it is necessary to use operational definitions.
We need to know exactly what procedure is used to measure or judge something. And we need an unambiguous decision rule that tells us how to act depending on the results obtained.
9. There is no true value of any characteristic, state, condition that is determined through measurement or observation.
There is some value obtained by executing a certain procedure; if a different procedure is used, then a different value will likely be obtained. Here's another one: How do you count the number of people boating in San Diego?
10. As far as empirical observation is concerned, there is no such thing as a naked fact.
Two people may have different points of view about what is important to know about an event and, accordingly, what needs to be recorded about what is happening.
"Give me the facts!" Is there any meaning to this call?
D. Some knowledge of psychology
1. Psychology helps us understand people: interaction between people and circumstances, teacher and student, leader and his followers, interaction in any management system
Psychology helps us understand (predict) how uncertainty and variability affect people in different circumstances. Circumstances will affect different people differently. Also, the interaction between a person and circumstances can change rapidly over time. The system of payment and rewards for the quantity and quality of work in the company is one example of such circumstances; The management system used by the firm is another example.
2. People are different from each other. A leader must be aware of these differences and apply this knowledge to make optimal use of the abilities and aptitudes of others.
The leadership of people in industry, education and government organizations today is carried out on the premise that all people are the same.
Caution is needed in interpreting such statements. Who can deny that all people are different? However, we must distinguish between apparent differences in effort and natural endowments. The second sentence above makes it clear that Deming is talking about the natural abilities of people. Of course, there are huge differences between people regarding their natural abilities. Should we mourn this just because it makes management's job more difficult? It is much more correct to treat the fact of differences in abilities positively, recognizing that the potential for progress increases significantly if one is able to recognize and combine different abilities and talents to create an environment of cooperation. Differences, after all, are the salt of life!
Rice. Recognize and combine these differences between people in your company.
Regarding the third sentence. Most managers will obviously deny that they manage based on the assumption that people's natural abilities are about the same. But much of what they do can only be understood from this premise. The system of rewards for personal contribution, incentive schemes, bonus systems, of course, are aimed at encouraging and rewarding efforts. But what is the point of ranking people according to natural abilities if real benefits can be achieved when these differences can be recognized and combined?
Rice. Caricature. Same KPIs for employees. Author unknown.
3. People perceive information differently and at different speeds.
Some learn better by reading, others by listening, others by looking at pictures, films, and others by watching someone else's actions. Some people need both, and the third, and the fourth - and there is nothing wrong with that. How can you reproach and punish people if you have not taught them to do what you are now asking them to do? People are not machines. They need to be treated with care, and they will repay this care a hundredfold.
4. Managers, by the very nature of their profession, must make changes in the management system that bring real improvement
Since the main sources of difficulty and loss are rooted in the design of the systems in which people work, rather than in the people themselves, the primary responsibility for improvement lies with those who have power over the system, not with those who suffer from its imperfections.
5. We must understand and value intrinsic motivation.
Intrinsic motivation is the inherent sense of dignity and self-respect in every person, as well as respectful attitude towards other people. Each of us is born with a penchant for learning and creativity. And each of us has the right to receive joy from our work. Psychology should help cultivate and preserve these internal properties of people.
"If you can find people whose passion intersects with their work, you won't have to control them. They will manage themselves better than anyone else because their drive will come from within, not from without."
Modern management has extinguished the spark of internal motivation and dignity in people, and killed the joy of learning and work. We need to give people back a sense of intrinsic motivation to innovate and improve; to experience joy in work and learning. A person must be responsible only to himself. Then he will learn, discover new knowledge, create new technologies and look for new applications for his knowledge. And just think: all this is being destroyed by the modern management style!
“It’s a pleasure to work with a person who likes his work.”
6. We must recognize the dangers and losses that result from our dependence on external motivation.
Modern management is based on external motivation, which arises as a consequence of external incentives and rewards. External motivation is a concession, submission to external forces that neutralize internal motivation. Under the influence of external motivation, passion and joy of learning disappear, being replaced by the desire to get good grades. The pleasure of work and creativity fades into the background, obeying the requirement to receive a good certification and a higher rating. People do not know the joy of learning. People don't know the joy of work.
“The more you pay people to do something, the more their interest shifts from the activity they have to do to the reward.”
Extrinsic motivation is the mentality of those who call for “zero defects.” A person begins to fight to preserve what he has. He tries to avoid punishment. But all this is humiliating and leads to personal degradation: it is simply daily wages for daily labor. But payment above a certain level does not provide motivation. Pay definitely doesn't provide intrinsic motivation, and it definitely isn't as much of an extrinsic motivator as most people tend to think. We must go back to the individual, give a person the opportunity to receive satisfaction from what he does.
Rice. Competition between company employees. Animation video "Donkey and Carrot", Alex Animation.
7. We must avoid overestimating
Overestimation is submission to external forces. It arises due to a vicious reward system, when people try to value with money, things, etc. some action or achievement performed by a person just like that, out of a sense of self-esteem, even out of pleasure. In such a situation, the reward will prevent the person from repeating the action: he will simply lose interest in it and, perhaps, never do it again.
Deming also recalled his own mistakes when he tried to thank those who helped him at airports or hotels with money. In these cases, people considered the offer of money as an insult: “By carrying the bag, he wanted to help me, and he did not do it for the sake of reward.” But at the same time, refusing to tip is often seen as an insult. Why does this paradox arise? In the first case, the strength of human relationships makes monetary reward completely unacceptable. In the second case, money is the only thing that connects people. Strengthening human relationships and increasing respect are certainly part of the process.
Monetary reward is an easy path (for a manager, but ineffective for achieving optimization of the system as a whole - Note by S. Grigoryev), which is taken by managers who do not understand how to manage internal motivation.
Conclusion
We face the inevitability of transformations in the system of state and local government at all levels, as well as in industry and the education system. We need to move from “I win, you lose” competition to “everyone wins” cooperation. This transformation takes us back to intrinsic motivation, to personality, to where we were 50-100 years ago. Let's give personality a chance again. This transformation must give us true leaders. There comes a time when we must collaborate more and learn more from each other. We need to change meaningfully, guided by a system of deep knowledge that shows us where to go and serves as a road map. There is no other way. But this is a matter of choice, not compulsion. No government can give such an order. All changes must be completely voluntary.
This is the little we wanted to say about the system of deep knowledge. Now it is clear to us that new tasks arise not only for leaders, but also for teachers and the education system as a whole:
“All this should become the backbone of courses taught in business schools and statistics departments. This is what should be taught and what should be done within twenty years from today, of course, if we in our country live to see these times.”
Deming argued that much of his system of deep knowledge was known to several generations of people. But in the turmoil of changes and life problems, which we mainly create ourselves, we forgot and set aside this knowledge. In 1923, Deming heard Alderson, professor of English and dean of the School of Mines at the University of Colorado, say, “There is NO SUBSTITUTE FOR KNOWLEDGE.”
But we, as before, neglect, forget about it, and then we ourselves suffer from our neglect.