The concept of variability in organizational management processes

The concept of variability in organizational management processes

Source: CRISIS OF THE COAL MINING INDUSTRY AND MODERN MANAGEMENT THEORY Netsvetaev Alexander Glebovich, Rubanik Yuri Timofeevich, Mikhalchenko Vadim Vladimirovich / Kemerovo, Kuzbassvuzizdat, 1998, 92 pp., ISBN 5-202-00323-4, BBK U9(2Ros)3 05.651, N 38

Free access to articles does not in any way diminish the value of the materials contained in them.

Developing long-term plans, defining goals, projected milestones, etc. are an important and necessary function of all managers. In this case, the requirements for processes and systems arise either from the tasks of a higher organization or from market restrictions. However, when setting tasks, one must keep in mind that in relation to the system these requirements are external, having no connection with its realities, with what it is capable of delivering or producing at a certain moment.

If a manager plans his activities without understanding the concept of variability, then he will define planned tasks to his subordinates as true reality and will require them to comply with this reality.

If a worker does not meet the standard set for him from above, then he is deprived of bonuses. If a division does not fulfill the plan set for it, does not fit into the planned budget, the head of this division also does not expect anything good.

At the same time, if the performance indicators of the system (production volume, cost level, etc.) are determined by the action of only general causes of variability, then the only way to achieve the desired result and thereby realize the potential capabilities of a stable system is to change the system itself. But only the leader can change the system. In this regard, calls to employees and lower-level managers to “ensure the implementation of the plan”, “to reach the required milestones”, as well as organizational conclusions will not change anything, but may worsen the situation. Deming called this type of control “intervention” in the operation of a stable system. The intervention is based on the erroneous assumption of managers that poor performance is a manifestation of special causes of variability, when in fact the observed deviation is explained by the action of general causes, potentially inherent in a stable system. This, according to the conclusion of W. Deming, is an example of a costly misunderstanding [Deming W. E. Way out of the crisis. P. 501].

To explain the destructiveness of interference in the operation of a stable system under the influence of common causes of variability, see the description of the experiments with red beads And funnel and target . – Note by S. P. Grigoryev

What should be the general principle of action aimed at improving the functioning of a system or process? Should managers react to individual, isolated manifestations of the process (which is only reasonable if the process is out of control, i.e. unstable), or should they aim to change the process itself based on accumulated data on the results of its functioning ( what is reasonable if the process is in a controlled state, i.e. stable)?

The sequence of actions in time should be as follows:

  1. Stabilizing a process (i.e., bringing it into a controlled state) by eliminating special causes of variability.
  2. Active efforts to improve the process itself, that is, to reduce common causes of variation.
  3. Monitor the process to maintain the improvements achieved. Searches for the implementation of additional improvements as soon as the slightest opportunity arises.

Control charts play an important role at each stage of action. At the first stage, Shewhart control charts are the primary diagnostic tool. They will show those necessary cases where it is necessary to address the causes of special cases. Points outside the control limits will determine when to start looking for special cases.

At the second and third stages, the purpose of control charts is to diagnose the emergence of any special causes that may negatively affect the state of achieved stability.

By recalculating control limits after changes have been made to the process, you can evaluate what success has been achieved.