There just aren’t enough products out there that work like this: First I’m going to unplug it from the USB port on my computer. Now I’m going to smoke it.
This electronic cigarette is the weirdest thing I have ever seen. From what I can tell it’s a nicotine delivery system that doesn’t involve the usual carcinogens.
I’m even willing to concede that this might be a good idea. Might.
Deming wrote:
We shall learn from the theory in Chapter 11 that to hold a worker on the job without pay till he has cleaned up the defectives that were detected by inspection of his product, if he is in statistical control, is to charge him with faults of the system.
Deming wrote:
A computer can be a blessing. It can also be a curse. Some people make good use of computers. Few people are aware, however, of the negative import of computers. Time and time again, in my experience, when I ask for data on inspection, to learn whether they indicate that the process is in control, or out of control, and at what time of day it went out, and why, or ask about differences between inspectors and between production workers, or between production workers and inspectors, in an attempt to find sources of trouble and to improve efficiency, the answer, “The data are in the computer.” And there they sit.
…
What management needs is understanding of variation. Figures of yesterday plotted on a chart, and interpreted with some understanding of variation, will indicate existence of a special cause of variation that should be investigated at once, if one exists, or that the variation should be attributable to the system.
Deming wrote:
“Our troubles lie entirely in the work force.” The supposition is prevalent the world over that there would be no problems in production or in service if only our production workers would do their jobs in the way that they were taught. Pleasant dreams. The workers are handicapped by the system, and the system belongs to management.
It was Dr. Joseph M. Juran who pointed out long ago that most of the possibilities for improvement lie in action on the system, and that contributions of production workers are severely limited.
Deming wrote:
Improvement of quality is a method, transferable to different problems and circumstances. It does not consist of cookbook procedures on file ready for specific application to this or that kind of product.
It is not unusual for a consultant to receive an enquiry for examples of success in a a similar product line. One man enquired if the methods of this book had ever been used in the manufacture of wheelchairs. … Another man enquired about the management of a hospital: would the 14 points apply? … A banker wondered about application in banks.
…
My answer to such enquiries is that no number of examples of success or of failure in the improvement of quality and productivity would indicate to the enquirer what success his company would have.
Deming wrote:
One of the main effects of evaluation of performance is nourishment of short-term thinking and short-time performance. A man must have something to show. His superior is forced into numerics. It is easy to count. Counts relieve management of the necessity to contrive a measure with meaning.
Deming wrote:
Everyone in your company knows that the aim is perfection, that you can not tolerate defectives and mistakes. You make every worker responsible for the defectives that he has produced. Yet from the records that you have showed to me, it is obvious that you are tolerating a high proportion of defectives, and have been doing so for years. In fact, the levels of various kinds of mistake have not decreased; they have been pretty constant and predictable over a a number of years.
Have you any reason to think that the level of mistakes will decrease in the future? Have you ever thought that the problem could be in the system?
I’ve asked people if they’ve ever read Deming or had exposure to his methods or concepts.
My Dad said, “The statistical guy?”
Before studying Deming, my thoughts were the same. I think we all think that about Deming.
I think at 107 years old, if alive today, Deming would be disappointed to be world famous for statistical methods. I think he’d be disappointed deeply.
Kinda like Indianapolis. You know, the city with the Indy 500? Indianapolis doesn’t hate the 500. It’s part of us. But that wasn’t what we hoped our world legacy would be.
I thought for a long time that Deming was about statistics and manufacturing and uniformity. I’ve been reading his book and I’m finding he was really about something else entirely.
So over the next few days, maybe longer, I’m going to post some of his words.
Here’s a hint about all of this. Deming was not about methods. Deming was not about statistics. Deming thought that applying methods to improve worker productivity was like trying to heal a person, paralyzed from the neck down, with ankle surgery. The problem isn’t down there.
Deming was about fixing top management, not you. On the off chance that you are top management, Deming had harsh worlds for you.
The real fun part about of Out of the Crisis? I’ve never read a book on quality and had a worse attitude than when I started. It’s glorious.
I intend to have some real fun here.
I got a nice comment from Mark Graban who posts some cool quality oriented stuff.
I appreciate your efforts to apply Lean principles at home.
A few questions:
To point 3, it takes more electricity to cool an empty refrigerator or freezer. Are you considering energy costs? That’s probably nit picking
To point 5, this only holds true if stores are near by. You wouldn’t drive 15 minutes to Wal-Mart to buy a single can of soda each time. Sometimes inventory is OK if it keeps total cost (including transportation cost) down. The math would work out differently if gas were $5 a gallon.
Leftovers are OK as long as you consume them. The energy cost of roasting two chickens at once might be the same as roasting one.
Just being a pest with my questions… keep us posted on your efforts!
Mark
I’m terribly flattered that someone with real understanding about quality would take notice of my trying to adapt quality stuff to my home life. As a result of writing Lean at Home I’ve been able to converse with two experts on quality about using the mindset and practices at home.
First of all, I live 5 minutes drive to Meijer, Walmart, and a pretty good health food store. My commute, while only 20 minutes, makes stopping by the store before coming home, or making a quick trip out practically inconsequential. Plus, I enjoy taking a kid or two shopping with me, so making the occasional trip is almost a win.
Now about electricity in the fridge. By shooting for empty (not acheiving it yet, by any stretch, just shooting) I’ve probably saved $400 a month. So I’m not really excited about spending $400 extra in wasted food and stuff to save $12 in energy. Not that Mark meant that, just saying, I’m the guy on the line here, so I’m sharing…
The way I see it, and I’m open to being wrong about this, is that continuous improvement is about elephant eviction. The people working the lines, writing the code, or cleaning the floors, know what the real problems are, the elephants in the room. I’m that guy on the line. Continuous improvement, as I see it, is about evicting the first elephant, and looking for another. I’ve never worked in an office where there weren’t a few elephants hanging out. You’ve probably seen those huge waste pits known clearly to everyone except management, who perpetuate them. Maybe there are workplaces where the elephants are gone and they are on some truly high plane of organizational maturity. I’ve never seen it myself.
That said, my home has a few elephants in it.
I have 5 kids; 3 have autism. I have to buy a lot of organic food and a ridiculous amount of hard to find supplements, etc. The kids are showing improvement with the nutrition and treatments recommended by their doctor. Yay. It’s expensive.
Elephant 1: I don’t get to overbuy cheap food. I have to overbuy organic. Throwing away a half consumed organic bulk frozen item to make room for new a new organic bulk frozen food item was a constant problem for us. That’s the waste we set out to solve.
Energy isn’t a big problem for us. We have a very efficient heating system, and Indiana cooling is more about humidity control than brute force cooling. It’s just not a big problem.
Elephant 2: The house gets really messy really easy. This is what we are working on right now. Our autism kids are not the classic Oprah autism tv special toy stackers. No. That might be helpful in isolation. While like any red blooded autism kids they can certainly appreciate a package of 12 practice golf balls. White, uniform, all alike, they don’t get lined up end to end at our house. No. Ours persevate on scooping them up and running them over their hands and legs. The uniformity is glorious. But when it’s over, they get left strewn about wherever they were, where they will eventually get broken. Meanwhile someone is breaking into the salt box. And we don’t yet have the mental capacity and focus for a proper family cleanup time. Rats. So we’re having to come up with some systems and just plain less stuff around so we can make the best use of the stuff we have.
Anyway, at home and everywhere I’ve ever worked, it’s been elephants all the way down. So I had to chuckle at the idea of worrying about energy consumption of an empty fridge. But hey, Mark asked the guy doing the work, going to the gemba, if you will, which is the right thing to do. And when you do that, you always learn something actionable.
When I first went about criticizing the use of the word “clever” describe bad code, I thought using “clever” to mean “bad” was silly and self contradictory. Ironically clever, if you will.
Having hassled it out with far greater minds, I’ve changed my thinking about why bad code shouldn’t be called clever. (See the comments.)
The problem with describing bad code as “clever” is that it doesn’t describe the code at all.
Code is words. Words can’t be smart. They can’t think on their own yet. At best they tell a clear story.
And words are only at their best when they are woven by good writers. When I say, that’s a “good” story, I’m not wondering how words wove themselves into such a great story. I’m simply complimenting the writer of the story for a job well done.
When I say a story is “bad,” I’m saying that the writer failed.
When we look at work and criticize it with words that are negative human attributes, like clever, bad, lifeless, or lazy, we are criticizing people.
It’s a free country. Except for me, and the other people who, like me, have been at this work for pay thing for 10 years. We’re supposed to know better. We’re supposed to know that problems at work are always systemic. We’re supposed to know to criticize the system. Maybe criticize management, in moments of self indulgence. But only for the purpose of fixing the system. (Writing this brings pangs of regret. I have screwed and continue to screw this up daily.)
We’re prodding our teams to write unit tests and do pair programming and have retrospective meetings in an effort to fix dysfunctional systems.
We’re supposed to be the champions of continuous improvement. That means identifying code problems as code problems. Then we translate code problems into system problems. Then we fix the system.
We’re supposed to know that nothing will damage this effort more criticizing the intentions of the people working, often without power, within that imperfect and maybe dysfunctional system.
We don’t criticize people. We’re supposed to know better. I’m supposed to know better. I so wish I did.
Deming said “The problem is at the top; management is the problem.”
Willowbend 